Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in February 2025

Town halls

Town halls

February 28, 2025

Last Sunday afternoon, I attended a town hall meeting. I’ll come back to it, but first you need to hear, if you haven’t already, about another one, the day before that, in Coeur d’Alene.

The event attracting about 450 people was held at Coeur d’Alene High School, organized by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee, and featured most of the area’s state legislators, who all are Republicans. Most but not all of the audience was Republican, however; some were Democrats or at least not aligned with the party organization and the elected officials. Some of them shouted out at the speakers, who talked mainly about legislative activities. When one mentioned anti-abortion legislation, someone called out, “Women are dying,” and another said, “Doctors are leaving our state.”.

Teresa Borrenpohl, a Democrat who had run unsuccessfully for the legislature, was in the audience, and among other things called out, “Is this a town hall or a lecture?” She was warned to, basically, shut up, which she didn’t.

What followed was captured on many cell phone recordings, and has gone viral and international. (Another wonderful PR plug for Idaho.)  Sheriff Bob Norris grabbed her sleeve and told her to stand up and leave the room; she refused. He appeared to signal to three men, employees of a private security company (though they were not uniformed) who grabbed her arms, dragged her to the aisle, appeared to bind her wrists and then dragged her across the floor, out of the room. She asked these people who seized her to identify themselves (she said she was concerned she was being kidnapped). They didn’t reply.  She was later charged with offenses which, later still, were dropped.

The blowback has run the other way as well. The sheriff’s office said it would investigate, and the Associated Press reported that city ordinances require security personnel to be clearly marked as such, which these men weren’t. Since then the sheriff and the security service have been looked into.

You might expect that, as a matter of public relations, the Republican organizers might have tried to downplay or maybe deny most of this, but that seems not to have happened. Why? Gregory Graf, an activist from eastern Idaho who has had run-ins in recent years with Republican leaders, suggested this: “When those within their ranks use aggressive tactics, they are rewarded and platformed. Yet if anyone dares mirror even a hint of that behavior—a slip in response to years of torment—they are immediately branded as the aggressor.” Intimidation of opposition, then, is in their playbook.

As for what an actual town hall is:

The day after the Coeur d’Alene ruckus, I attended a town hall in Oregon, hosted by that state’s Senator Jeff Merkley. As a senator he has hosted at least one in every Oregon county every year, more than 500 to date. This one, energized (electrified?) by national events, drew about as many people as in Coeur d’Alene, many times the usual number for the location.

It was typical, though. Merkley spoke for three or four minutes, and the rest was devoted to randomly-chosen questions from the unscreened audience. The event went smoothly. No one was dragged away.

That was a town hall, placing large emphasis on open audience participation, not on passively listening to speeches. The event in Coeur d’Alene was something else. In fact, in Kootenai County there’s now an ongoing dispute over what kind of event it actually was and whether it was even intended to be public.

None  of this should discourage you from attending town halls. They are a fine example of how our system is supposed to work.

If your elected officials won’t encounter you and other voters - whether those voters agree with each other or not - and allow for actual conversation, then you need some new elected officials. I long ago decided that no elected official unwilling to meet me and other constituents face to face, and encourage questioning and comment even if they were critical, ever would get my vote.

I recommend that policy to you.

 

Little apples

Little apples

February 27, 2025

It appears Representative Jordan Redman has given up on his Idaho Medicaid Expansion repeal bill, HB 138. It barely passed the House and was headed to stormy waters in the Senate. You have to ask, why does this effort to get people off health insurance keep coming up?

So there’s another shot out of the cannon, HB 328. It’s complicated.

Sorry about all the details here, but it is worth your consideration.

Maybe not, if the US Congress decides to make big cuts to Medicaid to fund the Trump Rich People’s Tax Cuts. Whatever is attempted on the state level will be shriveled by the federales.

I truly appreciate all this effort. As I have said so many times, the health care swamp in this country could just be our downfall.

But cuts to Medicaid?

What does one Idahoan on Medicaid Expansion cost the taxpayer?

Keep in mind, under the current split, Idaho pays 10% of the total cost. And don’t let the big numbers thrown around confuse you.

There are many folks covered in Medicaid. There’s the most expensive with severe disabilities. They cost over $20K/ year per person.

Then there’s the kids. Children are cheap. They cost less than $3K per year.

Medicaid Expansion folks cost about $7K/ year.

So, Idaho pays $700 a year of Idaho taxpayer dollars to get them health insurance.

What does Idaho pay to get its legislators health care insurance?

I’m sure Representative Redman knows these numbers. He sells health insurance. Him and his wife and six kids get covered on our tab at over $10K per year. That’s a nice juicy benefit.

But these Medicaid Expansion losers could be scamming us. Sitting on the couch and playing video games all day and we have to pay for their doctor bills. I can see why there is the concern.

So instead of dropping Medicaid Expansion as would have happened in the first bill proposed, this new bill wants to privatize the health care coverage of this small sector of Idaho.

What’s wrong with that?

By the way, privatize has become “Managed Care” in the newspeak of this age.

We have seen how “Managed Care” has affected Medicare (Old people’s guvmint health insurance). Everybody confuses these: Medicare/ Medicaid = Mediconfusion.

Private companies can take over tax funded Medicare (old folks) health insurance and run it for a profit for their stockholders. There’s 20 years of experience. It’s clear. Profit is a powerful motivator, even in this “helping” industry of healthcare. The care is worse, the cost is more , but the profits are real.

It appears Rep. Redman and his cosponsors have decided Idaho would be better served to hand over Idaho Medicaid Expansion to the private equity folks.

At the same time, they want to abandon the effort started ten years ago to hold doctors accountable for wasteful practices.

The most powerful force in this twisted, arcane, convoluted system of health care in this very health care expensive country is, unfortunately, the doctor.

We have given this demigod the power to order unnecessary tests, perform unnecessary surgeries, prescribe harmful and unnecessary medications, and thereby spend our money. If it’s private insurance, the stockholders are pissed. If it’s public insurance, we taxpayers weep. If it’s a normal, honest citizen under this hammer, they just get smashed.

This needs to change.

Idaho started down the road to change this about ten years ago. The progress has been slow.

But throw that baby out now to the venture capitalist wolves?

I am very thankful that our state legislators are trying to reform health insurance. It could be so much better.

But why is their focus on Medicaid? That’s a small apple. Medicaid controls how much it pays. Why aren’t they looking at the big apple, their own big red benefit we all pay for?

 

The correlation

The correlation

February 27, 2025

Oregon was one of the founders of the ballot issue as a means for citizens to sei8ze control of how they are governed. But how much effective use has been made of it?

The elections web site Ballotpedia put some specific numbers to that question this week, releasing a mass of statistical studies of ballot issues. One of those studies focused on Oregon, and it raises some useful questions.

It points out, for example, that since the initiative and referendum were begun in the state just past the turn of the 20th century, "Oregonians decided on 881 ballot measures, approving 411 and defeating 470 – a 46.7% approval rate. The average approval rate of the six states we've published summary content on so far is 59%."

The first full decade after the ballot issues began, the 1910s, was the high point both for the raw number of issues on the ballot - they'd has more than half a century to percolate by then - but also a high water mark for the number defeated. Few people probably knew then just how popular or unpopular a measure would be, so they may have thrown everything at the wall. Only some of it stuck.

Not only that. Legislatures can place issue on the ballot too, and at least in the early days those proposals were a lot more successful than the citizen-generated kind.

After the early 20th century, the numbers of ballot issues sank in the mid-century, but then rose again. This may may correlated with the contemporaneous rise of a genuinely competitive two-party system (Republicans were heavily dominant most of the time until the mid-century) and a growing distinctiveness between the parties after the 1970s or so. Both parties, at various times, may have felt just shut out enough to want to resort to the ballot issues - and may also have wanted to use them as organizing devices.

All of which makes the more recent falloff in numbers of ballot issues, in the new century, the most curious part of the statistics. As this new century has gone on, Democrats have become more dominant, and as the shut-out party you'd expect Republicans to take to the ballot issue quite a lot. Occasionally they have, but no more than people from the other side of the spectrum, and overall a lot less than simple politics logic would seem to indicate. Might that be out of concern that much of what they would put on the ballot would fail (as many of the Republican-backed issues in fact have failed)? If so, that could be a real indicator of the party's problems in Oregon.

The whole study, linked above, is worth a review. It constitutes a profile of much more than simply items which made the ballot.

 

 

Enough already

February 25, 2025

I'm sick to death of hearing about Donald Trump.

And Elon Musk.

And DOGE.

And national media reporting DOGE federal government cuts here and there.

In political reality, polls show Trump is losing popular support with a job approval rating in the very low '40's in all of 'em.

Musk and DOGE have no teeth.  And no credentials to be making cuts here and there in our government.

Somebody in authority, somewhere, has got to stand up and say as firmly as possible "ENOUGH ALREADY."

Government is run by the people we elect.  People we send to Washington to do our work.  The people's work.  They have certificates of election in their pockets.  They are authentic.  They run the place.

If Harry Truman were still President, Musk would have been sent packing the first time he opened his mouth.

That's what we need in a President.  Guts.  Smarts.  Someone who lets everyone know there's someone in charge!

Instead, what we have is a mouthy real estate developer who's given even the real estate development business a bad name.

DOGE is a "nothing-burger."  It has no legal authority to do anything.  It can't cut government workers.  It can't authorize changes in the workings of government.  It has no authority to dig around in classified information in the federal computer system.

DOGE is given "life" because Elon Musk says so and Donald Trump hasn't got the spine to tell Musk to "Go to hell."

One thing DOGE has done that's really terrifying is to make it painfully clear how vulnerable our system of governance really is.  Musk - with assistance from that former real estate developer - has shaken this nation from the inside like no one ever has.  Just two people.

His attack on federal civil servants - again, with the aid of Trump - is threatening everyone who draws a federal paycheck.  Musk - and his minions - are digging around in highly sensitive files of every agency.  Downloading sensitive materials and rummaging through classified data without possessing the required clearances.

And, our President.  Instead of shutting down Musk and his unlawful pillaging, he's become a willing accomplice.  Rather than using the immense powers of his high office to put a stop to Musk, he's joined forces with the discredited billionaire.

I'll give Musk credit for one thing.  We - all of us - have lived our lives thinking our nation's government was permanent - rock solid- no matter the political changes wrought by federal elections.  Musk - and Musk alone - has shown us how vulnerable our liberties and democratic inheritance really are; how easily both can be threatened from within by just one voice.

Musk is dangerous and he must be stopped.  He's as dangerous as if he were a war.  A one man war.

We've won wars before.  We need to treat Musk for the very real threat he is.

 

A taxpayer boondoggle

February 24, 2025

House Bill 93, which passed the Idaho House of Representatives on February 7, would exempt most families who take advantage of the $5,000 per student tax credit from paying any state income tax whatsoever. If their tax liability is less than the $5,000 subsidy, the state is required to send them a payment to make up the difference. In the words of the bill, “If the credit exceeds the tax imposed by [the income tax], the excess credit amount shall be refunded to the taxpayer.”  So, they get out of paying any income tax and get a bonus payment to boot. That fits nicely into the category of having their cake and eating it too.

The subsidy bill would drain $50 million from the state treasury during the first year. Based upon what has happened in other states, that drain would likely increase to a torrent in future years. About 90% of that taxpayer money would go to subsidize religious teaching. And, by the way, Idaho’s Constitution strictly prohibits public money from being used to support any form of religious education. Every legislator has been informed of the prohibition, but some have turned a blind eye to the Constitution.

One of the most preposterous arguments in favor of the subsidy bill was made by Senator Scott Grow on February 8. He said that private school families “have been subsidizing our public school system,” and “it seems fair to me that we can return some of the tax money that they’ve been paying.” If the Senator would consult the Idaho Constitution, he would find that Idaho’s founding fathers expected families who educated their kids in nonpublic schools to pay the full cost. And, why should private and religious school parents, except for the wealthiest, be able to use our roads and every other governmental service provided by the state without having to pay a dime in income tax? Some would call that freeloading. If some legislators want to subsidize religious schools and excuse private school families from paying income tax, they ought to take the lawful route by amending the Constitution.

Nor does HB 93 meet the standards laid out by Governor Little. He stated: “Just like we do with every taxpayer dollar that is spent in government, we will ensure there is oversight in school choice. Why? Because accountability in government is an Idaho value, and it is what taxpayers demand and deserve.” Quite to the contrary, HB 93 specifically states: “A nonpublic school shall not be required to alter its creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum in order to accept students whose payment of tuition or fees stems from a refundable tax credit under this section.” That certainly flies in the face of the Governor’s standards. Additionally, the subsidy bill has no requirement that teachers be certified or that they undergo a background check.

The Statement of Purpose of HB 93 says the Tax Commission, which is tasked with administering the program, “may refer suspected cases of fraud to the Attorney General for investigation and prosecution.” That provides cold comfort, given our current AG’s propensity to see practically every issue through a political lens. He is an unabashed supporter of school voucher schemes and would likely have no inclination or ability to find any fraud in this program.

Idaho’s government ethics law requires public officials, including members of the Legislature, to disclose conflicts of interest before taking official action. A conflict of interest exists where the effect of the action “would be to the pecuniary benefit of the person or a member of the person’s household.” A legislator may not vote on a bill where he or she has a conflict and has “failed to disclose such conflict.”

A number of legislators have school age children who do not attend public schools and who may well plan to take advantage of the subsidies. For instance, Senator Brian Lenney, a self-styled “political refugee” from California, proclaimed on his campaign website that he and his wife have “been homeschooling our four kids (who are now in K-12) for over a decade.” If all of those kids are still being taught at home, Lenney could get a total of $20,000 in taxpayer money under HB 93.

Lenney and any other legislator who might benefit from the bill have a clear conflict of interest and must publicly disclose that fact. Better yet, they should recuse themselves from voting on the bill or publicly pledge they will not seek subsidies under its provisions. That would clear the air of the stench of self  interest. Best of all, they should just vote “no” on this taxpayer boondoggle.

 

Town hall

Town hall

February 23, 2025

Just a few words on a remarkable town hall meeting.

Not so remarkable for the presentation or the nature of the questions, given the tenor of the times. Or for the fact that it happened, since the senator who hosted it has held more than 500 previously over the years.

But Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley's town hall Sunday afternoon at McMinnville was striking in several ways.

For the size of the audience, for one ting. It likely will not be the largest period, since Yamhill County, the site of this one, is only about a 10th largest county in the state. But it drew enough people that the choice of meeting venue was notable by itself. A few weeks ago, fellow Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (now well past town hall 1,100) held his McMinnville event at a meeting  room at Chemeketa College, and the crowd at that meeting, while larger than the norm for the county at maybe 100 people, fit comfortably into the room. That one was held jut around the time of the Donald Trump inauguration. The crowd at the Merkley event was at least four times as large, and a middle school basketball court was packed to standing room only.

Ordinarily, most of the people at the senators' town halls are repeat attendees. Clearly, this event drew a whole lot of newcomers.

It's not that Merkley is more popular or a bigger draw than Wyden. The difference is in the headlines coming from Washington, and the damage already done to services around the state. Unusually for these kind of events, people were carrying signs. Examples included "Impeach Trump"  and "family of ex-federal employee." (The employee got a chance to tell his story, which told about how he and half of his research team just lost their jobs conducting research vital to Oregon's natural resource industry.)

The crowd had a fierce energy about it.

For his part, Merkley, who had sometimes seemed a little less energetic in his last couple of local town halls, was pumped up, organized, frequently eloquent and ready to roll. He and the audience meshed.

Merkley made the point that if, a decade ago, someone had predicted our country would be in the pickle it's now in, no one would have believed it - it would not have seemed credible. But here we are, and he advised the audience to push back.

The audience seemed fully on board with that.

It was quite a contrast to recent reports of town halls held by Republican members of Congress, as in the case of Oregon's House Republican Cliff Bentz. In LaGrande, in the middle of a large region heavily supportive of Trump up to now, as Betz tried defending the administration, "A vocal majority of the audience expressed frustration and anger with President Donald Trump’s executive orders, the firing of thousands of federal workers and the actions of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency."

Members of Congress from both parties will be bringing some clear memories back to D.C. as they return from recess.

 

Verification

Verification

February 21, 2025

Watch closely the progress of and commentary on House Bill 252, which may tell you a lot about this legislature’s priorities - and Idaho’s.

This bill would require every employer in the state to use E-Verify, a website (and database) run through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and which is set up to determine whether a specific person is eligible legally to work in the United States. Presumably, if every employer ran E-Verify checks on all employees, and used the results as indicated, few people who are in the country illegally would be able to work.

E-Verify uses information in databases, including Social Security numbers and other government records. If records indicate a person isn’t in the country legally, that data is returned to the employer.

There’s a false-positive (or negative, depending on how you look at it) to the process, estimated at less than one percent. The American Civil Liberties Union outlined it this way: “There are currently about 154 million workers in the U.S. A 0.26% error rate represents a best case scenario where 400,000 people will be wrongfully caught up in E-Verify and forced to prove their right to work.”

The service (a question: Will it too be caught up in the DOGE rampage?) is widely used, but in a spotty way. Reports differ on just how widely the federal government, most of which is supposed to use it, actually does. Federal contractors are required to. States vary greatly. Most (including Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Wyoming and Montana)  have no state rules requiring its use. Ten states (Utah is the nearest, and most are in the south) require its use generally by employers. Idaho is one of the states that hasn’t required it for private employers but does for public (governmental), as well as for public contractors.

A report in Wikipedia said, “Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general.” It also might motivate some of those workers to move from E-Verify states to non-E-Verify states.

The new Idaho bill, sponsored by Representative Jordan Redman of Coeur d’Alene, would expand the Idaho requirement to private employers, with enforcement by the state attorney general, and penalties that could involve shutting down the business.

There’s also this: “Any resident of this state may petition the attorney general to bring an enforcement action against a specific business entity or employer by means of a written, signed petition.” It’s not hard to imagine groups of people who dislike immigrants targeting any business which might employ them, with potential extreme business or financial impacts.

The prospect of that ought to send a chill through the operators of many Idaho businesses, and it probably does. The Idaho Dairyman’s Association, for one, has been vocal on this. Its website highlighted this comment: “The success and growth of Idaho’s dairy industry is not achievable without the contributions of the talented, predominantly Hispanic workforce who has toiled beside Idaho’s dairy farm families for generations.”

So there is a conflict here. The E-Verify system does seem to work at least generally, with some flaws, and could reduce (not eliminate) the number of people in the country or in-state illegally, since the vast majority are here to work. But a number of legal workers likely would be snagged in the system, and (under terms of this bill) a number of employers could find themselves at war with neighbors, and businesses damaged or shuttered.

Up to now, this isn’t terrain the Idaho Legislature has been eager to visit. Whether it does this year may say a lot about what it, and Idaho, think about the state and the people in it.

(image)

 

We need a plan

We need a plan

February 20, 2025

I am very glad Idaho legislators are thinking long and hard about getting good doctors into this state. But “good” is in the eyes of the beholder.

Abortion rears its ugly head. There’s more going on.

It seems the longstanding Idaho partnership with the University of Washington to train physicians in the WWAMI program might founder on these shoals. Don’t fall for it. There’s more than a dog whistle at stake.

Idaho has had an agreement to send Idaho resident applicants to medical school through the University of Washington for almost 50 years now. This was a bitter deal made back in the 1970’s when we had a fiscally conservative Democratic governor who couldn’t abide the expense of starting our own medical school. So, Cece looked for partners. University of Washington, Alaska, and Montana signed on. That was WAMI. Wyoming dropped their medical school attempt, and we got WWAMI, the second “W”, maybe soon to lose the “I”.

I wrote last spring that maybe Idaho should be considering its own medical school. But now we have a bill in the legislature to cut ties with WWAMI and go into the Mountain Time Zone within a couple years? I appreciate the intent, the consideration, but really, is that the best you can do Speaker Mike Moyle?

Let’s have a plan.

I understand there is money at stake. Idaho sends $7M a year into WWAMI to support Idaho residents who then spend annually $9M of their own debt to become graduates. And our taxpayer support is not the only debt they owe to the Gem State. We now, by law, require them to come back here and work for 4 years.

This was also a Moyle brainstorm. If he had a plan, was this a part of it? Please, Mike, let us in on it.

What is he thinking?

First, it’s to make them indentured, then it’s to kick them out.

We need a plan.

There is no doubt Idaho needs doctors. So, Idaho has a doctor deficit. What is wrong with a doctor deficit? Do we really need all that many doctors? There are many ways to provide care. Are we interested in quality? Or is it about the money?

Maybe we need MD’s, or DO’s or Nurse Practitioners (NP’s) or Physician Assistants (PA’s). All provide care. The training is what we are talking about. What level of taxpayer support gives us the best health outcomes? Or are we talking about what level of taxpayer funded and legal sanction drives money into whose pockets?

And why does the Mountain Time Zone need Idaho money?

These are all reasonable questions for speaker Moyle. That is, if they are not too political. And really, they are not about abortion. That is the lever these WWAMI assassins are trying to use. All you Pro-life folks should feel your dog collars being yanked.

The training of MD’s seems to have some clout that some folks want. Not sure why, maybe it’s like a shiny thing crows gather.

It really should be about public health. How can we make our citizens healthier. But the system of MD training and state licensing and restrictions on what degree can do what have created a system that enriches MDs, and doesn’t make us healthier.

We are a small, but growing state. We need vision.

Back in 1970 when Cece Andrus decided WAMI would suit us, we had 700,000 inhabitants. We got a truly quality system for a small investment.

I will hereby admit, I am a graduate of this program. They aren’t paying me a dime to say this. They gave me an excellent education. But times are different.

We need a plan. Ditching the old one is not a plan. Let’s hear your plan, Mike.

 

Party’s Over, Life Goes On

February 19, 2025

Recently, I sent a note to editors and friends saying I was stepping aside from column writing and pursuing other interests. Then the thought occurred to me that I should share my thoughts one more time.

Why am I leaving? Mostly because what’s happening in Washington, D.C., makes no sense to me.

Let’s start with President Trump’s pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters from four years ago. It was a dark day in American history, and I cannot forget what happened that day, or Trump’s role.  It was not, as some supporters suggest, a “patriotic” event by honorable people.

But Trump won the election, fair and square, and he is our president for the next four years. It doesn’t mean I am obligated to write about it.

So now let’s look at just a few of his outlandish statements and actions. I do not understand why he wants Canada to be the 51st state or what there is to gain by imposing steep tariffs on our trading partners. I’m confused about his idea to turn war torn Gaza into a resort paradise.

There are some positives, too. I’m all for deporting illegal immigrants who are violent criminals – if that’s who we are detaining. And as much as people complain about Elon Musk, I’m all for getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse in government – if that’s what’s happening. Trump is correct when he says that government has not worked as it should for a very long time.

Unfortunately, Musk and his band of cost cutters are nibbling around the edges. We’d still be trillions of dollars in the hole if you eliminated the Department of Education, spent zero dollars on the military and got rid of the FBI. We won’t make headway on the $36 trillion deficit unless rules change on “entitlements” such as Social Security and Medicare.

Under normal circumstances, I’ve relied on our congressional delegation to help sort out what’s happening. It’s not so easy these days.

I haven’t talked with Congressman Mike Simpson more than a couple of times over the last decade. I’ve been writing about congressional politics in some form since 1978 and he is, at least for me, the most inaccessible member of Congress I’ve encountered over those 47 years. Congressman Russ Fulcher, who has been a reliable source over the years, has not responded to interview requests lately.

So that leaves Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, who (along with almost all Senate Republicans) issue rubber stamps for the Trump administration. They’ve approved cabinet appointments, regardless of the level of competency, and they certainly are not the ones to contact for critical views of this administration. I understand the politics and realize that our senators would go nowhere as outcasts. Crapo (who chairs the Finance Committee) and Risch (who chairs Foreign Relations) stand to be major players in the implementation of Trump’s economic and foreign policies – and those are enviable places to be.

I am not convinced that Trump will be leaving office in four years. I know what the Constitution says, but Trump doesn’t always pay attention to that. I can see him attempting to run in 2028, with Idaho’s congressional delegation – and Idaho voters – overwhelmingly backing him.

So while much of this doesn’t make sense to me, there are other things in my life that do. I am a member of the Lions Club, and one of my passions is to promote awareness about diabetes – a disease that almost took my life 20 years ago. I’ll be doing more public speaking on the issue, and perhaps some writing on the subject. I’m also throwing my hat in the ring for a seat on our HOA board of directors, which will allow me to learn more about matters that are important to our neighborhood.

I am thankful that health has allowed me to write these commentaries over the last 11 years, and especially grateful to editors throughout the state who have been kind enough to publish my columns. Throughout my work, I have connected, or reconnected, with so many wonderful people. But in my next chapter, there are new ventures in my future and many more good days ahead.

To borrow from the great Bob Hope, thanks for the memories.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com