Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in April 2025

Too much communication

Too much communication

April 20, 2025

What do you do with legislation that cuts into the middle of how Oregonians live their lives, when most people want it but many are sharply opposed?

The short answer: Test it, when that’s possible. Launch a suggested solution, but keep specifics general enough that details emerge through trial and error. That can mean requiring local governments to act but encouraging them to become the laboratories where we learn what works well or not.

Today’s subject is cell phone use in schools, during school hours, for which Oregon House Bill 2251 passed the House on a mostly party-line 36-21 vote this week. It is aimed at banning cell phone use throughout the school day, and for the moment, it seems well positioned to become law.

A House committee already considered more than a half-dozen amendments and more are expected in the Senate, but the suggestion here is to simplify.

This is one of the hottest subjects this year in the Oregon legislature. It goes right to the heart of how Oregon’s school children and their parents have been accustomed to organizing their days.

At the same time, many parents and children are accustomed to being able to communicate instantly, and many students would not like the idea of giving up their phones for so many of their waking hours. The first submitted testimony on the new Oregon bill, in opposition to it, declared it “a solution in search of a problem. Let the school districts govern themselves.”

But the large number of people saying the problem is real, and the limited action on it by local districts, suggest that isn’t enough. Gov. Tina Kotek and the state Department of Education have registered support for restrictions; the department last year issued proposed model policies, without specifically imposing any.

Pressure is strong for kicking the phones at least partly out of the classroom. A Pew Research Center survey from last October found that more than two-thirds of American adults favor banning the phones during class. Just over a third support the prohibition for the whole school day. That’s a tell: Most Americans favor some restrictions, but with nuance. School employees are more lopsided; almost two-thirds of American high school teachers said cell phones have become a major distraction and impediment to learning.

Oregon’s Legislature is hardly alone considering bans. As of the end of last year, 11 states regulated (not necessarily banned outright) cell phone use during school hours, and at least 27 other states had introduced legislation on the subject. Since then, Idaho has added to the numbers, in the last few weeks enacting a cell phone limitation bill. In still other states, governors or agencies have imposed orders on the subject. School cell restrictions are becoming standard around the country.

The districts around the state are a policy jumble. Some have prohibition policies of various kinds in place; others do not. Portland Public Schools on Jan. 7 approved a rule similar to the current bill. Some are studying options. The Reynolds School District put together a work group which concluded, “We recommend an all-day ban on personal device use for grades K-12.” The state does not track comprehensively what the local districts do about this.

HB 2251, which is intended to require districts to ban use of “personal electronic devices”  would be more specific. It requires school districts to adopt a cell phone policy, and sets requirements for elements that must be included, and a lengthy list of exemptions (mainly medical, emergency and educational) to phone bans.

How all those specifics will play out is unclear. What the Oregon legislature could do, possibly ratcheting down the heat, is something like what the Idaho Legislature just did.

The Idaho measure, Senate Bill 1032, was simply a broad mandate to create local rules on the use of cell phones. Its key section said, “The provisions of this section shall not be construed to require a local school board or public charter school to adopt a policy that prohibits all use of electronic communications devices by students. However, local school boards and public charter schools may adopt a policy prohibiting students from carrying electronic communications devices in school buildings and on school grounds or premises during school hours. A local school board or public charter school that adopts such policy shall be considered to have met the requirement to adopt a policy under this section.”

Presumably, that will generate a good deal of action and discussion in school districts statewide, and by the time of next year’s legislative session, educators and legislators will have a clearer sense of what’s working and where the glitches are.

Oregon may also find that simpler, for now, is better. A legislature that requires local districts to set up rules will get a much clearer answer by next year than they could get from evaluating reactions to a one-size-fits-all bill.

This column originally appeared on the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image)

Oh, the humanities

April 19, 2025

The president of the United States is destroying the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), a tiny federal agency that has existed since the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

The defunding of state humanities councils, including in Idaho, is a pathetically short-sighted move. Even worse it’s part of a comprehensive effort by the administration to further “dumb down” a nation where Donald Trump condescendingly celebrates “the poorly educated.”

Who cares, you might ask, if Elon Musk trashes a little federal agency that people who love history and anthropology value? And what are humanities anyway?

The NEH was created along with the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 by an act of Congress. The legislation said, in part:

“An advanced civilization must not limit its efforts to science and technology alone but must give full value and support to the other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and a better view of the future.”

The legislation passed with strong bipartisan congressional support because there was broad agreement with the kind of thinking embodied in the act.

“Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. It must therefore foster and support a form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to make people of all backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants.”

Those members of Congress were really “woke” back in 1965.

Full disclosure: I served on the Idaho Humanities Council years ago, chaired the board for many years and also chaired the Federation of State Humanities Councils, the organization that represents the NEH’s state affiliates in Washington. In that capacity I testified – my only time doing so – before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee chaired by Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson. In those days Simpson was a big supporter of NEH (and the Arts), but that was pre-Trump. I can’t guess whether Simpson will oppose the administration’s budget chainsaw.

Share

My brief remarks back then supported the tiny NEH budget, and I tried to provide a sense of how the Idaho Council – and other state councils – use their federal funding.

For decades, for example, Idaho has sponsored an annual institute for teachers who are provided a modest stipend to do a week-long deep dive into a big subject. The institutes offer mid-career opportunities for teachers to spend time, typically on a college campus, with other teachers learning more about subjects as diverse as Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and the origin and importance of American roots music. The institutes feature fine scholars with deep understand of the subject on offer and the teachers leave the experience with new ideas about how to teach history, literature, religion, art history, law and philosophy.

State councils often sponsor traveling exhibits developed by the Smithsonian. Idaho has always tried to get those exhibits to rural communities in cooperation with local libraries or historical societies.

Councils, including Idaho’s, make small grants to scholars to help defray the cost of research often leading to an advance degree. Teacher can apply for a modest “incentive” grant to develop a class on a particular subject. The Idaho Council organizes a speaker’s bureau that matches speakers with local audiences, a service club, library of senior citizens center, for example. Former Idaho Lt. Governor David Leroy is listed as a current speaker.

A memorable part of my time on the Idaho Council were the annual lectures devoted to the humanities. The lectures began in Boise in 1997 when the celebrated historian of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Stephen Ambrose spoke about his book Undaunted Courage. The great David McCullough came to Idaho to talk about the importance of founding father John Adams. Novelist John Updike read some of his work before a packed house and insisted on visiting the old Idaho penitentiary during his Boise visit.

It's worth noting that the law creating the endowments specify that the governor of each state with a humanities council appoints 25% of the board, which has meant for the last 30 years Republican governors have appointed pretty conservative folks to the board, many who have been involved in GOP politics. Typically board members are educators, community volunteers, business people and folks like me who love history and literature and enjoy the opportunity make meaningful humanities-based opportunities available to everyone.

My experience at the national level provided an opportunity to visit several state councils. The NEH has long required state councils to conduct reviews of their programs and have those programs evaluated by outside observers. I’ll never forget a trip to Jackson, Mississippi for a site visit to the Mississippi Council, where a superb state director, Barbara Carpenter, showed off programs ranging from the history of southern cooking to the state’s fraught racial history. Civility and respect for different views are always at the heart of these efforts.

And the NEH’s inspector general has always been something of a legend given the agency’s scrutiny of state council spending. This is not the place to search for waste, fraud and abuse. It just doesn’t exist.

So, why has the Trump Administration stopped all NEH grant funding to councils in Idaho and every other state? State councils are creating close to home educational and enrichment options for millions of Americans who have, for more than 50 years, enjoyed access to such a rich and broad menu of humanities programs. So why kneecap this very American institution dedicated to learning and civility?

Here’s the New York Times:

The moves at the NEH came a day after all employees at the Institute of Museum and Library Services, another independent federal agency, were put on administrative leave, setting the stage for a potential shutdown. That development drew widespread condemnation from public library supporters in particular, who noted that the agency, which has an annual budget of roughly $290 million, provided a third to half of the budgets of many state library boards.

I admit to being baffled by this action. Why? What constituency benefits? And remember these are dollars specifically authorized by Congress.

The most recent NEH budget was $207 million, less than the cost of three F-18 fighter jets. By contrast, the Washington Post recently calculated that Elon Musk’s various business entities have, over the last 20 years, pulled in $38 billion in federal funding.

So go our priorities.

I’m left to conclude the obvious – the administration is waging a war on intelligence and learning. How else to explain attacks on libraries, colleges, research, the Department of Education, and state humanities councils? No great nation has ever celebrated poor education or a lack of learning.

Sadly, oh so very sadly, we now do just that.

Recommended: Subscribe to Marc's Substack.

 

Fly your flag

Fly your flag

April 18, 2025

Boise City Hall is located on Capitol Boulevard, which is the sort-of grand entrance road leading to the front steps of the Idaho Statehouse, and only about two blocks away from the capitol. You can see the Statehouse from the city hall. You can almost see two units of government glaring at each other.

The Statehouse is dominated by Republicans, in its executive and legislative offices, and the city hall (notwithstanding that elected city offices are non-partisan) by Democrats, in the mayor’s office and strongly on the council. A clue to the latter reality shows up in one of the flags - there are several - typically aloft in front of the building, visible from the right angle from the Statehouse.

It is a Pride flag - one of those with rainbow colors, adopted most specifically by gender and sexual minority groups but also by others as well.

That’s the flag which implicitly though not specifically was targeted by House Bill 96, recently passed by the legislature and signed into law. The new law says that, “A governmental entity shall not display a flag on its property other than the following,” listing several exceptions which do not include the Pride flag.

Boise city hall’s Pride flag has not come down. Attorney General Raul Labrador and the Ada County sheriff’s office both contacted the office of Mayor Lauren McLean about it. At this writing, there’s been no change.

And there’s no real reason why there has to be. The new state law doesn’t say what happens if a city, or any other government entity decides to fly it anyway. There’s no fine, no penalty, certainly no prison time. Failure to comply is not declared to be either a misdemeanor or felony. (It did declare that an emergency was found to exist, though you really have to stretch the meaning of “emergency” to include the flying of a long-standing flag.)

This is really the legislature saying: This is what we want.

On that level, with no statement indicating a compelling state interest in the policy, and no consequences for flouting it … well, if you’re a city government (or for that matter a city) that doesn’t much like what the legislature does anyway, why comply?

The Substack Political Potatoes opined “Neither McLean nor Labrador is being subtle here. This is political virtue signaling, pure and simple. McLean is playing to her left-leaning base with the added bonus of triggering the far-right, and Labrador’s letter is designed to give his base something to post on X and Truth Social. It’s all the same playbook — pick a political hot potato, rally the base, and make it go viral.”

The symbolism for both sides plays out just fine.

Presumably, then, both sides benefit from an ongoing rhetorical shadow war, for which there’s really no incentive for either side to specifically prevail. While you’d never necessarily want to predict a hot-button topic will never go to court, my guess is that this one doesn’t.

The only problem here is for the people of Idaho, whose law books are being cluttered with statutes that have no practical purpose, no real benefit to the public, and intended only to fire ideological missiles over at the other side.

A point to ponder: Will those on the right start to wave a flag of their own? Representative Heather Scott, who was the originator of HB 96, is well known for a picture posing alongside a Confederate battle flag. Maybe that would suit their purposes in places where people like the backers of the flag law could mark their territory. (If you wanted to get creative, one category of allowed flags - “Official flags of countries other than the United States to commemorate special occasions” - might be made to squeeze in.)

No doubt it would make clear where certain Idahoans are coming from. Warnings, after all, may be needed.

 

Privilege

April 17, 2025

It’s never something I thought I should have. I thought we all shared in this.

I had a high school counselor tell me once I wasn’t like all the others. “You’re special.” He said. I almost puked.

I loved my teammates, my classmates. Sure, Ronnie only got in the 300’s on his SAT’s, but he could hit the goal post with a spiral from 30 yards out 4 out of five times. He had gifts I did not. We all have gifts.

But not all of us have privilege. Some have it because we give it to them.

We shouldn’t.

Then I got into college.

I got into two, Stanford and Berkeley. Yeah, I was a Californian. Come spit at me. That would be your privilege.

I did the math. With the scholarships, Stanford was cheaper. That was the wrong way to make that choice.

For I entered the world of the privileged. And I hated it.

But I did not squander my opportunity. I found a few folks of similar ilk. I learned to cook and mechanic and play volleyball. My grades sucked.

I would hitch hike home for holidays since I didn’t have a car. The driver always asked what I did. I was in college. Where? I gritted my teeth and told them “Stanford”. Things often changed in the conversation then. Did they hate me for this elite private school privilege, or did they sense my resentment? I am not sure. I still have that privilege chip on my shoulder. I don’t deserve it. Nobody does. Not even those we elect. They should be like us.

Some argue these elite colleges are the breeding grounds for this cancer of privilege.

And we, the people of this wonderful country have given this cancer our bodies. It is growing within us.

I never answered the phone, “This is Doctor Schmidt.” I didn’t think the doctor thing should be used for any special privilege.

I did not want to be addressed as “Senator”.

Sure, these are things I have done, gotten a medical degree, and gotten elected. But we are all just people, aren’t we?

I am not saying everybody’s ideas have equal merit. Some ideas are just stupid. And it is not my position of privilege that allows me to make that judgement. It is my experience, my education, my life perspective. I’m willing to listen to yours.

Just because you’re the richest man in the world, that doesn’t make you right all the time. We should be careful when we grant anybody privilege. For it is ours to grant.

Maybe the fact that I don’t feel privileged allows me to accept that I can be wrong.

Do you appreciate that you could be wrong? We should all have that humility.

That is the test we should be applying to those we elect. It is the standard we should hold ourselves to. Admitting wrongness is in fact a sign of strength.

Politicians don’t know this. Politicians spend most of their time saying one thing and meaning another.

You should embrace the humility and truth of being wrong. We all should.

For if we cannot, then I would argue, we consider ourselves privileged. That is, special, above scrutiny, beyond criticism. And that was what our founders tried to build against. They designed a government system that was so ponderous, so intricate, so broad based that the hubris, the stupidity of the privileged would come under scrutiny.

I hope we are still working that way. Back when they scribbled the Constitution onto parchment there weren’t 2,000,000 Americans. Now we are over 300 million. Times have changed. The principles haven’t.

Privilege is power. We should not grant it without careful scrutiny.

The privileged can be wrong. We are wrong to give them a free ride. They should know our judgement of their flawed ideas.

 

A Spokane approach

A Spokane approach

April 16, 2025

The probably apocryphal story goes that, close to a century ago, President Harry Truman shot back at an inquiring reporter of the Spokane Spokesman-Review: "How does it feel to be working for the wort newspaper in America?"

It wasn't true, of course, even then (though the editorial page certainly did Truman no favors), and since then it has become quite a good newspaper indeed, for some decades providing the leading news report not only in eastern Washington state but also across northern Idaho and into a slice of Montana.

Like nearly all other newspapers, it has suffered in the last couple of decades, scaling down in size and scope year after year, a victim of changing economic conditions. It has remained more active than many newspapers, in fact, because it has remained locally owned, operated for 132 years by members of the Cowles family. Now that family is making a grand gesture toward securing meaningful journalism for Spokane in the years to come.

On Tuesday, the Cowles family said that it would give the paper, plus a $2 million grant, to a nonprofit called the Comma Community Journalism Lab. Publisher Stacey Cowles remarked, “It’s been a great venture for 132 years, but if you had the chance to extend its viability, as people know and love it, why would you not do that?”

The plan is for the paper to continue publishing in print six days a week and retain its online presence, with some indication that more material (reports produced with non-profit support) may be outside the pay wall. All existing staff are expected to be retained at the same pay levels.

It couldn't have been an easy thing to do. But going non-profit probably is the only way to keep regional and local journalism alive, and news organizations are probably going to be a lot stronger going forward if they can build on the expertise and background of those who have come before.

More broadly critical is this: Local newspapers are looking for models that will allow for informing the public over the long haul, through an approach that provides for both enough funding and stable organization to keep people informed in years ahead. The nation hardly has a more critical need.

If you doubt that, look at what has become of our politics today.

[image]

 

A thousand points

April 16, 2025

Writing about good people doing good things. That’s a big change for me.

For almost half a century as a writer, I’ve been focused mostly on politicians who try to fool people into thinking they are doing good things. In fairness, many of the political people I have known – from Arkansas to Indiana and Idaho – served with the best of intentions.

But today’s environment is not conducive to “good things” being done in politics. Hatred runs deep among Republicans and Democrats nationally and, with either party, the objective is not to “unify” the nation or serve the common good. The purpose is to gain power – absolute control if possible – and bury the opposition.

It’s no better on the state level, where Democrats don’t win major offices and the GOP is divided into two factions: Republican and “More” Republican. The goal on either side is to gain an overwhelming majority and control the state’s agenda, at the expense of any group that opposes those efforts.

I’ll leave it to the politicians to fight among themselves. I have taken a writing position (volunteer) with the Idaho Nonprofit Center in the Idaho Community Foundation. People in this world are not obsessed with an “R” and “D” by a person’s name, nor are folks worried about who’s a “liberal” or “conservative.” It’s about people working to make their world – and their communities – a better place.

These groups are following the politics, mostly in the interest of self-preservation. After all, politicians have been known to derail noble deeds. But the nonprofit world does not revolve around who’s occupying the White House, or governor’s office.

Check out these organizations: Women’s and Children’s Alliance, Faces of Hope, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Idaho Youth Ranch, Idaho Food Bank and Simply Cats. There are more – hundreds or more, in fact. And there are thousands of volunteers who are working for those worthy causes.

There’s more “goodness” here than any 10 Hallmark movies. And it goes beyond organizations associated with the Nonprofit Center. Civic organizations, such as the Lions, Rotary and Kiwanis are important cogs of their communities. Within these groups, more gets done in a week than a 90-day legislative session or a full calendar year of Congress.

One former president seemed to realize who America’s true heroes are. I had the pleasure of covering the 1988 Republican National Convention when then-Vice President George H.W. Bush talked about a “kinder and gentler nation” and the “thousand points of light,” celebrating volunteerism. With Bush, it wasn’t all talk – it was one of the cornerstones of his administration.

“We can find meaning and reward by serving some higher purpose than ourselves,” he said. “A shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light … we all have something to give.”

You don’t hear that kind of rhetoric on a campaign stump. One party is labeled as socialist, while the other is called fascists, with both aiming to destroy democracy in one way or another. Winning candidates are more apt to talk about elections having “consequences,” which ends up being bad news for the losing side.

We’ve heard a lot of talk over the last decade about making America “great again,” as if one person or a political movement can pull that off. But America is, and always has been, great – regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office or seats in Congress. And it is the nonprofit organizations, civic groups and millions of volunteers will ensure greatness in the years to come.

Chuck Malloy, a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist, is a writer with the Idaho Nonprofit Center/Idaho Community Foundation. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

The town hall scene

The town hall scene

April 15, 2025
Many politicians have been having large meetings with constituents these days.

They've been calling these meetings "town halls."  Such gatherings are not new.  They've been around for years.  Just that descriptive moniker is used more recently.  In some upper New England states, they've been a fixture of long standing.

Some of these town halls have gotten pretty feisty.  A few of the political hosts have done a lot of back-pedaling to get out of the gatherings unscathed.  A few didn't make it without some "scars."

Though the political types might not agree, there are many of us who'd like the opportunity to engage with our elected folks on a more frequent basis.  Town halls are fine.  We just need more of 'em.

In just the few weeks since Donald Trump's election, a host of topics has developed: conduct of our national foreign affairs, immigration, relations with Canada and Mexico.  And many others.  There's a whole raft of issues to chew on.

Bill Clinton did a couple of these talk sessions.  Obama and the two Bush's, did too.  Problem was - because of the production restrictions of live TV - they only lasted one hour and very few attendees in the studios got a chance to ask a question.  Not very personal at all.

We need more of these in-person sessions.  We need more chances to interact with the elected folk, get a chance to ask questions - with follow-ups - so there's more accountability.  While we can be thankful some of the politicos do these sessions, more need to step up and face the folks at home.  Regularly.

Today's federal politicians live in a sort of distant vacuum.  There's a whole lot less live interaction with constituents.  One of the reasons for that is the fast-paced world we live in.  Other factors are timing and location.

Another reason to have more face-to-face sessions is that- once elected - good ol' Joe, the friend and neighbor, becomes Senator Joe  And, there's an immediate change in our relationships.  Their lifestyle changes and we're not an immediate part of the new "reality."

The late Senator James McClure and I were finished with an interview session and just "chewing the fat"one day.

I mentioned he wasn't returning my reporter calls like he used to.  To which McClure replied "Well, as a Senator, I'm dealing with foreign officials, prime ministers and many important people.  I just don't have the time to stay in touch with the folks at home."

To which I wanted to reply "It's the folks at home that made it possible for you to leave Weiser, Idaho, and live on the world stage."  I wanted to say that.  But, I didn't.  Looking back, I wish I had.

Once we ship these men and women off to Congress, they become two people.  They buy a second home, stack up frequent flyer miles, learn to live out of a suitcase, have to have a second office and staff.  Life totally changes.  But, despite all the changes, they must keep in contact with the "folks at home" if they hope to stay in office.

That's why town halls are good for both attendees and the office holder.  They provide a "meeting ground," a face-to-face chance for interaction.  A quick way to keep in contact.

So, if someone political decides to have a "town hall" near your neighborhood, drop in.  You may be surprised.  They really are worthwhile.

 

A powerful mini-legislature

A powerful mini-legislature

April 14, 2025

Idahoans can breathe a sigh of relief now that the Legislature has folded its tent and gone home. The bright side of this year’s session is that it could have been worse. The session lasted two weeks longer than expected, costing taxpayers about $20,000-$30,000 per day. The main reason for the delay was the inability of the Joint Finance- Appropriations Committee (JFAC) to finalize budgets for state programs. JFAC set many budgets even before it knew how much revenue would be available and it then squandered time figuring out how to operate without defined procedural rules.

Adding to the delay was JFAC’s decision to ignore the constitutional order of setting budgets. Since statehood, general legislation, which establishes state laws, was the job of the entire Legislature. Committees hold hearings, take testimony and produce bills for debate in both Houses before sending them to the Governor. JFAC’s job has been confined to providing the funding to finance the programs established through that policy-making process. However, in recent years JFAC has had the nerve to set itself up as a mini-legislature within the official Legislature. That is, to fund legislative policies with appropriation bills but also to set its own policies with “intent language” in the bills.

JFAC co-chair, Rep. Wendy Horman, justified the committee’s use of policy-making intent language, claiming it is the committee’s job to set “conditions, limitations and restrictions” on spending. She said, “it is the job of JFAC to set fiscal policy.” The Idaho Constitution would disagree. Appropriation bills are to fund the government, not to set state policy. Several JFAC members have raised legitimate concerns. Sen. Julie VanOrden said the use of intent language to set policy skirts the public vetting process and is “a real abuse of power.” Sen. Janie Ward-Engelking correctly observed that JFAC is “a budgeting committee, it’s not a policy committee.”

JFAC’s constitutionally improper policy-making has created memorable problems in the past. In the 2022 session, JFAC put intent language in House Bill 764, saying that federal money designed to make up for pandemic-related learning loss was to serve “school-aged participants ages 5 through 13 years.” When about 80 legitimate schools and child care centers received grants, the extreme-right outrage machine swung into action, claiming fraud and abuse because some kids under 5 might have benefited from the federal money, which federal guidelines allowed. That resulted in a flurry of pointless legal actions and investigations, which ended up costing the state way more than the miniscule amount that may have been incidentally spent on kids under 5.

In 2024, JFAC put intent language in House Bill 770, the funding bill for the Department of Transportation (DOT), that killed a favorable sale of the bedraggled DOT building on State Street. The restriction resulted in litigation and will end up costing the state millions trying to renovate an outdated building that will be an unusable money pit.

This year, JFAC has picked up the pace of its unlawful policy-making. In House Bill 459, the Department of Labor appropriation bill, the mini-legislature required the preparation of several reports, including one requiring “an analysis of the impact of illegal immigration on the state’s labor market and the potential costs and benefits of using E-Verify.” This should be done through legislative action, not in the funding process.

Senate Bill 1209 calls for several legislative items. Among other things, Section 4 requires Idaho State University to lead any negotiations toward acquisition of the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine. Section 6 requires the State Board of Education to develop a new outcomes-based funding model for Idaho’s colleges and universities. Section 7 requires audits of state institutions of higher learning for compliance with Idaho’s ill-defined diversity, equity and inclusion laws. In essence, the DEI laws prohibit many of the virtues that Jesus taught in the New Testament.

Senate Bill 1196, requires the Idaho Commission for Libraries to report on compliance by state and school libraries with Idaho book ban laws. There are a number of other similar policy-making bills the JFAC mini-legislature churned out this session, but the list is too lengthy to lay out here.

It is high time for JFAC leadership to establish procedural rules to expedite the funding of programs enacted through the established legislative process. More important, however, is that the committee get back into its proper lane of setting budgets, rather than establishing state policy. If not, it may be necessary for those affected by its improper policy-making to institute court proceedings to get JFAC to comply with its limited duty of funding programs enacted by the official Legislature.

 

Oregon wine over a barrel

Oregon wine over a barrel

April 13, 2025

One of the first Oregon impacts of this year’s international trade wars came to our house in a pleasing way: in the form of a few bottles of good wine, gifts from friends who work in that industry. We live in the north Willamette wine country, where personal connections to the wine industry are not hard to find.

Those bottles were emblematic, though, of a bigger situation not nearly so benign.

Some weeks ago, as wineries in our region packed and sent crates of wine north to Canada as they long have done, they encountered a surprise. The border was as far as many of them got, and their wine had to be trucked back, unsold, to Oregon.

Canada had essentially stopped accepting alcohol from the U.S., including Oregon alcohol. The response and rules at the border have shifted, but sales are being heavily impacted by President Donald Trump’s recent tariff announcements.

Many Oregon winemakers are accumulating a wine surplus. Some, probably small but unknown numbers of cases, may be turning into giveaways, pleasant for the recipients but lousy for a wine producer’s bottom line.

The massive worldwide tariffs Trump promised — and then announced he would pause for 90 days — can be expected to further dampen the state’s wine trade. Wine is a smaller part of Oregon’s trade picture than some other commodities, but it offers a useful insight into how the tariffs are affecting the state. And it is a major industry in Oregon, with about 1,100 wineries statewide.

Last week, a friend who had worked in wine import and export described for me how the system worked.

When shipped internationally, the product changed ownership — from the producer or wholesaler to my friend’s own company — before it crossed the border, so that when the shipment cleared customs, his company paid the tariff or fees (where they existed).

That was the first impact of a tariff. Companies ordinarily factor tariffs into the retail price, and individual wine buyers ultimately pay most or all of that cost. That boosted purchase price is how most people experience tariffs.

The existence of a tariff doesn’t keep something from crossing national lines, and a small tariff may not matter much, but large ones can change the business incentives for all parties.

Oregon wine makers might in one way, at first, benefit from higher tariffs on the countries (such as Italy, Chile, Australia, Argentina and many more) that import wine into the U.S where they are imposed.

That might drive some domestic wine drinkers toward more American producers, which could help Oregon wine producers, though it usually has the effect of raising domestic prices as well.

Other aspects of higher border-crossing prices are likely to cut against the industry.

Some of those are smaller and might not be especially visible outside the industry, such as higher prices paid by the Oregon industry for imported barrels, steel for supplies and equipment, production equipment and more.

Oregon’s leading export targets overall are (in order) Mexico, China and Canada, and about 81,000 jobs are reliant on that export trade. The impact on trade may be easier to observe in the wine industry, because close to half of all Oregon wine exports go (or in recent years have gone) to Canada: In 2022, that was 73,323 cases of a total export of 162,939.

“We’re just watching it play out in real time, and it’s not pretty,” Alex Sokol Blosser, president of Sokol Blosser Winery in Dayton, Oregon, said in a recent KGW interview. “All that business we worked for, and the president lit a match to it.”

Anne Amie vineyards, near Carlton, has been moving from local tasting room sales toward an all-wholesale model, and one significant element of that has been a large prospective sale — thousands of cases — to a buyer in Quebec.

Negotiations had been active for months, but after recent Trump trade announcements, Canadians ended them. Other wineries have had comparable experiences.

There are ripple effects through many other industries as well.

The US Wine Trade Alliance argued on April 2 that “restaurants will suffer, domestic producers will face new obstacles in bringing their wines to market, and retailers, importers, and distributors across the country will be placed at serious risk. With their biggest profit center decimated, many restaurant investors will decide to take their money elsewhere.”

Last week, thousands of Oregonians showed at up the Hands Off anti-Trump rallies around the state, and plenty of signs criticized the new tariffs. I didn’t see any that complained specifically about administration impacts on the wine industry. But it wouldn’t be surprising if, in coming weeks, they start to appear.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image/Oregon Department of Agriculture)