Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Malloy”

Not queen for a day

malloy

Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, who served as a state representative from Idaho Falls for a decade (2002-2012), has said often that she needed some time off from state politics to reflect and gain some perspective.

So when she was elected as lieutenant governor in 2018, becoming the first woman to win that office in the state’s history, McGeachin had a different outlook to go along with a promising political future.

Now, through a bizarre set of circumstances brought on by herself, McGeachin has turned Idaho – and herself -- into a national laughingstock. She has gained national attention from the Washington Post and CNN (among other outlets) for being that crazy lieutenant governor who decided to go rogue when Gov. Brad Little was out of the state.

In general terms, nothing good comes from a lieutenant governor who makes “news” when the governor is away for a few days. For McGeachin, a candidate for governor, it’s not the kind of attention she needs.

Personally, I prefer the “old” version of McGeachin to the one I’ve been seeing.

I had the opportunity to work with McGeachin during part of her time in the Legislature, serving as communication adviser for the House Republican caucus. She was well respected and mixed well with the conservative nature of the House. There was no pressing need for a right-wing “liberty” caucus and there was no Idaho Freedom Foundation keeping a scorecard on votes. The caucus, with few exceptions, was solidly on conservative ground.

When McGeachin was appointed to the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, I saw how seriously she took that position. The preparation was extensive, and she took no shortcuts. After I had left, she was appointed chair of the Health and Welfare Committee – another challenging assignment. At home, she sailed through primary elections without opposition.

Now here she is, pathetically trying to explain away an executive order aimed at bolstering a campaign that appears to be floundering, at best. The wheels of Little’s plane were barely off the ground when she fired off a press release with this headline: “Today I took action to protect our children from vaccine passports.”

Little, who was in Texas talking with Republican governors about solutions to the border crisis, didn’t even wait to get home before reversing her action.

McGeachin says the media and critics have it wrong. “When Gov. Little has a temporary absence from the state, it is my duty and responsibility to perform such duties as acting governor until the governor returns to that state. That’s exactly what I did,” she said.

Of course, the constitution says nothing about McGeachin treating the governorship as her personal queendom – which is “exactly” what she did.

But there’s more. To McGeachin’s chagrin, the governor’s office revealed her communication with the adjutant general about deploying the National Guard, presumably to the southern border. “As acting governor, it is important that I understand all aspects of the job so that I can properly serve the people of Idaho.”

Balderdash. A few days as “acting governor” under an archaic rule does not change the fact that Little is Idaho’s duly elected governor. For practical purposes, he is perfectly capable of reacting to emergencies, or deploying the National Guard, whether he is in Texas or anywhere else.

Up to now, there has been no pressing need to change that old constitutional rule. Lieutenant governors have recognized that serving as “acting governor” does not equate to the beginning of a new administration.

But up to now, we haven’t had a lieutenant governor like McGeachin. Jim Jones, a former attorney general and Supreme Court Justice, said it well in a CNN clip. “This is the only lieutenant governor that I can recall that has acted like an idiot.”

So, how is all this showboating working in her campaign for governor? Maybe not so well. According to Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News, McGeachin has raised just over $100,000 – which is well behind Little, who has not yet announced plans for re-election. She also trails in fund-raising to Ed Humphreys, a relatively unknown candidate who may emerge as the leading “conservative alternative” to Little if McGeachin continues with these stunts.

If she wants to get her campaign on track, McGeachin may need to show a little more of the old version of herself – opposed to the loose cannon that she has become.

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

Souza’s warning

malloy

So, you think that Idaho elections are safe and secure? Sen. Mary Souza of Coeur d’Alene disagrees – strongly enough to pursue a political career change.

The four-term Republican senator is running for secretary of state in next year’s GOP primary, and while she does not have the experience of running elections as her two opponents, she has definite thoughts about finding and fixing problems associated with Idaho’s election system.

This race is a good one. It includes Phil McGrane, perhaps the political “establishment” favorite, who is the Ada County clerk and often a media go-to source for information about elections. Chad Houck, the secretary of state’s chief deputy, knows how the office works and is looking to succeed his boss, Lawerence Denney, who is retiring. Souza is a proven conservative and strong communicator who has a message that strikes a nerve with a generous number of Republicans.

Her interest in the secretary of state’s job is not out of the blue. She told Denney about her thoughts about seeking the secretary of state’s job soon after he was re-elected three years ago; his announced retirement this year opened the door. Her skepticism about elections goes back to 2009 when observing a court case over a local election that was decided by five votes.

“I thought at the time that elections were pretty cut and dry and that we could depend on the security of elections, but this is not what came out in this court case,” she said.

And today, Souza does not buy the notion that elections in Idaho, or anywhere else, are squeaky clean. More than a few Idaho Republicans will nod their heads in agreement – especially those who think Donald Trump won the presidential race.

If Souza wins, don’t expect a push for Washington State’s style of vote-by-mail. She’ll also be on the lookout for involvement from “liberal technology companies” in elections.

“As technology changes and cultures change, we need to be update our accessibility and the way we protect our rights,” Souza told the Coeur d’Alene Press. “There are always people in other places in the world and even in our country who want to do things in a less-than-honest way to get their results.”

As for Idaho elections, she said, “We may think that Idaho is invincible when it comes to elections. We are an independent state where people have guns, are conservative and think we are great when it comes to elections.”

But she says there are vulnerabilities, more than some of Idaho’s top election officials will admit.

For instance, “Do you think we have voter ID in Idaho? We do not. If you go to the polls to vote, they will ask you for your photo ID. If you don’t have it, they will give you a piece of paper and have you sign your name, promising that you are who you say you are, and then you cast a ballot. Think of the mischief and how that can be misused … and it could be misused on a large scale,” she said.

“We need to focus attention and effort to make sure that Idaho elections are as safe and honest as they can be,” she said. “None of us knew that elections in 2020 would put this massive spotlight on secretaries of state. But if you look at polls, people are saying that election integrity is their No. 1 issue.”

Souza says there are other bugs in the election system, in addition to the flawed voter ID. Souza serves on a national panel called “Honest Elections Project,” and says she has heard horror stories about elections through swing-state legislators in the group.

“In the wake of last year’s tumultuous election, it’s clear that to preserve voters’ faith and trust in our democratic process, we must safeguard election integrity,” she said in her announcement.

During her years as a senator, Souza said she has been at the center of 13 election-related bills. Policy issues, ultimately, will remain with the Legislature if she wins the office, but she says she will work with legislators – from both houses and both parties – to shore up election laws as needed and ensure that the system is fair for all.

Her opponents may argue that elections are fair for all on the large scale and experience in running elections counts. With Souza in the mix, this campaign will not be boring.

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

Muting Biden

malloy

When the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gets an opportunity to question the secretary of the state, you normally can prepare for a deep and mind-numbing conversation about global politics.

Or, in the case of Idaho Sen. Jim Risch’s recent grilling of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, there are many hot-button issues to spice up the proceedings. They could have talked about the mess at the border, the disastrous developments in Afghanistan, or Risch’s claim that President Biden’s foreign policy is mismanaged.
Instead, Risch used his time for a not-so-compelling discussion about mute buttons, and the effort by White House staffers to selectively silence the president.

“Someone has the authority to cut off the president. Who is that person?” Risch asked, saying it happened during the president’s recent visit to Idaho. Blinken, not surprisingly, said that he was not aware of anyone using a mute button. Betsy Russell of the Idaho Press, who was among the pool reporters in the room, wrote in her commentary that no one pulled the plug on the president. Critics labeled the senator’s line of questioning as a waste of time.

Risch, of course, would never ask such questions during the Trump presidency – where the senator was a committee chairman and valuable part of the inner circle. But the politics are different with a Democrat in the White House, and Risch being on the outside.

The implication from Risch’s questions was that, our 78-year-old president isn’t all there mentally – something that Blinken would never acknowledge even if it were true. So if the president is a few bricks shy of a load on the mental end, and Risch knows something about it, then there’s reason to bring up the matter in a public setting. As any good teacher will say, the only “dumb questions” are the ones not asked.

Risch had some foundation to his questions. Politico published a story recently (citing White House officials as sources) saying that when Biden gives public remarks, “staffers will either mute him or turn off his remarks.” The same story said that advisers encourage their boss to essentially stay with the script and not answer spontaneous questions from the media.

The New York Post offered its account of what happened when Biden was in Boise, saying that an official White House livestream of the president was abruptly cut off in mid-sentence – without warning -- as Biden was asking a question of a forest official.

The Post described the matter in Boise as only “the latest example” of the White House cutting off its online coverage of the president.

Biden has admitted to being a “gaffe machine,” which must drive his entourage nuts. As the Politico story indicates, White House staffers have made an effort to minimize those blunders. But when a president is knocking on the door of 80, there will be questions about whether he’s just too old to be president. We heard those whispers during the second half of President Reagan’s term, and to a lesser extent, during the Trump years.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m 71 – and 78 doesn’t look so old. Risch is just a year younger than Biden and shows no signs of slowing down. But there’s a difference between being a U.S. senator from Idaho and the leader of the free world. As for myself, an unpaid political columnist, I’m not in either league -- unless you think the weight of the world hinges on bad golf.

The good thing about Biden is that he acts and sounds presidential for the most part. The bad thing is that he looks and sounds like an old man, which makes him an inviting target for Republicans over the next three years – or until Trump rides to the rescue in 2024.

Of course, Trump will be 78 years old by then, so be careful what you wish for.

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

Gunfight at the N.Y. Corral

malloy

It might seem strange for an Idaho congressman to get involved with gun laws in New York. But it’s not surprising when that congressman is Russ Fulcher, who will dive into almost anything when he thinks that Second Amendment rights are at stake.

Fulcher has joined a host of House Republicans who, along with the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, are challenging the state’s restrictive licensing regulations.

“It is deeply upsetting to hear about how New York, and not just New York but many other states as well, have begun to chip away at one of our most fundamental rights – the right to defend ourselves and our families,” Fulcher says.

The domino theory comes into play here as far as gun advocates are concerned. Any number of states could follow what New York does with gun laws.

But the situation with the licensing laws (pardon the pun) is “small potatoes” compared to what’s happening with the National Rifle Association in New York.

Attorney General Letitia James was elected in 2018 on the promise to bring down the NRA and she’s made life uncomfortable for the powerful lobbying organization. She has challenged (among other things) the NRA’s non-profit status and the NRA has responded with a slew of measures to ensure its house is in order. But court activity is a long way from being over.

According to Andrew Arulanandam, a longtime spokesman for the lobbying organization, there are other forces working against the NRA – including President Biden and the Democrats who control both houses of Congress.

“We’re not under siege because we did anything wrong … we have done everything right,” said Arulanandam. “Over the years, a very powerful political force has tried to bring us down. It includes Michael Bloomberg who embarked on a gun-control crusade. He has spent billions of dollars trying to bring us down and defeat us at the congressional level, the state level and in the courts. And we have prevailed through all of that.”

Arulanandam is no stranger to Idaho politics. He’s a Boise State University graduate and worked on the staffs and campaigns for former Sen. (and Gov.) Dirk Kempthorne. He has been with the NRA for more than 20 years.

The NRA bills itself as a non-partisan organization, but in realistic terms, it’s attractive only to Republicans. The NRA is in the center of controversy, and often viewed as a scapegoat, whenever a mass shooting occurs. What follows those events are the usual calls for more laws, along with the NRA’s well-worn response that law-abiding citizens are not to blame.

Former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who has been on the NRA’s board of directors since 1982, has seen dramatic changes at the board level. The “Blue Dog” Democrats from the south, who were supporters of the NRA, have been replaced by Republicans and the Democrats of today are nowhere to be found within in the NRA ranks.

“Over the years, the Democratic Party found guns to be a winning issue for them,” Craig said. Today, if you are endorsing the Democratic platform, then you’ve got to be anti-gun. Has the NRA changed during that time? No. What I like to say is that we are the largest civil rights organization out there – standing up for the rights guaranteed in our constitution.”

The New York politicos have a quite different view. Arulanandam says that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for one, has made it clear that those who do business with the NRA, will not do business with the state of New York.

“People started dropping us, even though it was a clear violation of the First Amendment,” Arulanandam said. “That’s what Cuomo did, and he was applauded by the media. So, we are up against the New York political machine. Added to that, there’s a Biden administration that is extremely hostile toward guns. That’s cause for concern for gun owners across the country and in Idaho.”

Arulanandam says the NRA is fighting back, with the help of supporters. “We have strength in numbers – about five-million dues-paying members and more than 100-million gun owners.”

Craig sees New York’s case against the NRA weakening and, eventually, the organization will settle into a friendlier home in Texas. “The attack in New York should be seen for what it is. It’s a political stunt.”

And it’s a “stunt” that could lead James to the governorship if the stars line up right.

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

McGeachin and the vaccines

malloy

Breaking news from Lt. Gov. (and Republican gubernatorial candidate) Janice McGeachin:

If you received a COVID vaccine within the last 28 days, there’s a good chance that you will die soon. So, get your estate planning in order, your life insurance policy paid up and make a visit to your local funeral-home director for final arrangements.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here … Yikes!

That’s no joke, according to McGeachin’s recent newsletter. She says that 69.49 percent of people who have died within 28 days of a positive COVID test were fully vaccinated and she’s calling on Gov. Brad Little to pay attention to those numbers.

Of course, this isn’t something coming from the Centers for Disease Control or the National Institutes of Health – government agencies that those of McGeachin’s ilk think are controlled by communists and socialists. Her findings don’t come from health experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, who obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And there’s no consultation with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, or Idaho hospital administrators who have been dealing with the coronavirus for the last year and a half.

McGeachin’s “study” comes from the British Health Ministry, which bases its numbers on just over 1,000 fully-vaccinated patients in the UK – with almost 70 percent dying after a positive COVID test. Her release doesn’t say they died as a result of COVID, or a vaccine – they just died. The Post Register found several health and research experts who lampooned the lieutenant governor’s findings, calling them “misleading.”

But those numbers from far-away lands is enough for McGeachin to issue a call to action, which starts with the governor bringing the Legislature back into session to stop companies (and hospital administrators) from forcing employees to get vaccines.

“Governor Little, you’ve now been given notice of this issue,” she says. “The CDC is planning to release updated guidance on a third dose of the vaccine, because its efficiency is rapidly declining. The consequences of this are playing out in a nightmare scenario in Israel. What good is a vaccine if you need to take boosters every six to 12 months?”

Lately, the governor has been involved with other tasks – such as directing the National Guard to help hospitals that are overwhelmed with unvaccinated COVID patients. He also gives a pitch to Idahoans to get vaccinated.

“Idaho hospitals are beyond constrained,” Little says. “Our health care system is designed to deal with the everyday realities of life. Our health care system is not designed to withstand the prolonged strain caused by an unrestrained global pandemic. It is simply not sustainable. Please choose to receive the vaccine now to support your fellow Idahoans who need you.”

Those words are no comfort to McGeachin, who labels the governor’s pitch as “shameful.” She points to another study that suggests that natural COVID immunity is “far superior” to the immunity gained by the vaccine.

“Now for the big question: Why is Governor Little allowing companies to force-vaccinate Idahoans when the data is clear that they may be significantly worse off health-wise if they get vaccinated? People have a right to be skeptical about getting vaxxed. It’s a personal choice and I don’t believe the government, or any other private entity, should be forcing people to take a chance that bypassed all the normal safety and testing procedures, which often take years to properly conduct,” McGeachin says.

“If we allow these companies to force-vaccinate their employees, and we know the vaccine could increase mortality over that of an unvaccinated person, then every politician who allows this should be made accountable. Government’s job is to stop such an injustice and now it appears our governor is allowing it to happen with his blessing.”

For those who have been vaccinated, she says, “we need to monitor their health and make sure they are properly taken care of like we do for any other Idaho citizen.”

It’s easy to sneer and jeer at McGeachin, if you have been vaccinated and have no regrets. She isn’t going to win arguments with that crowd, which doesn’t necessarily vote in primaries.

The base that she is playing to – those who put her a heartbeat from the governor’s office in 2018 -- vote religiously in primary elections.
 

Malek’s campaign

malloy

I have talked with a few people who are hoping that former state Rep. Luke Malek of Coeur d’Alene would drop out of the race for lieutenant governor, clearing the way for House Speaker Scott Bedke to win the race in next year’s Republican primary.

It’s not that people dislike Malek, or have a strong preference toward Bedke. The fear is that Malek and Bedke will split the vote – giving the GOP nomination, and essentially the office, to Rep. Priscilla Giddings of White Bird, a strong supporter of the Idaho Freedom Foundation and a favorite of the party’s right wing. It’s the same conservative tide that helped Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin win in 2018.

Malek is fully aware of recent political history, but his message is clear. He’s in the race to stay and thinks he has a path to win the nomination. He was the first to announce for the office, and sees his support growing as he travels the Gem State.
There’s no need to back out now.

“There are always ‘what ifs’ with almost any campaign,” Malek said. “But I would bring positive leadership to the office and I think Idahoans are ready for that. I’m the only candidate who brings a vision for that office.”

Of course, voters will need to decide how much vision they want for an otherwise mundane office. Constitutionally, the job description can be boiled down to a sentence – preside over the Senate when the Legislature is in session and serve as “acting governor” when the real governor is out of town.

Beyond that, Malek wants to be an advocate for law enforcement, help spur economic development and promote education. Giddings, a leader in the battle against the teaching of critical race theory, is sure to fight for the causes promoted by the Idaho Freedom Foundation and others. Bedke would play a more traditional role, working as a partner with the governor (if Gov. Brad Little wins re-election) and using the position as a nice landing spot until he runs for governor in 2026.

The IFF, and those of Giddings’ ilk, have issues with Bedke (for not calling the Legislature in a special session to ban vaccine mandates) and Malek (for being too liberal). Malek has made it clear over the years that he’s no fan of the IFF and argues that he is the “true conservative” in the race.

“True conservatives stand for smaller government,” he says in a fund-raising letter. “True conservatives don’t tell employers how to run their businesses. True conservatives understand that employers and employees both have to take personal responsibility for the choices they make.”

Malek takes a swipe at McGeachin and others for their demands for a special session. Bedke, not surprisingly, has ignored those calls.

“If employers make decisions that violate the principles of employees, those employees have the right to leave,” Malek says. “If employees make decisions that violate the principles of an employer, the employer has the power to terminate that employee.”

Generally, those are the rules of the road in an “at-will” state. Employers can fire employees for any reason – and up to now there has been no sentiment among Republicans to change those parameters.

“True conservatives don’t call on the Legislature to come back and violate all of those principles,” Malek says.

Those comments are not the mark of a candidate that is about to drop out of a political race. At 39 years old, and with most of our top leaders pretty long in the tooth, Malek thinks it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of leaders.

We’ll see what the future holds.

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

Afghanistan bashing

malloy

Republicans are having a field day going after President Biden … and to think, we’re more than a year away until the mid-term elections.

The president already has been catching heat from the GOP on his proposed $3.5 trillion spending spree that’s before Congress, which has provided plenty of press-release fodder for Idaho Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo. Risch has branded the plan as an attempt by Biden and Democrats to turn the U.S. into a socialist nation. Crapo has called the plan “reckless.” Being in the minority, there’s not much Risch and Crapo can do to stop that Democratic steamroller, aside from expressing their objections and casting “no” votes.

But the spending package is, excuse the pun, small potatoes compared to the president’s recent actions in Afghanistan. And not all the heat has come from the GOP side, although Republicans have been quite vocal.

Risch, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the president’s action was taken “without any clear plan to protect our interests, our citizens and our closest friends.” Afghanistan will now serve as a future platform for terrorist attacks against the United States and allies.

“The Taliban always has and always will be a terrorist organization, and it will support al Qaeda’s re-emergence. We cannot treat it or its leaders as a legitimate government,” Risch said. “The situation at the Kabul airport only highlights how little thought the Biden administration put into taking care of American interests. President Biden and his administration must answer for this disaster. It didn’t have to be this way.”

Crapo said the “haphazard withdrawal” from Afghanistan “is a failure of presidential leadership and was based on an arbitrary timeline, not on-the-ground intelligence.”

Former President Trump weighed in, calling Biden’s action “an embarrassment.” Of course, there’s no guarantee that Trump – who wanted American troops out by May 1, would have produced a better result. He talks tough about what he would do with the Taliban, but any kind of retaliation would have been tough with American troops getting out of Dodge4. One thing that is fairly certain is that Idaho senators would have put the best spin on the situation if Trump’s exit plan had failed.

But political speculation only counts in coffee shops. Whether Trump would have done better or worse is a matter of debate for the television talking heads. Biden has to live in real time and should be judged accordingly.

One point that most people seem to agree with is that withdrawal needed to happen at some point – whether it was May 1, or today.

“President Biden is right to call for an end to the 20-year war,” said former Idaho Democratic Congressman Larry LaRocco. “Like the English and Russians before us, we were viewed as invaders and occupiers. This perception fueled the national will of the Taliban. Our mission in Afghanistan ended with Bin Laden’s death. President Biden kept his word. The focus on counter-terrorism, humanitarian relief and refugees must now begin in concert with the world community.”

But did it have to be this messy? The president expressed “surprise” that the Taliban worked so rapidly in taking over Afghanistan. This revelation came from a man who served eight years as vice president and a long career in the Senate overseeing foreign policy.

Former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, for one, isn’t buying the president’s explanation.
“He miscalculated? We saw them riding to Kabul on their horses. Hell, you could see the dust clouds on the horizon. They were coming – and in many ways, they are still that primitive,” Craig said. “For (Biden) not to know, not to be informed, not to have advanced with his military a strategy to require a staged exit before the military is unbelievable. It’s not just unbelievable, but inexcusable.”

Craig, a Trump supporter, thinks the former president would have handled the situation better – working with the military and others to produce a more graceful exit strategy.

“If this style of exit happened under Trump, you can rest assured that I would be every bit as critical. This was a boondoggle under the first order,” Craig said.
And one that will live in infamy – or at least until the mid-term elections.

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

The Critchfield argument

malloy

Officially, State Superintendent Sherri Ybarra is undecided about seeking a third term, spending her energies preparing for the start of a new school year.

Debbie Critchfield, a Republican candidate who is vying for Ybarra’s job, assumes that the state superintendent is running again and is campaigning accordingly. Critchfield, a former president of the State Board of Education and no fan of Ybarra, thinks she has the leadership skills to move Idaho public schools in a better direction.

A third candidate, Brandon Durst – a former Democratic state representative who aligns himself with the right wing of the GOP – gives Republican primary voters a wide range of options in next year’s election.

Critchfield says eight years of Ybarra is enough. Critchfield is a communications officer with the Cassia County schools and was a school board member there for 10 years. She served seven years on the state board and two of those years as president -- enough time to observe Ybarra’s job performance.

“I spent seven years at the state-education table and had a front row seat on setting policies and everything associated to assist schools,” said Critchfield. “Although the work has been satisfying, I have been frustrated with the response from our elected official (Ybarra) with the lack of cohesiveness and lack of thinking and the lack of partnership between the appointed board and an elected official. I think, overall, the state system has suffered from that fractured relationship. And I feel that over the last seven years, education has fallen flat at the state level.”

Critchfield has heard plenty of complaints about the superintendent, including missing important meetings, going lengthy periods of time away from the office, a poor working relationship with Republican legislators and generally being ignored by administrators and teachers throughout the state. Ybarra, no doubt, will have a different perspective if she goes for a third term. But Critchfield says the critics are on solid ground.

“I repeatedly hear from school officials that they are looking for leadership and support. They are looking for a state superintendent who will be their advocate and champion. It doesn’t take the form of micromanaging, that’s not my style. But along the way, you develop a plan, determine how much money it’s going to cost and the expected results. Then, you take that to the Legislature. I have not seen that kind of action from (Ybarra) over the last seven years,” Critchfield says.

“When you have a person who can work with the Legislature, the governor, the state board and other stakeholders, you have cohesiveness and efficiency in the system,” she said. “People are frustrated with the lack of progress. For instance, 85 percent of students take some sort of dual credit (for college), but only 40 percent go to college. I can go through every category and tell you exactly where the problem is. We don’t have anybody serving that critical role right now – saying here’s the plan and here’s how we’re going to do it.”

She takes a relatively safe stand on three hot-button issues – the wearing of masks (let local districts decide), vaccine requirements (parents should decide) and Critical Race Theory (more discussion is needed).

On CRT, she says, “School officials are saying that it’s not being taught, but that’s not enough. This is an issue that people are talking about and want to hear about, so let’s address it. In the end, it’s either a bigger problem than we thought, or not much of a problem at all.”

Politically, Critchfield has a tough task going against an incumbent who is an effective public speaker with a proven ability to win over Republican voters. Ybarra has been more vulnerable in general elections, winning both of her races by razor-thin margins.

Crutchfield thinks she can win by more convincing numbers in November elections.
“What do we have to show in seven years under her? Nothing,” Critchfield says. I know the codes and pressure points, and I have developed relationships statewide. I would be ready to go from Day 1.”

With Idaho at, or near, the bottom of a number of education categories, Critchfield will have no shortage of talking points about the issues facing public schools.

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

Zero-based budgeting

malloy

Here’s something that I never thought I’d see – Idaho Republican Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo embracing a failed policy from the Carter administration for bringing spending under control.

And they managed to drag a few other Republican senators into the fray, including Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Braun of Indiana.

The magic bullet for curbing the $28 trillion debt? Zero-based budgeting, or as one Capitol Hill veteran put it many years ago, “Zip, Boom, Bang.” ZBB basically was laughed out of Washington and dubbed a nutty idea after Carter implemented it in the 1970s – and federal spending was a mere two-headed monster. Now, with the federal budget turned into the Planet of the Apes by comparison, it’s Republicans are leading the way on ZBB.

Risch introduced the Zero-Based Budget Act, which he says would cut wasteful spending by requiring government agencies to justify their spending levels every six years with a zero-based budget, and propose a reduction in expenditures by 2 percent.
“Congress must address its reckless spending problem,” Risch says. “The Zero-Based Budget Act will require agencies to produce a budget which clearly outlines potential cuts to reduce the growing national debt so we won’t leave future generations footing the bill.”

Spoiler alert: His bill is going nowhere during this Congress and progressive Democrats will not sign onto that plan. But Republicans will continue expressing frustrations over spending.

“Our current fiscal crisis is unsustainable,” says Crapo. “I remain committed to restoring the federal budget to balance and the Zero-Based Budget Act would require scrutiny and justification of every program funded by the American taxpayer.”

Crapo is right about spending levels being unsustainable. But considering all the years he has served on budget and finance committees that he’d come up with something more cerebral than “Zip, Boom, Bang.”

Cruz, mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2024 (if former President Trump does not run), puts a political spin on the situation. “The out-of-control spending and unrestricted expansion of our bloated federal government by this administration, aided by congressional Democrats, is causing an inflation crises – just one of the many crises facing American families and small businesses today. I’m proud to join with Sen. Risch to protect taxpayers from the burden of big government policies by forcing bureaucrats to routinely assess and cut inefficient or redundant government spending from their budgets. The Zero-Based Budget Act is a common-sense step toward reining in government spending and returning to fiscal sanity.”

The idea of zero-based budgeting produces nice political rhetoric and it worked brilliantly for Carter’s presidential campaign in 1976. In a practical application, it worked horribly. Zero-based budgeting did little to curb discretionary spending, caused massive amounts of bureaucratic paperwork and created a “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality for agency heads during the end of fiscal years.

The Republican senators have every right to be concerned about run-away spending under President Biden’s watch. But over the years, Republican presidents – from Reagan to Trump – have not been able to bring federal spending under control. There’s a lot of blame to go around for the $28 trillion debt.

Risch, Crapo and Cruz have been around long enough to know that discretionary spending – as much as it is growing with Democrats in charge – is only a small part of the problem. Roughly two-thirds of the budget, which includes Social Security and Medicare, is on auto-pilot and there’s no political appetite on either side of the aisle to make changes for future generations. So, the debt will keep growing even if Congress eliminated discretionary spending entirely. And members of Congress will continue to complain about too much spending.

It’s good that Cruz has been brought into the fold on the ZBB debate. If he runs for president, maybe he will look beyond warmed-over ideas from the Carter era and come up with a workable plan for putting the nation’s fiscal house in order.

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