Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Jones”

Elon’s database

May 12, 2025

A bipartisan group of state attorneys general should be commended for calling public attention to the need for Americans to protect the privacy of their generic data. The AGs warn that about 15 million customers of DNA testing company 23andMe are in danger of having their personal genetic information fall into unsafe hands because of the company’s bankruptcy. The AGs advise customers on how to protect their data.

Unfortunately, an infinitely more dangerous threat to the intimate personal data of most Americans has been developing at the hands of Elon Musk since January of this year. While the frequently-advertised objective of Musk’s DOGE gang has been to ferret out governmental waste, it has become increasingly clear that an underlying purpose is to develop a massive federal database of most Americans. As one informed observer has put it, “DOGE teams have grabbed personal data about U.S. residents from dozens of federal databases and are reportedly merging it into a master database at the Department of Homeland Security.”

There have been numerous reports of DOGE unlawfully breaking into secure federal databases and exfiltrating information in violation of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974. Those agencies include the Social Security Administration, which holds massive amounts of sensitive financial and medical data for about 70 million Americans. Another major data source for the master database is the Internal Revenue Service, which contains bank account numbers, investments and a trove of other confidential information in roughly 270 million tax returns that individuals, businesses and nonprofits file each year. Veterans have a well-founded fear that their benefit information is at risk.

Several courts have ordered Musk to stop these lawless actions, but there has been such an onslaught against so many agencies, large and small, that it has been a difficult task to restrain him. Even when a federal district judge ordered Musk to stop his quest for personally-identifiable Social Security information and purge any such information already obtained, it does not appear that any was purged. Instead, federal lawyers appealed to a federal appeals court, where they lost again, and they are now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they will likely lose. But that will not likely stop them.

And, it isn’t as if the DOGE crew is being transparent about the data theft from the various agencies. DOGE staffers are reportedly using their “excessive and unprecedented system access to intentionally cover their tracks and avoid oversight so that they can creep on Americans’ data from the shadows.”

Whenever Musk’s foraging through private government data is publicly reported, Trump officials write it off as just trying to ensure that undocumented immigrants are not receiving improper government benefits. There is no credible evidence to support the contention that there is significant fraud in benefit systems. The White House has also admitted that federal databases are being merged in order to track down and deport immigrants. Indeed, in early April, a story broke that data collected on some 6,300 migrants had resulted in their being placed in Social Security’s “death master file” in hopes of forcing them to “self-deport.” Those in the death file are cut off from using bank accounts, credit cards and all other financial services. It is literally a financial death and was intended to include only those who were actually deceased.

There is great concern that the targeting of migrants with the powerful master database could be a test run for using that system against U.S. citizens who oppose Trump policies. Trump has issued dozens of so-called executive orders unlawfully targeting a wide array of individuals, businesses and nonprofits that he regards as having slighted or opposed him over the years. Having a powerful database containing private personal information to intimidate and extort those who he dislikes would greatly enhance his ability to get even or bend them to his will. The database would allow the swift location of “compromising information about his political opponents.”

Almost everyone has information in one federal database or another that could be embarrassing, at minimum, if released publicly–questionable tax deductions, mental health expenses, military discipline, habitual gambling, marital difficulties, whatever. If a defense attorney or federal judge has an important case affecting a Trump action, a quick journey through the comprehensive database might solve the problem.

We do know that dictators and dictator wannabes deem it essential to have all of the information possible about potential adversaries. Communist China has massive amounts of information at hand about every resident within its borders. The Trump database is not as comprehensive, but it is the best start in the United States since 1776. The potential for misuse is frightening and we must take corrective action to stop it before it devours our democratic republic.

 

Why the silence?

Why the silence?

May 5, 2025

Although Jim Risch is one of those Congressional lifers who does not have a particularly distinguished record on domestic issues, he has exercised good sense on some national security issues. He has long seen the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) as an essential component of America’s national defense. For instance, in 2023 he called NATO “the most successful political and defensive organization that’s ever been on the face of the planet.” He elaborated: “NATO is important because the national security of the United States of America is the most important issue that the federal government exists for. And there is nothing that gives us better security than the NATO organization.”

Risch has correctly understood that the national security of the United States and other NATO nations would be seriously endangered if Russia were to win its genocidal war against Ukraine. In December of 2022, the Senator listed a long list of actions he had taken that year to “ensure Ukraine has the equipment and support it needs to win.” It included his Senate Resolution 713, condemning Putin’s genocidal war against the Ukrainians, including countless “heinous crimes against humanity.”

Risch has sounded the alarm that, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine” if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison.” That is, a win by Russia in Ukraine would lead to a follow-on attack against some of our NATO partners, which would require the United States to enter the hostilities. It does not get more serious than that.

The US has stood strong with Ukraine because of the threat the war poses to US security. President Biden could have been more forceful in providing sophisticated weapons and few restrictions on their usage. Nevertheless, the Ukrainians were able to hold their own, largely because they were fighting for their very freedom and existence. The US was filling the support role that France had played during the dark days of America's Revolutionary War, a role that was instrumental in the birth of our nation.

Tragically, that all changed on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump assumed the presidency and began unraveling the NATO alliance, as well as our support for Ukraine. We have seen American support for Ukraine evaporating at an alarming rate. Trump consistently pushes the false claim that Ukraine started the war. His United Nations delegation even joined Russia, North Korea, Iran and 13 other cut-throat nations in voting against a resolution condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine. Trump has floated a so-called peace plan that will give Putin practically everything he wants, while seriously endangering the future existence of Ukraine as a sovereign and free nation. The peace deal would leave all of the NATO nations on the Russian border in imminent danger.

As this disastrous situation plays out at a rapid and frightening pace, we hear very few Republican voices in Congress speaking out and sounding the alarm. One who stands out is Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican and retired Air force Brigadier General, who implored Trump and Congress to continue our support of Ukraine and “advance America’s long-term national interests in the process.”

With his strong past support for NATO and Ukraine and a clear understanding of the approaching calamity, it is inexplicable that Senator Risch, the Chairman of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would not be raising the roof and demanding a change of course. If we sell out Ukraine and allow it to fall to Putin’s atrocious war, it will be a disaster for that gallant nation and a contemptible stain on America’s honor.

If Putin’s war is genocidal, as both Risch and I believe, silence and non-action on the part of one who is in a position to speak out and avert it is cowardice of the first order. It amounts to complicity in the slaughter and enslavement of Ukrainians that will inevitably follow. What could possibly explain Risch’s failure to rally opposition to this travesty? Perhaps a change of heart on the critical importance of Ukraine and NATO? Or, maybe a pat on the head and a coveted endorsement from Trump for six more years in the prestigious US Senate?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Dick the Butcher

Dick the Butcher

April 7, 2025

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)

 

Remembering Vietnam

March 31, 2025

March 29 is Vietnam War Veterans Day, the day set aside to remember and honor those who served in that ill-fated war. A phone call earlier this month brought to mind a perfect example of what dedicated service-to-country looks like. My friend, James Peterson, called to say that he would be undergoing surgery for a dangerous cancer, likely the result of his substantial exposure to Agent Orange during two tours of service with the Special Forces (SF) in Vietnam. It hit me hard because here was a man who had dedicated his life to standing up for his country and now was faced with a hefty price.

I met James in August 2006 at the 40th reunion of the Twin Falls High School’s Class of 1966 (my wife, Kelly, is a member of the class). We were at the City Park, refurbishing the memorial dedicated on Memorial Day in 1967 to those from Twin Falls County who died in the war. Seventeen names, starting with Major James H. Allred in 1963 and ending with PFC Fred S. Smart in 1970, were eventually placed on the memorial plaque. James spent many hours over the years, helping to keep up the memorial.

In that initial conversation, we established that we’d both been stationed in Tay Ninh Province in 1968–he at the Thien Ngon SF camp 71 miles northwest of Saigon and me with a heavy artillery unit near Tay Ninh City. The strangest thing happened when I mentioned that, as an aerial artillery spotter, I’d destroyed a river bridge south of Thien Ngon that enemy fighters used to transport weapons and supplies. James went to his car, opened the trunk, and brought back a picture of that very bridge. We bonded immediately.

It was not until years later we pieced together the fact that we had likely met at the Thien Ngon SF camp on September 30, 1968. He was the communications specialist at the camp; the SF commander for the Province was flying me around to introduce me to the artillery customers I would be serving. The Thien Ngon camp was in extremely hostile territory. Two days previously, it had been ferociously attacked by an estimated two battalions of North Vietnamese soldiers. The scars of the battle were still evident.

As Stars and Stripes described the battle, the Communists fired about 1,000 rockets, mortar rounds and grenades into the relatively small camp, then suffered 130 dead in trying but failing to overrun it. The six companies of Vietnamese defenders suffered 4 dead. Thirteen were wounded, including 4 SF advisors. James was not one of them. James described the event as just business as usual those many years later.

James’ service to the country did not stop there. Although I never asked him how he used his remarkable communication skills during the next several decades and he never explained, I have the abiding feeling he kept serving the country in a clandestine capacity. He commented in one reunion booklet that he’d had the “opportunity to work in communications and other fields and live in so many different countries both friendly and unfriendly.” James lived in The Bahamas for 19 years on his catamaran “Bifrost” until it was destroyed in a hurricane in 2019.

James made frequent visits to the Boise VA Hospital for a variety of conditions related to his service. Having been a gung-ho parachute jumper in his Army days (and perhaps in his later endeavors), his lower extremities needed frequent medical care. For a while, he parked a camp trailer on one of the two camper lots at the facility. He was and is a big fan of the VA Hospital.

We spoke after his recent surgery and he reported doing well. He has three daughters and one son, ten grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren. He should have plenty of time and opportunity with them in this final chapter of his life to make up for his numerous years of dedicated service to his country.

In everything James has done, he has shunned publicity and recognition by way of medals, decorations and the like. He would be rather unhappy to know that I’m paying this tribute to his life of service. However, I can’t think of a better person to remember on Vietnam War Veterans Day than James Peterson, who came from tough beginnings to be a true patriot and fine example. Thanks, Brother.

 

Defending our vets

Defending our vets

March 24, 2025

Veteran programs are in the sights of Russell Vought, who currently controls America’s purse strings. The US Constitution gave Congress that crucial responsibility, but our present GOP Congress has largely given over its power to Vought, who is now the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House. While multi-billionaire Elon Musk is slicing and dicing governmental agencies, Vought is making the financial calls that guide both Musk and the Congress. The consequences are starting to show up both on the national level and here in the Gem State.

A little background provides insight into what America’s veterans can expect. Vought was an architect of Project 2025, which called for major changes to veterans programs.

The plan is to slash staffing, reduce the disability rolls and privatize many services now performed by the VA. Those changes are now being implemented by Vought’s OMB.

The chaos started with the firing of about 2,400 VA employees. That disrupted treatment studies for advanced cancer cases and interrupted patient care across the country. The effects were felt at the Boise VA Hospital, where 14 employees were let go. Some were mission-critical personnel, who provided direct services to veterans. A federal judge found that the VA employees were unlawfully terminated and ordered their reinstatement. It remains to be seen whether the VA will obey the order.

Those initial firings are to be followed with the termination of about 83,000 more VA employees. A significant number of those staffers were hired to administer the PACT Act. That legislation was enacted in 2022 for the purpose of providing health care and benefits to veterans who suffered cancer and other ailments from exposure to toxic elements dating back to the 1960s.

Following the First Gulf War, veterans began complaining about a myriad of health problems they attributed to breathing toxic fumes from burn pits that were used for disposal purposes. The VA routinely denied benefits unless the veterans could furnish proof positive of the service connection. That was virtually impossible without strong scientific evidence. Similar claims were raised by veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of those claims were similarly denied.

The service connection between the exposure to toxins and the resulting diseases was firmly established by scientific evidence in 2009, leading to the eventual passage of the PACT Act. The Act extended care and benefits to veterans with illnesses related to burn pit toxins, as well as those suffering from several types of cancer caused by exposure to Agent Orange, dating back to the 1960s.

Previous to the PACT Act, claims for pancreatic cancer were routinely denied. The Act presumes pancreatic cancer to be service connected where exposure to Agent Orange is shown. I mention that because I was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2017 and always thought it was related to my exposure to Agent Orange. I’d managed to beat the cancer and never needed or obtained VA help to get the job done. It cost about $750,000 to overcome the disease, mostly Medicare and private insurance, but I often think of veterans who did not have those resources available and could not get VA help. The country finally came through for them.

Passage of the Pact Act was not easy because Vought and his allies strongly opposed it. As head of OMB, he is in a position to completely defund it. All four members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation voted against the PACT Act. Senators Risch and Crapo voted against the bill on three separate occasions.

OMB Director Vought, Project 2025 and the Idaho delegation may have the last say in denying medical care and benefits to veterans who are suffering from exposure to burn pit toxins and Agent Orange. The continuing resolution to fund the government until September does not provide funding for the PACT Act. I sincerely hope Congress will deal separately with this critical issue in the meantime. If not, there will likely be a need for more military funerals in the next six months.

 

Endangering pregnant women

March 17, 2025

Most lawyers will take a hint from the courts when they are told a legal argument does not hold water. Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador is a rare exception. Despite having been told by three different courts–Idaho’s Federal District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals–that his argument on Idaho’s total abortion ban is wrong-headed, he keeps making the same losing argument.

Labrador contends that Idaho’s abortion law is Identical in effect to a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires most hospitals to give stabilizing care to pregnant women who come to the emergency room with life-threatening complications.

After three strikes against him over the last couple of years, Labrador was at it again on March 5, trying to convince the federal judge in Idaho, who first ruled against him, that he was right this time around. The judge did not seem to be buying the same old argument this time, mainly because it was dead wrong. The judge inquired of Labrador’s deputy at the hearing whether he should “substitute the attorney general’s judgment over what the doctors decided.” It was a good question because Labrador does not have any medical credentials. Just because he somehow managed to obtain a Juris Doctor degree does not mean courts should give weight to his medical views.

The crux of the case is whether the emergency care required by EMTALA can include abortion care. Idaho’s total abortion ban only allows an abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” That means the woman must be on death’s doorstep before she can get any necessary care. The doctor is allowed to make that call “in his good faith medical judgment” but, if that call is questioned by a prosecutor, he or she can spend from 2 to 5 years in prison. An overzealous prosecutor can usually find an expert witness who will testify that such a call was wrong. With a loaded gun pointed at the doctor's head, it is understandable that doctors will perform few medically-necessary abortions. Labrador seems to be indifferent to the fact that coercing doctors out of making a correct, life-saving decision will cause women to suffer, perhaps die.

We see no other occupation where making a questioned call can result in a prison sentence. If a stock advisor caused you to buy Tesla stock in January, the advisor can’t be sent to prison because the stock has since tanked. If you buy a steer for the family freezer that turns out to be diseased, the stockman can’t be imprisoned. If an attorney makes the same unsound, losing argument to 3 different courts in the same case, he won’t face any prison time.

After the Idaho District Judge ruled that the two laws were not the same and that EMTALA trumped Idaho’s total ban, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court refused to buy Labrador’s argument that the two laws were the same. A “frustrated” conservative Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, asked Labrador’s deputy, “If there’s no instance where EMTALA and Idaho law clash, then why are you here?” The Court seemed to be impressed that 6 pregnant women had to be transported out of the State of Idaho to get appropriate care during a three-month period when Idaho’s total ban had been in effect. The Supreme Court rejected Labrador’s arguments, allowing emergency care under EMTALA to continue.

The case went back to the Ninth Circuit Court, which refused, also, to buy Labrador’s argument. One judge asked Labrador’s deputy if the appeal was “an exercise in futility,” noting that Idaho had suffered no injury from giving priority to EMTALA.

That brings us back to the March 5 hearing before the federal judge in Idaho. It is likely that the judge will again hold that EMTALA takes priority over Idaho’s total ban. The lawsuit is now being pursued against Labrador by St. Luke’s Health Systems. The federal government bowed out of the case, undoubtedly at Labrador’s urging. True to form, he continues to insist that “there is absolutely no conflict between Idaho’s law and EMTALA,” despite all of the court determinations to the contrary.

This would all be rather comical, if it did not cause such fear and heartache for pregnant women who develop life-threatening complications necessitating emergency care. Not only are they exposed to great medical danger, but they can also lose a treasured addition to their families–all for the glory of a misguided, and not very competent, political climber. Reasonable lawyers know when to quit beating a dead political horse.