Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in April 2025

Haven’t heard the last

Put these in the category of gifts that keep on giving - at least for commentators: Idaho legislation from the just-completed session that (mostly) generated some news coverage, but are not done with us yet.

Or with the legislature, which likely will be revisiting these subjects again.

(This list incidentally, is drawn from a rundown of “key actions” of the last legislative session prepared by legislative staff, available online. It’s worth your perusal.)

This isn’t strictly a rundown of bad ideas. I think at least one was well worth passing, potential uproar notwithstanding.

That is Senate Bill 1032, which requires school districts and charter schools to set a policy on student use of smartphones (the bill language is a little broader) during school hours. It does not dictate specifics but does “emphasize that student use of electronic communications devices be as limited as possible in school buildings and on school grounds or premises during school hours; and reduce distractions ...” Its combination of direction with flexibility makes it better than some comparable bills in other states.

Opinions on school day smartphone use are all over the map, and the debate will rage. Fine: It’s the sort of policy discussion people and their representatives should hash out.

But other bills carry different lessons.

House Bill 7, setting a minimum $300 fine for first time convictions of marijuana possession of three ounces, or less, has an open bottom end: No limit on how much is enough to run afoul of Idaho criminal law. A seed might be enough. Or less: A fiber of the offending plant presumably would qualify to place an unwitting person in violation of the law. You think it couldn’t happen? Famous last words.

Precision and definition matter. House Bill 270 is billed as covering indecent exposure, expanding on earlier law to cover exposure of certain breasts. And which are those? The bill does sort of define them (and I wouldn’t dare try to paraphrase any of this): “developed female breasts, including the areola and nipple; to expose adult male breasts, including the areola and nipple, that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts; to expose artificial breasts, including the areola and nipple, intended to resemble female breasts.”

Sympathies to the law officers trying to enforce that one. Either the law will be essentially ignored, or it will generate more culture war headlines for Idaho, bouncing the subject back to the legislature.

Extensive definition may bring to court Senate Bill 1198a, which ostensibly aims to “to ensure freedom of inquiry in higher education.” Except that it contains a long list of subjects and ideas intended to be banned from instruction (good-bye freedom of inquiry) in Idaho colleges and universities as too DEI: “any trainings, programs, activities, or instruction that is derived from or that promotes the tenets or concepts of critical theory, including but not limited to the concepts of unconscious or implicit bias, microaggressions, internalized racism, cultural appropriation, structural equity, settler colonialism, group marginalization, systemic oppression, social justice, institutional or systemic racism, white fragility, racial privilege, disparate impact, intersectionality, sexual privilege, patriarchy, gender theory, queer theory, neopronouns, transgender ideology, misgendering, othering, deadnaming, heteronormativity, allyship, or any other related formulation of these tenets or concepts.” None of these are defined, so good luck trying to follow the law.

Senate Bill 1210a, the “Idaho Medical Freedom Act,” likewise consists of a bunch of state-imposed prohibitions - this time on Idaho businesses. Building on a law aimed at battling efforts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic (what can you say?), this one says a business “shall not refuse to provide any service, product, admission to a venue, or transportation to a person because that person has or has not received or used a medical intervention.” A medical intervention “means a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug, injection, medication, or medical action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter the health or biological function of a person.”

That’ll just thrill not only medical providers and places like restaurants that have to monitor their sites for health concerns, but anyone concerned with spreading contagious illness. Ebola, anyone?

Senate Bill 1012, creating a new wildlife depredations appeals board, exempts it from open meeting requirements. Shutting the public out is over time bound to create significant issues.

Check out the list of passed legislation for yourself, and have fun adding to this list ...

 

Rigged

April 15th is next week. Are you ready to pay your taxes?

I’m a pogue, so I pay what I’m told I owe. Are you a pogue too?

I learned the term ‘pogue’ when I was fighting fires for the US Forest Service.

Pogues do what they are told, even when they know better.

The slope is indefensible, and the fire is below, but we would dig and cut across. When the black smoke came up, we’d find shelter and survive. We knew the idiots who were directing us would too. But we’d get the GS 3 or 4 rate, time and a half or even time and three quarters with hazard pay. 60- or 80-hour weeks, it added up to a decent summer.

Pogues survive. And we pay our taxes.

Others might not.

Maybe that’s the difference between pogues and real people. We just shuffle along and take the measly wage they’ll pay us. Real people know the strings to pull.

Elon Musk is in the news a lot.

He gets to fire people right and left. Republicans love his sense of justice. If you aren’t doing worthwhile work, you’re done.

That line we cut above the fire would never hold. It was not worthwhile. It was destructive and wasteful. But us pogues did it. We survived and so did the idiots who told us to do the work. But, honestly, at times, we wanted to kill them.

Instead, we paid our taxes.

And it turns out, they probably didn’t.

Mr. Musk is the richest man in the world. Maybe that makes him the smartest. President Trump claims to be rich, so maybe he’s smart too.

But know this. Tesla, Musk’s company paid no taxes in 2024, even though they reported a $2.3B income.

Yeah, you can try to sell your CO2 planet saving car, but can you really try to change this mess?

This taxation thing is rigged.

Republicans claim only the rich pay taxes and the rest of us are government sucking pogues. I’m sorry. I’m writing a big check to the IRS this coming week. And it seems Elon may not be.

 

D-E-I

D-E-I.

Diversity.  Equity.  Inclusion.

Three simple words it would seem everyone could understand and make a part of their own lives.  Simple.  Easy to acknowledge.  Words of acceptance.  Words of value.

Yet, not everyone agrees.  It's difficult to understand why.  But, there are folks who just can't accept teaching those values in schools.  They fear something they alone can see that makes them rebel at their mention.

Two examples of how this "concept" is being dealt with.  Across the country, last weekend, there were marches and demonstrations with thousands of people in support of D-E-I.  Flags, signs, banners, loudspeakers broadcasting encouraging words to the assembled crowds.

In New York, several public school districts have said "Nyet."  They've shipped the D-E-I materials back where they came from with accompanying notes saying "Thanks, but NO thanks."

Diversity.  Equity.  Inclusion.  Seems simple enough.

Accepting and living by those words isn't like having to carry a cross or something.  It doesn't make the user weird or socially unacceptable.  You don't get warts or skin blemishes.  Living by them is not an unpleasant duty of sort.

It should be easy to believe in those three words and try to live with them as principles.  It's not hard to do.  You don't have to work at it.

But, the folks protesting "diversity, equity and inclusion" - they DO have to "work at it."  They've got to get up a full head of steam to pick up a sign, lace up their boots and get out their crayons to make those aforementioned signs.

A year or two from now, it's likely we won't be hearing much about "diversity, equity and inclusion."  When responsible people get worked up enough to take to the streets - thousands and thousands of them - the naysayers aren't left with much to work with.  The die's been cast.

But, the spirit lives.  In the West Ada School District in Meridian, Idaho, a couple of weeks ago, a teacher put up a togetherness poster showing several raised hands and arms with palms out, hearts in the center.  The arms and hands were of different skin colors.  Inclusion.  Diversity.

Before the noon lunch bell, an administer from the front office ordered the sign down.  And it was taken down.  But, several mornings later, kids and adults showing up for classes found a replica of those signs done in chalk art on a couple of sidewalks.  They were erased before lunch.  But, the kids had made their point.  They supported "diversity, equity and inclusion."  And they wanted those administrators to know it.  "Diversity, equity and inclusion" was in their hearts.

There are those that want to stamp out those three words.  Trump's education department - what's left of it - told Harvard and some other Ivy League schools to get "diversity, equity and inclusion" out of their curricula.  Fast!  And, when considering the flow of those hundreds of millions or federal tax dollars, the words quickly disappeared.

Maybe they disappeared from the class room and the sidewalks.  But, the strong feelings in the hearts of those who supported all that artwork wasn't erased.  They weren't compromised.  Maybe the pictures went away.  But, the spirit still lives.

Diversity.  Equity.  Inclusion.  Even without signs, those are powerful words.

 

Dick the Butcher

There has been a bit of discussion over the years as to what William Shakespeare’s character, Dick the Butcher, meant when he said: “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Butcher made the comment in Henry VI, Part II while considering how to carry out a coup against King Henry VI. Former US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens likely hit the nail on the head when he said in a 1985 decision, “Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.” Dick’s kindred spirit, Donald Trump, has apparently recognized that a coup against America’s democracy may not succeed without neutralizing the country’s legal profession. Thankfully, killing is not in his playbook. Rather, Trump is using blackmail and intimidation to silence our lawyers.

Trump’s opening salvo was fired directly at Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP (Perkins), a national law firm with a well-regarded office in Boise. Trump shocked the American legal community by releasing an unconstitutional “Executive Order” on March 6 (Order), attacking Perkins with a number of meritless, trumped-up claims. The first paragraph revealed his motive–Perkins had obviously enraged Trump by representing Hillary Clinton in her 2016 race against him and he was out for revenge.

As a private citizen, Trump sued Clinton, Perkins and a long list of others on some of the same claims in 2022. That case was dismissed by a federal judge as totally without merit. The judge required Trump and his attorneys to pay $937,989 in sanctions, based on the finding that: “Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative. A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans, and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm.” Nothing has changed with Trump, except that now, as President, he can misuse his power to continue with his vendetta.

In a remarkable exercise in gaslighting, the Order accused Perkins of “undermining democratic elections, the integrity of the courts, and honest law enforcement.” Among other things, Trump ordered that Perkins lawyers have any security clearances suspended, that their access to federal buildings be limited and that agencies refrain from hiring them. Two provisions are designed to scare current and prospective clients away from Perkins–requiring government contractors “to disclose any business they do with Perkins” and requiring agencies to review all contracts “with entities that disclose doing business with Perkins.” As obviously intended, those provisions have already driven business away from Perkins.

The Order is violative of several provisions of the US Constitution, including the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Perkins filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the Order and have it declared unconstitutional, correctly asserting that the “retaliatory aim of the Order is intentionally obvious to the general public and the press because the very goal is to chill future lawyers from representing particular clients” and “to deter both government officials and private sector workers from participating in new inquiries into [Trump’s] conduct.”

A federal judge heard the case on March 12 and issued an order temporarily prohibiting the enforcement of the most obnoxious provisions of the Order. She found the Order to be motivated by Trump’s “retaliatory animus” and designed to carry out a “personal vendetta.” The judge observed that the entire Order was “invalid.”

Instead of taking the judge’s hint to behave like a law-abiding President, Trump doubled down two days later by issuing a similar aggrievance-filled Executive Order targeting another prominent law firm, Paul Weiss, that Trump had petty grievances against. Unfortunately, that firm could not summon the courage to challenge Trump’s order, meekly acquiescing like a whipped pup.

Having beaten the cowardly Paul Weiss firm into submission, Trump has tried to intimidate the rest of the legal profession into silence. On March 22, he issued an unhinged “Presidential Memorandum” threatening lawyers with sanctions and penalties for pressing fraudulent and meritless claims. Those types of lawsuits are Trump’s stock in trade, so not many lawyers have been frightened by that document. The great number of court cases Trump has lost since taking office speaks for itself.

Trump has targeted several other large law firms, two of which have sued him and gotten temporary relief and one of which has buckled like Paul Weiss. It is not clear how all of this will shake out, but I believe the legal profession will rally against Trump’s concerted effort to intimidate both lawyers and judges. When the dust settles, those firms that submitted to Trump’s unconstitutional intimidation may rue the day they gave in without a fight. . Most Americans, regardless of political leanings, want lawyers who will vigorously and fearlessly protect them when faced with government overreach. If any government tried to take their rights, their guns, their livelihoods, their speech rights or their freedom, they would not hire cowardly lawyers who would bend their knees to the government.

Just like Dick the Butcher, Trump will fail to neutralize the lawyers who stand against a totalitarian form of government. He will do tremendous damage to our country during the remainder of his tenure, but America’s dedication to lawful governing is too ingrained in our DNA for the country to succumb.

(image)

 

A clear path

Candidate filing for Oregon state offices won’t begin until Sept. 11, but low-level rumbles have circulated for months about a prospectively competitive race for governor and that Democratic incumbent Tina Kotek is politically vulnerable.

The idea is exaggerated. While conditions may change, the reality now is that she’s strongly positioned for reelection next year to a second term.

Some context is needed here. Public officials all over, from presidents down to the local level, have seen trust and popularity fall hard in recent years, but rates of reelection to offices high and low have not much dropped.

In Oregon, this is an old story. It’s true that Kotek’s popularity has been low even by national standards. An August 2024 Morning Consult poll rated her (along with Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee) as one of the two least popular governors in the nation, a finding in line with other surveys.

A poll conducted in mid-March from DHM Research of the (Democratic-leaning) Portland metro area showed Kotek with a 42% favorable and 40% unfavorable rating, not a drastic change from earlier polls, and traditionally not a good place for a candidate for major office.

Some of this may come from headlines over staff turnover or frustration in completing some key priorities. You also could say there was nothing unusual about this. In 2022, a FiveThirtyEight analysis ranked then-Gov. Kate Brown second from the bottom. Beaver State governors have experienced low levels of popularity for decades.

The arrival of the Trump administration does, however, seem to have improved Oregonians’ take on Kotek: For many voters in this blue state, after watching high-speed chaotic news out of D.C., impressions of Oregon and Portland are looking better.

Skeptics also could point out that Kotek’s win in 2022 was slender, with a margin of only 3.4% and well short of an outright majority.

Such has been the grist for talk of a difficult Kotek re-election effort (which, of course, doesn’t formally exist yet and won’t for months at least, assuming she does run again).

She’s still the odds-on favorite.

Why?

You could look at the track record of Oregon governors running for reelection, few of whom have lost. The last was Democrat Robert Straub in 1978, and before that Democrat Robert Holmes in 1958. (Both faced politically strong Republican challengers, Vic Atiyeh and Mark Hatfield, respectively.) Incumbent statewide office holders in Oregon rarely lose reelection.

But more than that, consider the prospects for the two elections between now and a second Kotek term.

The Democratic primary is set for May 2026, and Kotek seems well-positioned for it. In 2022, she defeated Tobias Read, now secretary of state and then state treasurer, who has won three other recent statewide elections by strong margins.

Kotek won in considerable part with the help of core organizational elements of the Oregon Democratic Party, including labor, environmental and other groups. There’s been no indication she’s lost any significant support from those groups since, and no reason to think her fundraising won’t be at least adequate.

Nor is there any clear evidence — though we’re still early in the cycle — of a credible challenger. Read, settling in for a first term as secretary of state, would be unlikely to run, and the new Oregon attorney general and treasurer would be improbable contenders as well. None would be well positioned for it in 2026, even if they were strongly motivated to take on Kotek, which they may not be.

So who in the Democratic Party would be positioned to take on an incumbent governor who has solid support from the party structure? No one, really. At the moment she seems likely to draw no more than minor in-party opposition.

The general election picture looks even clearer.

Republicans in 2022 made a serious effort to nominate a relatively broadly acceptable candidate, Christine Drazan (a former legislator now back in the legislature). They fell short, albeit not by a lot. Who is the Republican who could win a Republican primary and run much more powerfully than Drazan did? No names come to mind.

In 2026, Oregon voters are likely to be more ramped up than they were then — against Republican President Donald Trump. Oregon Democrats may be notably motivated to cast their ballots, and in a straight party matchup, in this decade, the Democrat is likely to win.

How does someone other than Kotek manage to win both primary (in either party) and general election for governor? Not easily, that’s for sure.

Again, conditions can change. But the path ahead for Oregon’s top office seems clear for now.

This column was originally published in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Send in the clowns

It was inevitable.

The idea that the administration of the federal government could be entrusted to a group of demonstrably unqualified Dunning Krugerites selected only for their ability to display servile loyalty was always a disaster in waiting.

“Signalgate,” the unbelievably incompetent use of unsecure text messaging by Trump administration national security figures who ended up sharing secret information about a military strike in the Middle East with a prominent journalist, is precisely the kind of thing — amazing as it is — that zealous, incompetent hacks are wont to do.

This world-class screw up thankfully didn’t end with the loss of American lives, at least that we know of. But this fiasco will prove to be just the first of a cavalcade of arrogant buffoonery that will ultimately define not the “golden age of America,” as the chaos commander-in-chief calls it, but something resembling a battered bedpan holding our nation’s lost international respect, influence and moral authority.

And because this is the Trump administration, the response was not to accept responsibility for an extremely serious mistake — or to fire someone — but rather to gaslight. By Wednesday afternoon, the administration was still claiming that nothing of operational importance had been shared on an insecure messaging app by the former Fox News weekend host who now sits atop the military chain of command.

“These were sensitive and detailed bits of information that if they had fallen into the hands of the Houthis would have caused them to move in offensive weapons against our pilots,” Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the New York Times in an interview.

Perhaps it’s not all that surprising that an administration headed by a guy who stored state secrets in his bathroom in Florida and once shared secret information with top Russian officials in the Oval Office would so cavalierly treat the safety and security of American fighter pilots.

There is so much in this incredible incident that says so much about not only the individuals on that insecure chat but also underscores the broad free fall on the American far right, a free fall into utter incompetence tightly wrapped in deceitful malevolence.

As the historian Garrett Graff notes, Signalgate provides evidence of at least five scandals that should sink any administration:

1) There was, of course, a massive leak of very sensitive information.

2) Clear evidence of perjury, particularly by Director of National Intelligence Telsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe, who brazenly lied to congressional committees this week.

3) Obvious violations of the law relating to the Federal Records Law. The Signal app was set to erase messages after 30 days, a violation of the law.

4) A federal government information technology failure of the first order. Who else not yet known to us was listening in or, thanks to this mess, now has greater insight into how these clownish people handle decision-making and sensitive information?

5) Likely war crimes violations. As Graff wrote, “Reporting at the time last weekend estimated that the U.S. attack discussed in the Signal group chat killed about 31 people, and now the new group chat screenshots (released by The Atlantic) gives us some fresh perspective, including this: We have clear documentary evidence of U.S. officials targeting an entire civilian building to kill a single target.”

If you study the documentary evidence carefully — evidence we have because the president’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, added a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to the group chat — you’ll be struck by the shallowness of the decision-making that launched airstrikes that killed civilians and put American military personnel in harm’s way.

The chat reads like a bunch of hormone-raging teenage boys talking macho while playacting at incredibly serious jobs. Rather than snapping towels in a locker room, these MAGA Bros are launching drones and dispatching F-18s.

On the afternoon of the U.S. attack on Yemen, the national security adviser to the president responded to Vice President JD Vance: “Typing too fast. The first target — their top missile guy — we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.”

Earlier in the exchange of messages, it wasn’t altogether clear that these profoundly unserious people really knew the intent of the president, who naturally initially denied any knowledge of the entire screw-up and then quickly pivoted to more gaslighting.

The Republican senators who voted to confirm people like Gabbard and Ratcliffe and continue to whistle past the national graveyard own this unfathomable chaos. Saying, as most of them did, that incompetent, unserious, careless and unqualified people were suitable for such important responsibilities because “the president is entitled to his team” looks increasingly like a death wish, a political death wish and we can pray not a death wish for all that America has stood for in the post-war world.

In the 71 days he’s been in office, Donald Trump has caved to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine, displayed utter disdain for our NATO allies, precipitated a profoundly stupid fight with Canada, threatened Greenland and Panama, floated the idea of forced relocation in Gaza in order to build a resort, set off a global trade war that has shaken markets and driven down consumer confidence, destroyed — or tried to destroy — vast parts of the federal government, shut down world-class health research, worsened a measles outbreak, caused numerous countries to issue travel warnings about visiting the U.S. and complained about his portrait in the Colorado state Capitol.

I’m just not used to the United States being the laughingstock of the world.

I’ve long thought this second version of the Trump administration would unravel very quickly and in very many ways. But frankly, the speed and scope of the unraveling is a surprise. And I can’t help but think how much the boys in the Kremlin and in Beijing are enjoying the unraveling. Every day they laugh at this chaos and, of course, benefit from it.

Send in the clowns. Don’t bother, they’re here.

 

Better measurements

You can’t manage if you can’t measure it, goes to the old management theory. But it doesn’t work smoothly in some places.

Like the Idaho Legislature.

If you’re inside the legislative bubble, one of the most common and persistent questions - and this is true going back generations, and probably in legislatures all over - is: When do we get out of here? For several decades, the Idaho Legislature has set, long before the session ever begins, a target date for adjournment (sine die, in the jargon). That’s the point by which, leaders figure, lawmakers should be able to wrap up business. This year the target was March 21.

You may have noticed that they didn’t hit that mark, and at this writing they’re still going strong. Odds are they have another week or more left to go. Last year the target was March 22; they didn’t hit that one either. In fact, they usually don’t.

There’s usually some self-flagellation and talk by critics about wasting money on a too-long session. I don’t see it that way. True, the legislature sometimes  has wasted some money - not large amounts, in the statewide scheme of things - in the course of hanging around longer than they really needed to. But I see the “targets” as a term of art, a calendar notation to indicate simply that things should be winding down around then.

Legislatures should keep after their work as long as they need to get it done properly. Efficiency is a virtue, but not at the expense of rushing to hasty and poorly thought-out decisions. (Which they nonetheless … well, that’s a subject for another time.) So I won’t knock them for taking a few more days than they might have planned.

There’s another oft-noted area of measure you can apply to legislatures: Volume of legislation. For whatever reason, many state legislatures (Oregon is another example) this year have been producing larger than usual numbers of measures: Bills, resolutions, memorials and so on.

In Idaho, the legislature as of March 28 (date of the most recent report on totals as this is written) showed that 1,003 new pieces of legislation have been formally prepared through the state system. That’s a little staggering. From most decades past, the number seemed to habitually run in the 600s and 700s. Four years ago, that number was 803, so in the last four years the number of new pieces of legislation pushed through into introductable format (run through legislative staff who put it in proper legal format) has increased by a quarter.

That number doesn’t include other pieces of legislature - “changes, amendments. and engrossments” - which also are prepared, and when they’re added, the number for this year for all new legislation rises to 1,323. That compares to 976 from four years ago, also a really large increase.

Little wonder there seems to be more discussion about putting ceilings on the number of measures that can be drafted and introduced in a session. (Many other states do have such practical limitations; some restrict individual legislators to introducing no more than a specific number of measures.)

If that happens, it wouldn’t necessarily affect the volume of new laws the public sees and actually has to live with. As of March 28, the legislature had actually passed (approved in both chambers and sent to the governor) just 250 bills, which is fewer than in any of the three previous sessions. Actual productivity, then, as opposed to generating a lot of paper on the front end, might be down a bit this year.

Does any of that matter?

I would say, not much. What’s important about the legislature’s work, or at least what ought to be considered most important, is not the quantity of the work but rather the quality. How well considered is the legislation?

More on that soon.

(image)

Look at it

Our legislature is wringing their hands and has their undies in a twist about our Idaho Medicaid costs. Or are they just still stinging from their folly?

I think they are still pissed that the voters overrode their negligence to expand Medicaid. It was a wise move, they passed on it, the voters didn’t, and the legislature is still pissed. We elect them, don’t we? These petulant people serve us.

I must applaud their bravery. Examining the costs of healthcare in this country takes patience, discipline and, yes courage. It sometimes takes the courage to admit you are wrong.

The map in white and green above these words shows the Medicaid expenditures per enrollee per year by county in these United (we hope still) States.

Examining our colossal boondoggle of health care in this country should unite us. Or we could go the other way.

Back to the map. Dark green is high cost per capita, white is low. Look at the map.

It is from a wonderful study out of the University of Washington we are soon to kick to the curb. The Idaho legislature no longer wants to be affiliated with such institutions.

Do you see Idaho on the map?

That’s where my eye went.

We are a vast state of white. There are a couple counties that are light green, and a couple others that are darker green. Hey Canyon and Twin Falls, what’s up?

But the takeaway here is that Idaho spends a lot less than most states on Medicaid health care costs.

So, just what is the legislature trying to solve here?

If they still are just butt hurt about the Medicaid expansion initiative, that’s not a very mature attitude.

But if they really think throwing Idaho Medicaid to the managed care wolves will assuage their pain, I am here to argue they are spending your dime to salve their crotches.

Well, it has been done. They voted for it, and our Governor signed it. Idaho Medicaid will be contracted out to some for-profit company in your portfolio. Maybe you’ll retire more comfortably. But will we all, us taxpayers, us citizens be better served?

This second map might help you.

This shows the states that have sent their Medicaid money down the managed care rabbit hole. Dark blue is all in, light blue less so, grey not at all, and Idaho, green, is trying managed care only in primary care settings. Idaho has been trying to incentivize primary care doctors to give good, quality care at low cost. This program has only had a couple of years to roll out.

Look at the maps. Compare both.

Look at South and North Dakota. Green and Blue costs pretty different. Maybe this primary care model works. But maybe not.

I think that’s why the Idaho legislative work group that was tasked with this conundrum made no recommendation. They honestly looked at maps like this and threw up their hands. That was a wise reaction. It will take more work.

Managing health care costs will be tough. There is no easy solution.

Just like looking at a map and deciding Twin Falls and Canyon County are slackers is not wise. Wisdom takes more effort.

And trust.

But now the die has been cast. Idaho will jump into contracting Medicaid through some big health care company. Will we be better served? Will the people on these services get better care? Do you even care?

Moving Medicaid to managed care has not saved most states money. Just look at the maps.

But that is what our legislature and our governor has decided is what’s best “for us”.

I believe we had a good plan. I believe managing primary care doctors was a wise move made by the legislature five years ago. It was based on good study and good advice. It was unwise to jump sideways this soon. But then, we elect them, don’t we?

 

More halls

In this heated political/governmental time, though far still from the next major elections (in the Northwest anyway), you wouldn't ordinarily expect an unusual amount of activity putting elected officials in front of groups of constituents.

An unusual amount of it does seem to be happening, though. In Oregon, and among Democrats, notably.

Some of this has long been institutionalized, especially by the two U.S. senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, who have been working through their tours of all the counties, as they have for years.

But the U.S. representatives (including Republican Cliff Bentz) have been visiting counties more rigorously than usual this year, sometimes along with the senators.

For members of Congress or governors to do something like this isn't far outside the norm. But others have begun doing it too.

Secretary of State Tobias Read has been undertaking a tour of counties, and especially their election offices.

And new Attorney General Dan Rayfield has started to do some of the same thing.

On Tuesday, his office "announced plans for a town hall series to connect with Oregonians in communities across the state. The "Safeguarding Oregon: Federal Oversight Forums" will launch in April."

The first three, running in April and early May, are planned for Eugene, Portland, and Bend, with others expected in the months to come.

Ordinarily, such event from an attorney general might seems like a non-starters. This is a guy most people expect to be in court (or supervising those who are), not out developing policy with the general public. But in fact, in this time of already-large and prospectively larger conflict with the Trump Administration, such events make perfect sense. People have a lot of questions, and the answers to some of them involve legal analysis. And the solutions often may have to do with legal action.

One of the major problems we have these days in serving as active citizens governing ourselves through elected officials is the information conundrum: Too much bad or false info0rmation and not enough that's really useful. Town hall meetings between constituents and officials are one way to cut out sometimes counterproductive middlemen (said as someone who sometimes fills that role).

More town halls? Bring em on.

(image)