Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in March 2023

A new ‘freedom’ network

March 22, 2023

You know the names – Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.

All three are past members of the Freedom Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives who have gone on to bigger things in the political world. And all three were major players in a caucus that has reshaped the political landscape in Congress. Members were instrumental in removing a House speaker (former Rep. John Boehner) and they have routinely called out fellow Republicans for their liberal voting records. Today, with Republicans holding a slim majority in the House, the conservative caucus is a powerful force as Congress deliberates over the debt ceiling and other issues.

Now some states, inspired by the success of the Freedom Caucus in Washington, is getting in the game. Idaho is one of 10 states that have joined the State Freedom Caucus Network. The two-year-old network provides strategy, leadership and staff to assist conservative lawmakers. Maria Nate, the wife of former Rexburg Rep. Ron Nate, is Idaho’s director of the State Freedom Caucus Network. Sen. Tammy Nichols of Middleton and Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard are co-chairs of a group that includes a dozen legislators and members from outside the Legislature.

“We’re all fighting the same battles,” says Maria Nate. “The federal government is not where the problem is … the federal government is a mess. The only way we can reclaim the federal government is for the states to reclaim their sovereignty.”

Conservative movements are not new to Idaho, and especially on the House side. This year, the group has taken on a higher public profile, with Nate sending out regular news releases outlining the caucus position on various issues. The group is not associated with the Idaho Freedom Foundation, although caucus members tend to score well on the IFF’s Freedom Index.

The message from caucus leaders is clear. Idaho’s government is not as conservative as people might think, or politicians will say.

“I believe that Idaho is conservative in a freedom caucus way, but I don’t believe the Legislature is,” says Nate. “The budget is busted … Medicaid is a budget buster. The governor’s Launch program is not a conservative program. It’s frustrating to see Republicans promoting socialist-type agendas. That’s what the caucus will fight against.”

Nichols agrees. “In Idaho, everybody says they are conservative, but voting records don’t show they are as conservative as they say they are. In government, we function under a blue management. One of the reasons that happens is we are a part-time Legislature, but we have a full-time government. We have allowed a lot of our authority of the Legislature to be given to an unelected bureaucracy. We have to take that back.”

Philosophically, caucus members – who backed former Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin’s bid for governor last year – are no fans of Gov. Brad Little’s agenda. “The Launch Idaho program does not fall within the purview of government … and education is for K-12. There’s nothing that says we need to be taking care of college kids,” she said.

As a baseline, the caucus backs efforts to “restore and maintain freedom,” including school choice; “protect families and children,” including the unborn and institution of marriage; “lower taxes,” including property and grocery tax relief; and “less government,” which includes repeal of Medicaid expansion.

Nichols says the increased public profile is paying off, and not necessarily with traditional media outlets. Constituents and supporters are getting the message through social media and other outlets.

The caucus is to the right politically, but there’s nothing “fringe” about this group, considering the structure of the state Republican Party. Former Rep. Dorothy Moon, an ally of Nichols and Scott, is the state party chair and at least some – if not most – of the central committees are on the right-wing side. They are the ones putting together the party platform.

For the state caucus, Nichols said, “It’s all about promoting the party platform, adhering to the constitution and promoting good legislation.”

The group needs to win more statewide elections before it can be called “mainstream,” but as with their counterparts in Washington, they are rapidly approaching that status within the GOP. In the meantime, arch conservatives are not going away.

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

 

 

There’s a reason

There’s a reason

March 21, 2023

The next time you hear someone say – most likely a weathered conservative left out in the sun too long – “We need to get rid of all those damned regulations,” tell him to “Put a sock in it.”

Then, just softly say “East Palestine, Ohio” and “Silicone Valley Bank.” Just six words. But they’re all you need to make your case.

Ronny Reagan was probably the most noted Republican presidential candidate who campaigned loudest against federal regulations. “Damn ’em all,” I heard him once cry during an Idaho campaign event. “The current mass of government regulations is hobbling free markets.”

Reagan was elected in November, 1980, and again November, 1984. It was widely believed his strong advocacy for erasing federal regulations played a major role of success in those two instances.

And, he largely fulfilled his promise to cut, cut, cut. Maybe that was good. Maybe that was bad. Depending on where you sat on the political spectrum.

For me and my brothers and sisters in mass communications, his success in killing the Federal Communications Commission Fairness Doctrine applying to our livelihoods was a major loss. The ramifications of that loss are still being felt.

Under that very necessary requirement – read regulation – Faux Noos likely wouldn’t have become the B.S. factory it is because the Doctrine required broadcasters to balance viewpoints – especially political – wherever possible. Required! Hannity would have had to sell shoes or cars rather than be allowed to sell B.S. on the tube five nights a week.

As the Ohio and SVB disasters show, there’s a reason for proper regulatory requirements in certain areas where the public welfare is deemed important. Like railway and bank safety. And airlines and cruise ships.

But, back to that Fairness Doctrine. Without it, we’ve had a plethora of right wing crap fouling our airwaves. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Ingraham and the rest blossomed and were sustained by the resultant “freedoms” previously prohibited by the Doctrine. Whether we, as a nation, are better for their “freedoms” is up to you.

The Biden infrastructure victory is indeed that: a victory. A victory for better roads, upgraded public transportation and government investments meant to bring more private dollars into public areas. With accompanying regulations, of course.

It should come as a shock to no one that our rail industry, in particular, is in terrible shape. And, not just the rail beds and the stations. We are far, far behind China, Japan, England and even South Korea in development of high speed trains. Trains that can offer comfortable and safe alternatives to higher airfares. Imagine Seattle to Portland in 45 minutes or so.

As a country, we’d be in pretty bad shape without proper and necessary regulation. It’s the individual view of “proper” and “necessary” where we get into trouble at times. Which is why so many regs get kicked up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, laws put on the books by Congress, most often need regulatory directives for implementation and use. The detail work.

As reported by NBC News, “Five years ago, Sen Elizabeth Warren was the most outspoken opponent of the Republican-led Congress’ push to undo regulations imposed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law for small and mid-size banks. The bill, led by Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, sought to reclassify the “too-big-to-fail” standard, which came with enhanced regulatory scrutiny. By raising the threshold from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion, medium-size banks were exempted from those regulations.

“Had Congress and the Federal Reserve not rolled back the stricter oversight, SVB and Signature (Bank) would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to withstand financial shocks,” Warren said. “They would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities and shore up their businesses. But, because those requirements were repealed, when an old-fashioned bank run hit SVB, the bank couldn’t withstand the pressure — and Signature’s collapse was close behind.”

Yes, there are bad and unnecessary regulations at times. Depends on who writes the and how they’re implemented Which is why SCOTUS gets into the fray at times. Sorting things out.

It’ll be interesting to see if either – or both – the derailment or bank closure came about by running afoul of regulation or some other circumstance. Could be.

Either way, there’s reason to believe those who loudly decry regulation are wrong. If necessary and properly handled in creation and implementation, your next trip in an airplane could be a whole lot safer.

You’d like that, wouldn’t you?

The heavy hand of government

March 20, 2023

In his election night remarks, Attorney General Raul Labrador said his “job is to represent the people, not bureaucracy of Idaho.” He overlooked the fact that the Attorney General’s main job under Idaho law is to represent the agencies and officials of the bureaucracy. Labrador also promised to make Idaho “a better place for our families.”

These remarks are hard to square up with Labrador’s heavy-handed action against upward of 80 community organizations that serve families across the State of Idaho. Starting in early March, Labrador began serving civil investigative demands (CIDs) upon  organizations that applied for and received federal funds designed to compensate for learning loss as a result of the pandemic. The CIDs were improperly based on statutes designed to go after crooks, scamsters and fake charities. One such statute is the Consumer Protection Act, which is intended to target con artists.

It is highly doubtful that the Cascade Public Library, or Parma School District, or Idaho Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs, or United Way of Treasure Valley, or Middleton Counseling Center, or Marsing School District, are engaged in unsavory business practices so as to justify treating them like common criminals. The CIDs require them to furnish an oppressive amount of paperwork to Labrador in a short timeframe.

This use of CIDs is virtually unprecedented and clearly outside of the intent of the laws cited by Labrador. It is unclear why he has spent so much time on this fool's errand, although it could be that he was goaded into it by his friends at the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the lobbyist for one of the grant recipients. The IFF has a long-standing objection to public education and a vendetta against the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children, which acted as a grant facilitator.

Or, it might be that Labrador was hoping to embarrass Governor Little by going after the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), which administers the grant program. He served three DHW officials, including the Director, with CIDs. That is a bit dicey because DHW and its administrative officials, are his clients under the law. The well-regarded University of Idaho Extension Service, which administered 18 programs under the program last year, is also a state entity. If there really was a problem, shouldn’t Labrador have tried to work it out with his clients before initiating legal proceedings?

The issue appears to be whether funds were used to serve children under 5 years of age. Federal law allowed it. The Legislature targeted funds for kids 5-13 years old, but did not prohibit use of funds for children under 5. DHW’s grant guidance did not include such a prohibition, which was not an unreasonable interpretation of the state statute.

The CID statutes are not intended to apply to this type of issue. Idaho law provides a mechanism to examine whether funds are being applied as intended by the Legislature. Legislators may request the Legislative Services Office to conduct an audit and report malfeasance to the Attorney General. Before Labrador fired his salvo against the community groups, legislative budget writers did just that. Apparently, Labrador did not want to hold his fire until a report was available through proper channels.

Labrador’s misuse of his office has created a great deal of unnecessary fear and upset amongst grant recipients across the state who have done nothing wrong. They only responded to a grant opportunity to serve their communities. They followed the grant guidance given them by DHW, which was presumably developed with the assistance of deputy attorneys general. At most, this is just a dispute between DHW and some legislators. There was absolutely no reason to drag the grant recipients into it.

Some of the recipients are lawyering up to respond to Labrador’s unjustified demands for a mountain of paperwork. The best course of action for the AG’s office would be to apologize for this rash act and withdraw the CIDs. If that does not occur, legislators should call for an immediate halt to this foolishness. Perhaps Labrador could better spend his time going after fentanyl dealers, as opposed to innocent educators.

 

Records are open, law is complicated

Records are open, law is complicated

March 19, 2023

If you want people to recycle, make it as easy as possible.

The same should be true of Oregon’s open records law, but it isn’t. With this being Sunshine Week, which focuses on easier access to public records, it’s important to remember that accessing public documents in Oregon gets more complicated all the time.

The state Department of Justice outlines the purpose of state’s open records laws clearly, saying they “promote democracy and transparency. Oregonians have a right to know how their government works and spends money.”

Changes in state law have brought some improvements in recent years. In 2019, penalties were set in statute for state agencies that drag their feet or fail to respond to requests. (Changes in rules governing excessive fee charges have been harder to come by so far.) The year before that, the Legislature created the Office of the Public Records Advocate, which among other things is tasked with providing help with public records requests. The office is staffed by two attorneys.

The office has had issues, however. Legislative testimony this year noted that the first public records advocate “resigned in part due to perceived political interference in the operations of the office.” It wasn’t until 2021 that the office was given more independence. A bill this year (Senate Bill 510) finally sets up a proper budgeting process for the office. (Specifically, the bill’s formal description says it would direct the office “to estimate biennial costs to carry out duties of advocate and to allocate and assess cost among public bodies of state government; represents vital last step to establish office as independent state agency.”)

The fact that Oregon needs a public records advocate office – and it does – is one indicator that the state’s public records law isn’t working as smoothly as it should.

There are a number of public records-related legislative measures under consideration this year.

Aside from Senate Bill 510, about 30 propose changes to state records laws. Some of them would help record seekers. Senate Bill 160 would cut records fees by 40% if the request is in the public interest. Another – Senate Bill 417 – clarifies what elements can be built into search and copying fees.

As public records go increasingly digital, House Bill 2136 might prove to be one of the most helpful. It would restrict a public body from imposing a fee for a record in electronic form provided the requester agrees to accept the documents in electronic form and the agency doesn’t have to dig into its archives. The fee exclusion also would not apply if staff had to retrieve the record and prepare it for disclosure, presumably when redactions are required for privacy. And there are at least three pieces of legislation that would call for studies of public records by the secretary of state and the Public Records Advisory Council.

Many of the other proposals, however, include new limitations on what records could be released. Some of these involve personal information for such groups as state employees or retirees and people who use various services. Some involve services that don’t yet exist, such as the Oregon Health Authority’s prospective pregnancy resources hotline (information about callers would be exempt from disclosure).

Some, such as the hotline exemption, are unlikely to be controversial. Others, such as HB 3073 involving information about candidates for public office, could cause closer examination.

All of that is only part of what’s involved in just this year’s law changes on the public records front. The overall records picture, changing with new legislation every year, makes for an ever more complex legal mosaic few citizens can easily track.

As the Legislature considers authorizing new studies on public records, the subject of simplifying the law on access to them would be a logical subject of discussion.

(image/OHSU)

The legislators of hazard

March 17, 2023

The Idaho Legislature may be making Idaho a legally and financially hazardous place to live, though maybe unexpectedly profitable for others.

Overtly, this year’s session has taken aim at large numbers of people, and a lot of people who never thought of themselves as being at legal and financial risk might be caught up in legislation running through this year’s session

State Representative Steve Berch outlined a large chunk of this in his latest constituent newsletter, arguing, “the ugly is showing up in poison pills buried in many of the bills we've been voting on lately. Never before have there been such deliberately harsh punishments attached to bills.”

The punishments, which have tended to get less news coverage than the top-line prohibitions, really do seem central.

Take for example the famous “bathroom bill” (Senate Bill 1100) which says, “Any student who, while accessing a public school restroom, changing facility, or sleeping quarters designated for use by the student's sex, encounters a person of the opposite sex has a private cause of action against the school if:  (a) The school gave that person permission to use facilities of the opposite sex; or (b) The school failed to take reasonable steps to prohibit that person from using facilities of the opposite sex.” (Note that this doesn’t even specifically reference transgender people; it applies to anyone; nor does it specify the “reasonable steps.”)

The next section outlines the “cause of action,” which awards the complainant $5,000 for each instance of an “encounter,” plus damages from the school, plus attorneys’ fees. And it can be filed any time in the upcoming four years.

Hey kids! Having trouble meeting college expenses? Hey parents! Running low on cash? Have I got a fundraising idea for you …

As Berch points out, the legislature also is doing much more to exact pain from various groups of people for various purposes.

The Parental Rights Protection of Minors Act, aimed at limiting minors’ exposure to online materials, seems to target manufacturers of online communications devices, requiring them to set up special filters (apparently applicable specifically to Idaho) and allows parents or guardians of any minor who accesses and uses such an unfiltered device to sue for $40,000 plus a bunch of other damages; plus, there’s a criminal penalty involved for private users as well. (Will the attorney general’s office advise the legislature what a legal dog’s breakfast this is? Hmm.)  At least this one has been sitting quietly in Senate committee for a while.

Then there’s transporting a minor across state lines (House Bill 242) for a legal abortion (actually, the bill is much broader than that): a $20,000 civil penalty plus fees and attorney costs, and you can sue up to six years after the fact.

The anti-library “harmful to minors” bill (House Bill 138) - goes way beyond just trying to ban certain books - it allows plaintiffs to “recover $10,000 in statutory damages for each instance in which they obtained material harmful to minors.” Who knows what someone may deem harmful? Forget the lottery: This could be a serious jackpot … until it shuts down the libraries because of legal risk.

We shouldn’t forget the ill-defined “drag show bill” (House Bill 265) which doesn’t mention that term at all, but instead refers to “sexual exhibition,” without defining the term other than as something “patently offensive,” which varies a lot from person to person. (The underlying target of the bill was drag shows, though those available to minors include no actual sexual activity.) On this one you can sue for $10,000 per offensive incident, plus legal costs.

Plus so much more. And remember: When it comes to civil actions, proof beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t necessary.

If you want to argue I’m overreacting, consider: A bunch of Idaho legislators apparently think these issues are serious, else why would they be doing all this?

Could be quite a payday for some Idahoans, at the expense of others. Idaho may be about to turn into the sue me-sue you state.

Courtesy the party of getting government off your back.

 

On social warfare

March 15, 2023

The apocalypse may not be upon us, but maybe you should take a peek outside to make sure.

We’re seeing the two top Democrats in the Legislature embracing Republican Gov. Brad Little’s budget priorities – something that’s unheard of in today’s politics. Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow of Boise said in a recent news conference, called by Democrats, that the governor has “really provided a great road map for the state with his budget.” House Minority Leader Ilanna Rubel of Boise went a few steps further in a conversation with me.

“The governor’s agenda isn’t exactly what we would have done, but it’s pretty good. It pays teachers … helps kids go to school and train for better jobs and fixes our roads and bridges. We’re all for it,” Rubel said. “If we came in a day after his state-of-the-state address, passed his budget and adjourned for the year, it would be the best session in modern history.”

Instead, Rubel says, we could be looking at one of the worst sessions ever – with no guarantees of the Republican majority agreeing on any of the governor’s priorities.

Frustration from the Dems have reached the boiling point. The minority leaders have lashed out at Republicans for focusing on “right-wing talking points,” instead of working in Idaho’s best interest.

“We have real needs that need to be addressed – underfunded schools, underpaid teachers, an infrastructure that has to be fixed and property tax problems. These are bread-and-butter issues for Idahoans, but you would never know it by how it’s playing out,” Rubel says. “It’s pretty much non-stop with hot-button social warfare. It’s all about transgender care, drag shows, going after librarians and book banning.”

A few other things can be added to the list, including abortion trafficking, allowing death by firing squads, essentially killing voter initiatives and voter suppression. And let’s not forget about school vouchers and lifting the militia ban.

“We’re spending an overwhelming amount of time, and sucking up the oxygen in the room on things that will not lower taxes, not help kids get a better education, not help with property taxes, not pay teachers, not fix school buildings and not fix roads,” she said. “As Democrats, we don’t chair committees or control the agenda. If we did, we’d be talking about property taxes and school funding all day long. It would be boring, but that’s what we came here to talk about.”

As Rubel sees it, this session is wall-to-wall social engineering, which was once viewed as taboo by Republicans who preached about getting government out of people’s lives.

“I could characterize Brad Little at this point as an old-school Republican – more like how Republicans looked 30 years ago when it wasn’t all about constant social control, telling people what books their kids are allowed to read, what health care you should be allowed to get, and social engineering every minute of people’s lives. If it was just about fiscal conservatism, I won’t mind getting back to that,” she said.

“It’s really telling when you see a bill that has been introduced in about 10 states at the same time, and we hear it in Idaho two days after it has been signed in Tennessee and a day before it was introduced in Oklahoma,” she said. “I think that’s a sign that it’s a bill that is not tailored to the needs of Idahoans. They are coming from a smoke-filled room somewhere.”

Given the low number of minority members in the Legislature, it’s easy to ignore – or dismiss – anything that Democrats might say or think. Republican leaders say there is no reason to panic. Priorities will be addressed, budgets will be set and everyone will go home with smiles on their faces.

But Rubel and Wintrow won’t be smiling if the Legislature – as it often does -- waits until the end to address the issues that are most important to Idahoans.

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

 

 

Divisions must be overcome

March 14, 2023
If I were asked to draw a map of the United States, using only the outlines of the 48 contiguous states, I'd have to give it some thought.
 
As a child in school, so many years ago, I could whip one up in short order.  But, now, as a grown-up some eighty-years later, the same project would take a lot more time.  More thought.
 
Because his nation is divided.  No, it's more like fractured.  Red vs Blue - rural vs urban - gay vs straight and still, to our shame, Black vs White.  And Brown.  And Yellow.
 
We've even got folks who want to redraw state borders to fit their political beliefs.  Never gonna happen.  But, they're out there and they'll keep making noises.
 
Long ago, I quit saying the Pledge of Allegiance.  "One nation."  "Liberty and justice for all."  I just can't do it.  
 
Same for parts of the National Anthem and "America, the Beautiful."  "...Alabaster cities."  "Brotherhood."  "From sea to shining sea."  Our seas haven't been shining for at least a hundred years.  "Brotherhood" doesn't exist for everyone.  And I challenge anyone to find an "alabaster city." Been to downtown Portland or Seattle lately?
 
The oft-repeated words of our anthems and the pledge just don't square with the reality out there.  We can mouth the words or sing the tunes.  But, the words have become descriptive of some other country where "brotherhood" and "shining seas" exist.  Maybe Norway, Sweden or Finland.  
 
Please don't get me wrong.  We're blessed with our Republic - our democracy.  I have strong, positive and loving feelings for my country - for our way of life.  But, both are in danger of being lost if we continue to walk our current, widely divided pathways. 
 
Maybe the strongest division we must overcome is the rural vs urban.  Eastern Washington vs West of the Cascades.  Eastern Oregon vs West of the Cascades.  Northern Idaho vs Southern with the acknowledged division of North or South at Riggins.  Or Eastern Idaho vs the more populous West.  
 
Many of us have lived in both urban and rural environments at one time or another.  And, we've found there's a lot to be said for both.  
 
But, somehow, we're pitting one against the other - economically and politically.  We believe someone else is getting more than we are.  Someone else is getting more benefit - more dollars - more recognition.  I heard a lot of that living in Eastern Idaho.  "Those guys in Boise" most often heard.  Now, it's "those guys in Portland.
 
Maybe the most divisive issues are political.  Like people wanting to redraw Idaho's Western border clear over to the Cascades and South to California.  It's notable they made a little detour around Bend which most rural Oregonians think is a hotbed of "liberals."  Another division.
 
Abe Lincoln was the guy who said a "house divided against itself cannot stand."  He certainly headed a nation deeply divided in 1865.  More than any other accomplishment, he laid the groundwork to bring North and South together as much as was possible at the time.  Even though we still have that division in some small, angry Southern corners.
 
We must get past these divisions, whatever they may be.  We've got to rid ourselves of divisive politicians and their false rhetoric.  We need new, younger voices vying for political leadership and others socially and culturally.  We need to accept - and understand - whatever differences there may be, get past them and concentrate on things that bind us.
 
We need to work hard on the "brotherhood," "shining seas" and the "alabaster cities."  We had 'em once.  We've can have 'em again.
Anti-ESG is so yesterday

Anti-ESG is so yesterday

March 13, 2023

The fossil fuel industry is fighting a desperate rear-guard action across America, trying to stop the flow of big money into green energy investments. Those investments have been brought about by the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels over the last century, which has resulted in cramming Earth’s closed atmosphere with more and more heat-trapping greenhouse gasses every year. The scientific community tells us that the increasingly violent and erratic weather which has wrought death and destruction across the planet will only increase unless the world immediately develops and perfects alternate energy sources. Investor capital has increasingly been flowing toward green energy and the industries that will help humankind cope with a dangerously warming planet.

Every sector of our economy is being affected by the torrential downpours, droughts, tornados, rising ocean levels, and other dangerous and costly effects of climate change. That has resulted in an inexorable march away from fossil fuels. Almost every carmaker is switching to electric cars. Construction standards to protect us against climbing temperatures and destructive weather are commonplace. Many other industries are innovating ways to fight or adjust to climate change. These industries will create the most wealth and become the most attractive investment opportunities as time goes by.

But the fossil fuel folks are not giving up without a fight. When investment firms developed new investment standards to guide the way into the future, fossil fuel interests attacked. Leading the charge have been groups like the State Policy Network (SPN) and its American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which were spawned by the Koch family and its allies to protect the fossil fuel industry and promote big business interests. These groups have been pushing what is called anti-ESG legislation in state legislatures across the country, including Idaho.

Idaho approved legislation last year to limit investment of public money in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds and the Idaho House has just passed three bills to further restrict ESG-related transactions by governmental entities. The bills were developed with the assistance of ALEC and are supported by SPN’s Idaho affiliate, the Idaho Freedom Foundation, to slow down the transition to green energy.

Even though ALEC’s fossil fuel hardliners are still fighting the effort to stop further environmental damage from greenhouse emissions, some of its past supporters have awakened to the lucrative investment opportunities offered by industries intent on keeping the Earth livable for future generations. The ALEC board of directors just tabled anti-ESG legislation when the American Bankers Association bailed out, saying “government should not be dictating business decisions to the private sector.”

Anti-ESG legislation has been found to be costly for states because it limits investment opportunities for municipal bonds, substantially increasing borrowing costs. A recent study has shown that six red states could end up paying between $264 million and $708 million more in municipal borrowing costs by passing anti-ESG laws.  An Indiana bill ran into trouble when a legislative analysis concluded it would cost the state pension system more than $6.7 billion in lost returns over 10 years.

On February 1, the North Dakota House voted 90-3 to kill an anti-ESG bill. The Wyoming House of Representatives recently killed a couple of anti-ESG bills. GOP members were concerned the legislation would reduce investment in Wyoming. It says something when two of the nation’s top fossil fuel producing states sandbag anti-ESG legislation.

On the other hand, two recent developments are creating a virtual gold rush to cash in on clean energy sources–the war in Ukraine and passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The war has opened the world’s eyes to the necessity of developing energy sources that are not controlled and manipulated by autocratic governments like Russia and Saudi Arabia. The IRA, which provides $369 billion for innovating and monetizing climate solutions, will open up a vast new world of lucrative investment opportunities.

The anti-ESG bills currently pending in the Idaho Senate are fighting a losing rear-guard action for the fossil fuel industry, which has brought us great economic gains, together with tremendous environmental challenges. The time has come to embrace the future and defeat efforts to hinder forward progress.

(image/Flickr)

RIP Batt man

March 11, 2023

The earliest memory I have of Phil Batt, the former Idaho Republican governor who died recently on his 96th birthday, dates to his time as president pro tem of the state senate.

For some reason lost to memory, Batt invited me one afternoon during the legislative session into his inner sanctum behind the Senate chamber to meet his myna bird. It’s not every day a politician introduces a reporter to a bird that can talk. Pretty cool, particularly when you realize the bird had been taught by Batt to say funny and slightly disparaging things about the Democratic governor at time, Cecil Andrus. The bird, of course, was named Bird.

Phil Batt was one of the most accessible, least pretentious, most genuine public officials I have ever been around at close range. He was quick with a quip. Candid to a fault. Honest as the day is long. There was simply no Phil Batt scandal, or even a hint of one.

In those long-ago days, Republicans controlled the Idaho legislature, as they have nearly always in the state’s history, but the partisan margin wasn’t huge. There were conservatives in both parties. And moderates, too. Batt had a skilled politician’s ability to bridge the divides. He wasn’t a divider or a hater or a show horse. Batt was a legislator.

Years after meeting Phil’s Bird, and after both governors wore the “former” title, I had the distinct pleasure of several times playing golf with Batt and his long-time friend and occasional political adversary Andrus. The two men had a genuine friendship never better on display than when one was trying to take a few bucks off the other in a golf game.

On one particularly memorable occasion the golf match was at Boise’s Hillcrest Country Club with Andrus the host. Following the requisite negotiation over strokes, the match proceeded amid much joking and verbal towel snapping. Andrus was waiting for his moment. It came early on the back nine.

Batt had been playing well. He hit a golf ball straight if not long and like his politics his game was consistent. He was clearly headed toward taking a few bucks off the Democrat. As Batt prepared to hit a tee shot, Andrus waited until just before Phil began his back swing to ask the former governor what he knew about love life rumors involving another prominent Republican politician. Batt stepped back from his ball and glared at Andrus – the famous Batt temper – and then smiled. He didn’t say a word. Didn’t need to say a word. The smile was confirmation.

I think Andrus was intent on breaking Batt’s concentration, but Phil was too focused for that. He kept his eye on the ball. He won the match.

The two formers, as history will record, made a powerful team when they combined to protect the state’s position on nuclear waste cleanup, a position made difficult for Batt because many in his own party opposed taking the necessary hard line with the federal Department of Energy. Still, he persisted.

As the tributes to Batt accumulated this week nearly all noted that the Canyon County onion farmer had left an enduring mark with his principled advocacy for human rights, including helping create the state Human Rights Commission and, as governor, demanding workplace protection for farm workers, many of whom are, of course, migrants.

In that courageous and righteous stand Batt bucked a natural constituency – the state’s agricultural interests. It was a fight, and one worth having, and Phil won. So did the farm workers.

But here is the glaring irony in the many deserved tributes to Phil Batt. The party he once led and literally brought back to life after Republicans suffered a political shellacking in 1990 has fundamentally rejected the moral and ethical leadership around human and individual rights that Batt championed for his state.

The Idaho Republican Party is now dominated by the very forces of intolerance and bigotry that Phil Batt spent his career rejecting. The party’s focus on angry White nationalism is about demonizing and marginalizing the LGBTQ community, youngsters and families dealing with gender identity struggles and librarians and teachers who believe that community libraries and a fair exploration of American history are the essence of good citizenship.

The modern Idaho party, by contrast, believes it’s a conservative value to proscribe precisely how their neighbors will live, what they will read and how they will access health care. And if you’re not like them there is simply no place for you.

The current Idaho governor, Brad Little, who clearly counts Batt among his mentors, praised his predecessor as the epitome of public service and integrity. Batt’s “legacy is distinguished by his unrelenting human rights leadership,” Little said, even as the governor hung out at the repugnant CPAC conference in Washington, a pep rally for the alt right White nationalism of hate and division that Idaho’s governor has done next to nothing to challenge.

Indeed, Brad Little’s acceptance of an invitation to address the CPAC grievance fest might well mark the final capitulation by one-time Phil Batt conservatives to the dominant narrative of the modern Republican Party. To praise Batt and his record and also share a platform with Marjorie Taylor Green and Steve Bannon requires a degree of moral compartmentalization that would never have occurred to Batt. Yet, this is the arc of the modern GOP, a party that long ago left Batt and now thoroughly repudiates his legacy.

In fact, the official statement from the Idaho Republican Party on Batt’s passing was a terse three sentences that read like a news bulletin – “Former Idaho Governor Phil Batt has died today at the age of 96. Our condolences to his family. May he rest in peace.” Nothing about the man, his legacy or his contributions to Idaho.

By contrast the Idaho party featured on its Facebook page a shout out to the alt right provocateur Alex Stein, a loud voice for White nationalism who recently appeared at Canyon County’s Lincoln Day dinner. This is the same Alex Stein who recently featured on his television show the founder of the Proud Boys, the neo-fascist hate group that helped mount the January 6 insurrection.

This is in no way the party Phil Batt once built and led. That Batt stood for the opposite of what passes for conservatism today is just another reminder, a very sad reminder, of how the “establishment” leadership of the modern GOP first let this happen, and then after refusing to fight for the decency that a Phil Batt displayed finds itself bottom feeding in a party of sleaze, conspiracy, grievance and malice.

For sure celebrate the Batt Man. The little giant deserves it. Rejoice in his legacy. Mourn him but mourn also the utterly disgusting decline of a political party that has abandoned his kind and what he stood for.