Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in April 2025

Wringing our hands

April 30, 2025

Well, here we are – 100 days in, and from listening to the torrent of comment spewing from the ivory towers of the more prolific observers, things are only going to get worse. With the mid-terms only a breath away, there are no clear signs that the Democratic party has found its footing. Unless those in control of its levers of power come to their senses soon, the mid-terms may turn into a disaster, leaving control of Congress in limbo and thereby paving the way for the continued dismantling of the 250- year-old experiment we call our democracy.

No one can explain how this happened, but it is becoming clear now that everyone contributed to it. The media viewed his introduction to the process in the early days of the 21st century with high humor, covering every step he took with ridicule and corny jokes. By the time it came to its senses and began taking him seriously, it was too late. He had over half the states lined up from his party’s primaries, and no organized opposition to his nomination.

The wiser heads of the Republican party chose to sit on their hands. The opposition party was coming off the incredibly popular Obama presidency, and with the velocity of the winds coming from his office, they believed his party could not be stopped. This left a band of second stringers and odd-ball right wingers to fiddle around offering mixtures of stale choices in the various early primaries which left the path open for the apparent fresh voice of a political newcomer. By the time any potentially serious contenders within the Republican party came to their senses, it was too late.

The then party in power followed in its own history and in a series of traditional mis-steps, shot itself in its own foot. The Democrats chose the first woman ever to run for the presidency, but picked a candidate with a history, being an unshakable tail that attached her current candidacy to the irrelevant past. The candidate herself raised no serious issues, avoiding any conflicts and maintaining only that it was her turn and she deserved to win. Her campaign became over-confident at the end, and she was persuaded to take her eye off the ball, which saw the critical key state of Pennsylvania slip away merely for lack of attention.

With Congress not out of control, the first term of the current office holder’s  tenure was only moderatly upsetting. Without Congress and with a potentially unfriendly Supreme Court, he was unable to do any real damage while in office.

The tear 2020 saw the next the next presidential campaign. In a brief respite from potential error, the Democrats managed to select a capable middle of the roader to be its candidate, when facing the current office holder’s bid for re-election, and in an unpredicted squeaker, he managed to win.

The wining party offered no celebrations for their candidate’s victory but instead embroiled itself into a series of intramural squabbles, pitching the left wing against the middle and disdaining or ignoring the achievements of their office holder. This allowed the most successful presidency of the last 100 years to proceed without fanfare. The president himself chose not to blow his own horn as his administration succeeded in achieving goal after goal in the objectives it set for itself, producing the best economy in recent history with the highest employment, lowest interest rates, and broadest tax reform, but with no one to offer any rebuttal to the outlandishly false claims by the outed president, who was beginning to clamor for his return to office.

The next election in 2024 turned into a fiasco. The office holder was grudgingly renominated by his party, again without giving credit for his tremendously successful first term. The former president was renominated by his party in a convention that appeared to be firmly under the control of its right-edge fringe. When the Democratic  candidate performed poorly in an irrelevant early debate, the party panicked. Despite the uncontroverted history of failure that inevitably results from the decision, the candidate resigned.

With no other feasible option, the party selected the vice-presidential candidate to step up and take over the campaign. She ran a remarkable campaign, making no errors, demonstrating herself to be more than capable to take on the job, and presenting a seamless picture of an unbeatable target for office.

Which missed, with a stunning loss that should have been predicted as the result of two factors. First, the fringes of the party became embroiled in an irrelevant disagreement over her stand on some international policy and decided to stay home – probably or apparently in significant numbers. But second, and perhaps more significant, was the impossibly insurmountable combination of the candidate (a) being a woman, (b) of color, and (c) of an uncertain religious heritage, i.e., not Christian.  Her mother was a Buddhest, and her husband is a Jew. Although never mentioned in public debate, and operating completely behind the curtain, this combination took over to prevent “the unthinkable.”  While the electorate may have submitted to one and perhaps two of these unspeakably disqualifying circumstances, it is clear they did not stand for all three.  The election was not even close.

We are now facing the beginning of the potential run-up to the 2028 election. The current office holder has made it clear that he intends to run again, despite his age, despite the mounting disapproval of what he has accomplished so far, and despite the fact that the Constitution can probably be interpreted as preventing a third term. There is no indication that anyone in the Republican party intends to step forward with any opposition to his plan.

What is the Democratic party doing in the face of all this? Wringing its hands in terror. And winding itself into internal knots over accepting the necessity of finding middle-of-the-roaders to step in to the multi-colored districts where changes are at least possible.

Could the picture of the future be any bleaker?

 

Overcoming divisions

April 29, 2025

If I were asked to draw a map of the United States, using only the outlines of the 48 contiguous states, I'd have to give it some thought.

As a child in school, so many years ago, I could whip one up in short order.  But, now, as a grown-up, some eighty-years later, the same project would take a lot more time.  More thought.

Because this nation is divided.  No.  It's more like fractured.  Red vs Blue - rural vs urban - gay vs straight and still, to our shame, Black vs White.  And Brown.  And Yellow.

We've even got folks who want to redraw state borders to fit their political beliefs.  Make part of Oregon part of Idaho.  Or, make part of California a piece of Oregon.  Never gonna happen.  But, they're out there and they'll keep making noises.

Long ago, I quit saying the Pledge of Allegiance.  "One nation."  "Liberty and justice for all."  I just can't do it.

Same for parts of the National Anthem and "America, the Beautiful."  "...Alabaster cities."  "Brotherhood."  "From sea to shining sea."  Our seas haven't been shining for at least a hundred years.  "Brotherhood" is in short supply.  And I challenge anyone to find an "alabaster city." Been to downtown Portland or Seattle lately?

The oft-repeated words of our anthems and the pledge just don't square with the reality out there.  We can mouth the words or sing the tunes.  But, the words have become descriptive of some other country where "brotherhood" and "shining seas" exist.  Maybe Norway, Sweden or Finland.

Please don't get me wrong.  We're blessed with our Republic - our democracy.  I have strong, positive and loving feelings for my country - for our way of life.  But, both are in danger of being lost if we continue to walk our current, widely divided pathways.

Maybe the strongest division we must overcome is the rural vs urban.  Eastern Washington vs West of the Cascades.  Eastern Oregon vs West of the Cascades.  Northern Idaho vs Southern Idaho.

Or Eastern Idaho vs the more populous Western Idaho.

Many of us have lived in both urban and rural environments at one time or another.  And, we've found there's something to be said for both.

But, somehow, we're pitting one against the other - economically and politically.  We believe someone else is getting more than we are.  Someone else is getting more benefit - more dollars - more recognition.  I heard a lot of that living in Eastern Idaho.  "Those guys in Boise" most often claimed.  Now, I live in small town Oregon so it's "those guys in Portland."

Maybe the most divisive issues are political.  Like people wanting to redraw Idaho's Western border clear over to the Cascades and South to California.  It's notable they made a little detour around Bend which most rural Oregonians think is a hotbed of "liberals."  Another made-up division.

Abe Lincoln was the guy who said a "house divided against itself cannot stand."  He certainly headed a nation deeply divided in 1865.  More than any other accomplishment, he laid the groundwork to bring North and South together as much as was possible at the time.  Even though we still have that division in some small, angry Southern corners.

We must get past these divisions, whatever they may be.  We've got to rid ourselves of divisive politicians and their false rhetoric.  We need new, younger voices vying for political leadership and others socially and culturally.  We need to accept - and understand - whatever differences there may be, get past them and concentrate on things that bind us.

We need to work hard on the "brotherhood," "shining seas" and the "alabaster cities."  We had 'em once.   Maybe we can have 'em again.

 

Unconstitutional here, too

April 28, 2025

A district judge in Utah issued a marvelous decision on April 18, finding Utah’s school voucher law to be unconstitutional. The 60-page decision was based on a variety of constitutional flaws that the Utah law shares with Idaho’s recently-enacted education tax credit law. The Utah law was enacted in 2023 with $42.5 million in state funds. State funding increased by $40 million in each of the next two years.

The Utah judge said the Utah Constitution gives “a direct command to the legislature to perform a single duty: establish and maintain the state’s education systems.’” The judge continued, “This clear expression of one duty–coupled with the absence of any general duty to provide for the education or intellectual improvement of Utahns — impliedly restricts the legislature from creating a publicly funded school or education program outside of the public school system.” In other words, Utah’s legislature is restricted from using public funds to support any form of private education.

Of interest is the fact that every member of the Idaho Legislature was sent a “Legislative Alert” on the first day of the 2025 legislative session, warning that any scheme to use taxpayer money for private education would be violative of the Idaho Constitution in a number of respects. The Alert was provided by The Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution, a group that participated in the successful lawsuit to overturn the restrictive initiative law enacted in 2021.

The Alert identified the same constitutional flaw focused upon by the Utah judge–that Idaho’s Constitution prohibits the funding of private and parochial education. That has been the law of Idaho ever since statehood in 1890.

The Alert spelled out several other constitutional infirmities that any voucher scheme would entail, including a deliberate transgression of Idaho’s strong prohibition against state support for religious education, discrimination against rural kids and Idaho religions that don’t operate parochial schools, lack of accountability for taxpayer money expended on private schooling, and diminution of state money necessary to support Idaho’s public school system, which has been chronically underfunded for decades.

The Utah judge’s decision mentioned a number of other infirmities in the Utah law--private schools often exclude students with special needs, or condition admission upon adherence to certain religious beliefs, or fail to provide “free” schooling as constitutionally required for taxpayer-supported education. These flaws are also inherent in House Bill 93, the subsidy bill approved by the Legislature this year.

The Idaho Legislature was clearly warned of the serious constitutional problems with HB 93, which will subsidize private and parochial education to the tune of $50 million in just the first year. Yet, because of massive funding from out-of-state groups that are seeking to weaken public schools across the nation, a majority of our legislators cast aside the Constitution and passed the subsidy bill. The Governor lacked the courage to veto the legislation, despite overwhelming public outcry against it.

Now, as with the similar travesty in Utah, concerned Idahoans will have to resort to the courts in order to protect the wishes of Idaho’s constitutional drafters. Please stay tuned.

 

Canaries in the chair

Canaries in the chair

April 27, 2025

In recent weeks, both of Oregon’s major political parties have changed leadership, under very different circumstances. Party leadership is only a small part of what makes the candidates under their banner successful, but it can be a coal mine canary of sorts, an indicator of underlying issues or strengths.

Over the last generation, Democrats have been faring gradually better in Oregon, and Republicans less well. What might we learn from a look at party leadership?

Start with the Democrats.

They have had three chairs in this decade. Carla “KC” Hanson, following five years leading the Multnomah County Democrats, was elected to two-year terms in 2019 and 2021. In 2023, she departed and the party’s vice chair, Rosa Colquitt, who also had worked for years in various positions in the party organization, was elected to the top spot.

This year, the state Democratic Central Committee met in Corvallis on March 16 and in a contested election replaced her with a new chair, Nathan Soltz, who at age 27 happens to be the youngest person to hold that job. He isn’t a newcomer to the party organization, however.

Soltz started work with the Democrats in Jackson County (one of Oregon’s most competitive) a decade ago, has worked in labor organizing and in the Legislature and was elected state party secretary two years ago.

There’s something to be said for injecting new blood in leadership positions from time to time (and Soltz may well provide some of that). But party organizations also can benefit from leaders who know how things work and understand how to get along with the various interests and groups that make up a large party, and manage to avoid conflict and controversy (other than when directed at the opposition).

Over to the Republicans.

Six people have led the Oregon Republican Party since 2020. These years opened with a period of some stability under Bill Currier, a mayor of Adair Village who had worked in various party positions for years before his election as chair in February 2015.

Six years later, shortly after releasing a statement (that many party leaders had backed) saying the Jan. 6, 2021 attempted insurrection in Washington, D.C. was a “false flag” operation (drawing complaints from within and outside the party), he lost a re-election bid to state Sen. Dallas Heard of Myrtle Creek.

After serving just over a year, Heard departed after complaining about conflict within the party, including “communist psychological warfare tactics.” (Others in the party said a flashpoint was debate over whether to open the party’s primary to non-Republicans.) The vice-chair, former legislator Herman Baertschiger, served as acting chair for about four months but then quit.

The job next went to Justin Hwang, a Gresham restaurant owner and former legislative candidate who had become vice-chair of the state party only three months before. He held the job until February of this year, providing some stability. During Hwang’s tenure, Oregon Republicans won in 2022 — and then lost in 2024 — a second congressional seat and legislative races that temporarily ended Democrats’ supermajority control in the House and Senate.

When the post came open for election early this year, a range of candidates contended, including former Senate candidate Jo Rae Perkins (the incumbent party secretary), Washington County Republican leader Gabriel Buehler, as well as a legislative candidate and a city councilor.

It was won from outside: A Columbia County pastor and insurance agent, Jerry Cummings. He prevailed after saying the party should focus less on hot-button issues to “reach beyond the Republican base and do a better job of presenting a message that makes us contenders around the state.”

But on April 8, the Oregon Journalism Project reported on court records from a long-running divorce and custody case and more recent lawsuits filed by creditors. The legal records included accusations from Cummings’ ex-wife that he engaged in sexual violence, allegations Cummings denied.

He soon resigned, and the job once again went to the party’s vice chair, Connie Whelchel of Deschutes County.

Considering that the party chair takes the lead in party organization, hiring, planning for campaigns and more, these rapid-fire turnovers, frequent controversies and overall lack of stability could have contributed to the party’s gradual weakening in the state during the last couple of decades.

That’s not all, of course. A great deal of political strength in the party is held by people and groups outside the Oregon voting mainstream.

But problems with stable leadership aren’t helping the party either. They may do well to consider why the job seems hard to fill with the kind of leaders they need.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The constitutional crisis is here

April 26, 2025

The New York Times Sunday night:

The Trump administration on Sunday evening doubled down on its assertion that a federal judge cannot force it to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador last month.

So this is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador who the Trump Justice Department admits was illegally deported last month - to El Salvador - and is now being held in a notorious prison in that central American country.

Federal Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland originally ordered the government to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States, presumably so that the U.S. Justice Department could provide evidence that he deserved to be deported rather than merely abducted and then spirited away to a gulag.

That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

The government believes an immigrant, refugee, etc. has done something to warrant deportation so they go to court and make that case. The person in question has a right to “due process” to defend against the government’s charge. None of that happened in the Abrego Garcia case.

When the Trump Administration told Judge Xinis to effectively pound sand the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court then ruled unanimously last week that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release, but cautioned Judge Xinis to act “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

This less than precise Supreme Court language has become a serious problem in the case, but only because of the incredible bad faith and the willful embrace of illegality by the Trump Administration.

After first essentially telling the judge they couldn’t do anything to get Abrego Garcia out of his Salvadoran hell hole, the administration’s lawyers now say the District court has no power to interfere with the president’s authority to make U.S. foreign policy. This seems to be a suggestion that somehow the president of the United States has determined that holding a man illegally in a foreign jail in a country with a brutal authoritarian leader is all in keeping with the responsible conduct of American foreign policy.

And, of course, an administration that confirms the timing and scope of air attacks on Middle East targets over an insecure Signal app that just happened to include the editor of The Atlantic conjures up some fresh BS about the judiciary interfering “with ongoing diplomatic discussions” that might result in the release of “classified documents.”

Furthermore, the administration argues - very convincing, right - that when the lawyers for Abrego Garcia’s request for more information concerning their client that request amounts to “micromanaging” U.S. foreign relations.

Good lord.

As Politico reported:

The administration continued Sunday to flout a Friday order from Xinis to deliver “daily updates” to the court describing its efforts to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. Sunday’s update from Evan Katz, the assistant director of removal operations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the administration had “no updates” for the judge. A day earlier, in a similarly threadbare update, the administration turned to Michael Kozak, the State Department’s senior bureau official in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, who said Abrego Garcia was still alive in El Salvador’s CECOT prison.

The administration is also bucking demands from Abrego Garcia’s attorneys that officials detail the arrangement to ship hundreds of foreign nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador. One of the Sunday filings insists those details are classified and could be subject to attorney-client and state secrets privileges.

Judge Xinis has a hearing on Tuesday. Wonder how she spent her weekend?

Like so much with the Trump Administration the basic and essential facts of this tremendously disturbing case tend to get lost in a reeking pile of bad faith, gaslighting and malicious intent. The lawyers piling up the bad faith, we should remind ourselves, are charged with representing the American people, but in this case they are actually micromanaging the dictatorial whims of our commander-in-chief and his many enablers.

To wit on the bad faith front:

  • The government admits Abrego Garcia was illegally deported.
  • The administration, it is reported, is paying El Salvador’s government $6 million to lock up around 300 individuals who have been deported in the last month or so. That means the administration has all the contacts, all the leverage, all the authority it needs to do what is simply the right thing and bring Abrego Garcia back.
  • Abrego García, who has three children and has lived in the U.S. for a decade, has never been arrested or accused of a crime and denies any affiliation with the MS-13 gang.
  • Yet, the administration - and it’s lawyers (you really wonder how they live with themselves) - concoct an entirely bad faith argument to do nothing.

The administration is clearly challenging the judicial branch to either back down or ratchet up. What comes next? Nobody knows.

I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I would suggest if we really are headed for a “constitutional crisis” let’s have it out over a man wrongly imprisoned in a foreign country by a government that admits it’s error and then gives the middle finger to what almost any fair minded person would say is a reasonable demand that helps ensure the rights of every individual under our Constitution and laws.

I also don’t know - and suspect the administration doesn’t either - if Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a really bad guy. May he is, may not. But that is not really the pressing issue.

What is clear - and this is a hugely important bedrock principle of our Constitution and the rule of law - is that the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United State Constitution guarantee “due process” to “any person.”

Any person means any person. You, me, Abrego Garcia, Donald Trump, Martha Stewart - anyone. No exceptions. Period.

If it acts like a Constitutional crisis it really is one.

 

Out in the desert

Out in the desert

April 25, 2025

For all the change Idaho has seen in its larger metro areas there’s been little or none in most of the state, and you can find no more dramatic example of that than the great empty of the 35 or so desert miles between Boise and Mountain Home.

For the half-century I have driven I-84 between those communities, there’s been some change in the city of Mountain Home (sometimes up, sometimes down) and strong - sometimes explosive - growth on the other end at Boise. In between, except for some barely-settled windswept ranch country and the Boise Stage Stop center partway through, there’s been and still is only open landscape. At times through the years someone would come up with a big development idea, but nothing ever came of it.

That may be about to change.

The catalyst would be a planned new casino being developed by the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (which are based at the Duck Valley Reservation on the Nevada-Idaho border) together with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in northern Idaho, which has decades of experience successfully running their casino near Worley. The Sho-Pai bought 557 acres along the Ada-Canyon border, located not far from the Stage Stop, and about 40 acres of it would be used for the casino.

The tribe said, “The fully envisioned project may include: Luxury hotel, Gaming floor with the latest tribal gaming machines, Spa and fitness center, Fine dining restaurants, Food hall with multiple vendors, Event and entertainment center.” The project also would give them a link to off-reservation lands associated historically with the tribes.

Since less than a tenth of the land area presumably would be occupied by the casino, there would be space for other developments too. If this project - which still needs federal approval, a sign-off from the Idaho governor’s office and local government okays - does go forward, the large desert area east of Boise could be transformed.

There are obstacles: One of the big problems blocking major development in the area up to now has been water, which locally is in short supply;This is dry country. Services generally have been limited too.

And there could be another challenge. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of eastern Idaho (between Pocatello and Blackfoot) have proposed another casino project, a $300 million center located in Mountain Home. They have been working on economic development in the area ever since buying the land in 2020, and appear ready to make a major investment in it. Federal review of that project is already underway. (And the Sho-Bans too point to historical links to the land where they plan to build.)

While that one probably would lead to some economic expansion at Mountain Home, it probably wouldn’t change the territory between that city and Boise. Probably.

Some opposition to any of this also could materialize. Certainly not everyone in Idaho likes gaming or its expansion. And the Nevada operators at Jackpot and Elko are sure to militate against the developments; they currently get a lot of traffic from fast-growing southwest Idaho.

But it could happen. The Duck Valley Reservation has had a challenging history, and the Sho-Pais have a compelling and sympathetic story to tell. The Coeur d’Alenes, with their background in developing highly successful operations up north (and a history of developing smart leadership) could be an excellent partner for steering the project through difficult paths.

If it does happen, there’s a real chance the landscape and the use of it between Boise and Mountain Home could change significantly. Casino developments most often do not spin off large numbers of nearby start-ups, but the long-standing interest in developing housing and business operations out in the desert - and away from Boise’s high prices and regulation - could be irresistible for people who have given up on, or been interested in, earlier ideas for the area. A whole new community - even a city? - might be the result.

The announcement of this new casino project didn’t get the top-rank headlines around the region it should have. But in time to come, there’s a good chance it will.

 

Pulling together

Pulling together

April 24, 2025

I have been on many teams. I have coached a few. When we all pull together, we can beat bigger foes.

The Idaho legislature is not a good team right now. They seem to be pulling against each other. Maybe that’s how democracy is supposed to work. Maybe it’s up to us to see the goal, work toward it, and win, for all of us.

This last session Idaho’s medical training of doctors (MD’s…there are other “doctors”) came under deep scrutiny. Idaho is involved with the University of Washington and other states to train MD’s. It’s the WWAMI program.

There were bills introduced to sever ties with UW. The final bill that passed, HB 368a, said we would stay in the partnership, but only provisionally.

UW and WWAMI are widely recognized for quality.

While the Idaho legislature was working to dump Idaho’s affiliation, the statistic they pointed to most often, and the one you’ll see on the social media feeds is that Idaho sits at the bottom for doctors per capita. The legislature seems to be wringing their hands about being at the bottom of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

But only when it comes to our UW affiliation.

At the same time they cut proposed funding for doctors who might come here to serve underserved areas (most of Idaho).

And cut Medicaid physician payments.

And they have put a gun to the head of doctors caring for complicated pregnant women.

If the Idaho legislature truly wants more doctors in the state, they need to pull together.

I agree with my conservative colleagues, there must be something more going on behind the scenes.

Here we come to the nut. And that’s what makes a team or sends you screaming for the exit.

What in fact do we want?

If we want more doctors in Idaho, we could do lots to make that happen. Given the sum of their actions, I argue the legislature is not interested in more doctors. There must be some other teapot tempest they are wringing their hands about.

I’m honestly just guessing here about what the Idaho legislature wants.

We should just forget about them.

The real question is what do we here in Idaho want?

Do we want more doctors?

Do we want good access to healthcare?

Do we want healthy communities?

Take those three questions and prioritize them. For they don’t all mean the same thing.

Massachusetts has the most doctors per capita, threefold more than Idaho.

But it takes an average of 70 days to get in to see a doctor in Boston. That’s the worst of any area surveyed.

Further, Massachusetts only ranks as the 12th “healthiest” state in another survey. Idaho, with our paltry supply of physicians ranks 16th.

The data says, having more doctors doesn’t necessarily give one better access, or make healthier communities.

So why is the Idaho legislature suddenly all twisted shorts about the number of doctors?

Back when I was a young WAMI (1985), Idaho had 12.1 doctors/ 10,000 residents. We were comparable with Mississippi and Alabama.

We were a poor state, like them. Many doctors don’t want to work where the patients are poor. Don’t forget, medicine in this country is a business, and doctors are businessmen.

Now we are a tiny bit richer. And we have 17 doctors/10,000 people. We’ve come up.

I’m sorry about all these numbers. There’s really just one big take away.

More doctors doesn’t mean healthier people or better access.

If you want healthier, you will have to look bigger. I would argue a guy very important to our health might be sitting in our local water treatment plant.

If you want more doctors, you will also have to look bigger.

I am glad the Idaho legislature has decided they need a broader perspective. I hope we are all served.

 

A legacy of lies

April 22, 2025

As an elderly American, I have never felt so fearful for our nation's future -  so angry about the barrage of attacks on the rights and guarantees of citizenship we've enjoyed all our lives - so alarmed about whether our Republic, as we know it, will survive the constant onslaught of lies and determined ignorance being heaped upon it.

We are living in times none of us have faced before.  The continual drumbeat of lies and distortions about nearly everything dealing with our system of governance has taken a toll on our way of life such as we've never known.

There are millions of Americans who believe their ignorance of "facts" is as good as your knowledge of the same facts.  Their determination to distort reality is literally dominating the lives of millions of people.  Our foundations of freedom and quality of life are facing an onslaught not seen since the Civil War.

Pick a subject - any subject - and you'll find we're split nearly evenly down the middle.  Elections end with no clear direction.  No definitive roadmap for the future.  Our two principal political parties seem ineffective.

The continued attacks on our system of elections by voices determined to guarantee they win, regardless of the expressed will of the majority, are weakening that basic freedom we've known for some 260 years.

Our President lies to us on a nearly daily basis.  Lies.  Makes up his own "truths" as he goes along.  In Congress, we have multiple caucuses splintering the body politic.  And, splintering truth at times.  Even members of the President's Cabinet feed us fallacies.  Truth - real truth based on real facts - is sometimes hard to find.

One of the current "whoppers" is that Trump is going to somehow take control of Greenland.  Buy it.  Trade for it.  Steal it.  No one knows what "powers" he feels he can use to control events.  But, it's a subject - a lie - he proffers regularly.

Another is his repeated claim he'll run for the Presidency again when his current term ends in 45 months despite the Constitution's clause limiting occupancy of that office to two terms.

The latest distortions of truth are the - on-again - off-again tariffs he's wielding like favors to various countries.  He got up really close to implementing them this week.  But - he backed off.  Said he'd give it a respite of "90 days."  Except for China.

Now, Marco Rubio seems like a guy who's got his act together.  But, as Secretary of State, he's got to be going bonkers with all the tariff talk.  Which nation is "in."  Which nation is "out."  Who's paying and who isn't.  Marco needs a score keeper.

A national political administration with so many lies in its activities is bound to fail eventually.  But, a lot of damage can occur before that ultimate end.  In this case, Trump's got nearly another four years.

I think many of us have clung to the hope that some sort of "White Knight" would suddenly appear to set things straight.  Not gonna happen.  We're stuck with the lies and distortions.

We'll survive.  But, there's gonna be an awful lot of pain in the process.  The question of the day is - "what or who is next?"

 

Suggestions for Crapo

April 21, 2025

Senator Mike Crapo said in an April 8 op-ed that “access to affordable housing is one of the most pressing issues” he encounters across Idaho. He has asked that Idahoans participate in a housing survey so he can develop policy solutions. The Senator is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over issues that can profoundly affect housing in Idaho–trade, taxes, Medicaid and Social Security. He could actually have a tremendously positive effect on housing availability in the Gem State, merely by using his clout on this powerful committee, without needing a survey.

Donald Trump’s tariffs pose a serious threat to affordable housing by substantially increasing the costs of construction, remodeling and mortgage financing. Crapo could immediately join a bipartisan effort to take back the Constitutional power of Congress to regulate trade and tariffs. Congressional approval of Senate Joint Resolution 49 would terminate the tariffs, allowing Congress to target China with tariffs in specific industries where they would do some actual good. Crapo held an April 8 hearing on trade policy, but gave no indication he supported the Resolution or any other means of stopping Trump’s tariff chaos. Crapo needs to hear from voters on the necessity of legislative action to prevent harmful tariff-related escalation of housing costs.

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, Crapo should shoot down the false claims of Elon Musk that the Social Security system is a “ponzi scheme” riddled with fraud. Musk has failed to provide an iota of proof. Someone in a position of authority should tell him to provide proof or shut his trap. Social Security is a lifeline for elderly Americans who contributed to the system. Many live from check to check, depending on those payments to stay in their homes or apartments. As Musk has rifled through the private personal information of older Americans, he is causing the system to break down. If retired folk lose their housing as a result of his misconduct, there really will be a crisis.

The Republicans in Congress seem intent on savaging another program that provides housing to senior citizens of modest means. Medicaid is the primary payer source for 65% of the residents in Idaho’s certified nursing facilities. If Crapo and other GOP members of Congress cut $880 billion out of the Medicaid program to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it is not clear where those folks will find alternate housing.

Strangely, Crapo’s April 8 op-ed transitions from housing affordability to the issue of those tax cuts for the rich. Crapo is desperate to permanently extend the 2017 tax cut law that was massively skewed in favor of the top one percent. It has been reliably estimated that extension of the tax cuts without commensurate cuts in spending would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years and $37 trillion by 2054. The debt currently stands at $36 trillion. The richest 5% of Americans would receive 40% of the benefits of extension in the first year alone.

Senator Crapo has been the leading advocate for a smoke-and-mirrors budget policy that would essentially ignore the fact that spending would exceed revenue by more than $4 trillion over 10 years. Crapo is championing the “current policy baseline” that essentially overlooks the effect of adding unlimited years to the 2017 tax cuts. Prominent GOP budget experts say it would be a “recipe for disaster, a fiscal Pandora’s box.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called the scheme “ a blueprint for miring us in even more debt.”

It may be that Crapo is merely looking out for the housing interests of the super rich, making sure that they have opulent housing options around the globe. For the ordinary American, the tax scheme does not offer much tax relief and it certainly does nothing to address the affordable housing issue.

Were Congress to adopt Crapo’s fiscally-irresponsible budget gimmick, borrowing cost would rise out of sight, endangering everyone’s access to reasonable mortgage rates for housing. With the burgeoning national debt and reluctance of investors to continue financing America’s massive and growing debt, lending rates for housing will likely rise above the reach of most Americans.