Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in February 2025

Damned Angry

Angry!

Just damned angry!

Someone asked me how I was the other day and my immediate response was "Angry!"  Didn't have to think twice.

"Angry!"

What's going on in Washington D.C. is a Constitutional crisis if there ever was one.  And, it should make all Americans angry.

Who the hell is Elon Musk and why has he been allowed to insert himself at the top of our political system?  Why has he been given access to critical government files of the Treasury Department?

More questions.  Why has there been no effective push back?  Why has his interference gone without a solid government response?

Elon Musk and his minions are rummaging through classified government data they have no business getting access to.  But, access they have.  Did the approval for that access come from the White House?  From the President?

Musk may be the world's richest man.  As such, he may have a lot more clout than most of us.  He may be on close personal terms with Donald Trump.

But, his riches - and that relationship - should not include unfettered interference in our national affairs.  It should not include permission to download classified - or unclassified - information from government files.

The executive branch has seized a power it does not have from Congress and the American people: to eliminate agencies created by Congress, suspend payments authorized by law, break contracts entered into under that law, rewrite the Constitution and ignore the judiciary when push comes to shove.

It falls to Democrats - and disaffected Republicans - to retake the rightful powers authorized by that Constitution and halt the unauthorized access that's going on.

It falls to Democrats, Independents - and disaffected Republicans - to stand solidly against any attempt to usurp those powers by Musk or anyone else who follows in his footsteps.

It's often said that Trump operates in "chaos" mode.  That may be alright in his business world.  That may be what he's used to.  But, chaos has no place in the conduct of American governance.

And, Musk's interruption of governmental affairs needs to be firmly - and quickly - ended.

Musk may be "the world's richest man."  That may give him a louder voice than the rest of us.  But, he still puts his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.  He lives under the same laws as the rest of us.  He's expected to abide by those laws.  Like the rest of us.

It's time for the courts to step in.  The judiciary is the only "voice" we have to deal with Musk and his challenges to the rule of law.

Trump has only begun his four-year term in office.  The current chaos was created in just the first week.

We've still got 207 weeks to go.  Stay tuned.

 

Saving LA?

Without prior warning to state water managers in California’s Tulare County, federal officials suddenly dumped a torrent of water from two lakes in the state’s Central Valley. The deluge almost caused flooding on its way to the ocean, where it served absolutely no useful purpose. Farmers were incensed that they would not have the precious water for this year’s growing season. The water community was left scratching its head.

A spokesman for the US Army Corps of Engineers sheepishly explained that the water release was required by a January 24 Trump Executive Order, issued to override California water policies. The spokesman said the release was made “to ensure California has water available to respond to the wildfires” in Los Angeles. Anyone slightly familiar with how water flows would know that there was no way the water could have reached LA. That did not stop Trump from claiming victory over the LA fires.

The most troubling aspect of this episode is the apparent misconception that the federal government can do whatever it wishes with water stored in a federal reservoir. Quite to the contrary, the great majority of the stored water belongs to irrigation companies and other state water right holders. Regardless of the party in control of semi-arid western states, those states have fiercely safeguarded their precious water resources from federal overreach and waste.

Idaho has fended off attempts by federal officials to control state waters since gaining statehood in 1890. In my lifetime, former Governor Len Jordan nixed a single high federal dam in Hells Canyon in 1952 in favor of three smaller Idaho Power dams so as to maintain control of Snake River waters. When Jordan became a US Senator in 1962, he and Senator Frank Church inserted clauses in every law reserving federal lands in Idaho, requiring any associated water right to be acquired under Idaho water law.

When I became the state’s Republican Attorney General in 1983, I worked closely with former Democratic Governor John Evans to keep state control over Snake River flows in what became known as the Swan Falls water fight. I wrote a book about the fight–A Little Dam Problem–in order to document Idaho’s history of preserving and protecting the state’s control over its water resources. Incidentally, because of its historical relevance, the book was in demand during the contentious water fight between Magic Valley and Eastern Idaho water users last year. The fact is that there is simply not enough of this precious resource available to adequately serve those who presently hold valid water rights. Just as a watermaster in the recent California water dump declared, “Every drop belongs to someone.” Idaho waters are not and should not be available for poaching by federal officials for any use or in any quantity not specifically authorized by a federal statute, certainly not by a stream-of-thought executive order.

To prevent a repeat of the Central Valley debacle in the Gem State, our Congressional delegation should immediately educate the President and his staff of the long-standing tension between federal and state interests in the water rights field. Idaho and the other western states have spent countless hours in planning, litigating and compromising how water within our borders should be allocated and managed to best suit local conditions. We might not always make the best choices, but since we have to live with the system we devise, we are much better positioned to do the job than any unschooled eastern bureaucrat.

I know Senator Crapo and Representative Simpson understand that the livelihoods of their constituents are tied to the water rights and management system that Idahoans have put together for themselves. They both came into the State Legislature at a time when the Swan Falls water fight was at fever pitch. I drove over to Blackfoot to help get that young dentist, Simpson, elected for the purpose of helping Idaho water users in the fight. I relied on the legal heft that Crapo brought to the struggle.

When Trump announced to Californians on September 13 last year that he wanted to send them Columbia River waters, I looked for pushback from our delegation. I was unaware of a peep of concern from them. When a similar idea was publicized in the mid-1960s, every political figure in the Gem State said, “Hell no.” Senators Frank Church and Len Jordan raised the roof and rushed legislation through Congress to prohibit studies by federal agencies for transfers of water resources between river basins.

Idahoans are entitled to hear from their elected representatives in Washington that they will not support proposals to either export Idaho water to other states or allow federal intrusion into water rights and water management issues in Idaho.

 

Time to look at electricity demand

The Northwest Power Planning Council was formed in 1981 in response to concerns in the area about the future availability of energy and the potential impact on power production on various business sectors and on the environment, especially fish runs.

Formed by Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, the Portland-based commission was high-profile and even controversial for a while, but it fell off the public radar eventually its regional energy and environmental plans were completed. Now called the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, its mission in recent years often has focused more heavily on fish runs than on energy production.

And that’s brought criticism.

In 2013,one of its original members, Chris Carlson from Idaho, called for its dissolution.

“It has been a gargantuan waste and its shortcoming in and producing a viable plan to restore the wild salmon and steelhead fishery runs decimated by the four lower Snake River dams is prime reason to put the council out of its misery,” he said in an essay.

He’s not alone in questioning the council’s ongoing role. Since the period four decades ago when planners expected the region to run far short of electricity, conservation has taken hold, new power sources have been developed, grid lines have been strengthened and renewable energy such as wind and solar have been installed.

Lately, however, the Northwest seems on the verge of something approaching a 1980-style regional shortage. In a report in December, Sarah Smith, research scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said: “The electricity use had somewhat stabilized for a few years [in the 2010s]. We are in that growth phase again and climbing up what’s hopefully an s-curve and not an ‘exponential-forever’ curve.”

That brings in the council. It could serve the region in a big way by adjusting its mission to what could become the largest resource crisis the region has seen since the organization’s early days, with new mass power users pouring into the region. Data centers may be among the largest. The Northwest and especially the Columbia River area have become highly popular locations for data centers, which companies such as Amazon and Google use to handle their online traffic. They use an immense amount of electricity, and in some cases water as well, throwing a curve into the region’s power picture.

This has had a massive effect on electricity rates for Oregon customers. Portland General Electric, for example, has exacted large rate increases two years in a row.

This year’s Oregon legislative session is likely to see measures intended to block these tech companies’ power demands from boosting at least residential rates even higher. Two placeholder bills on studying utilities have been filed, Senate Bill 128 and House Bill 3158, and Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, is working on another one.

“People who are our largest energy users should be paying for the cost of their energy. That’s just a basic consumer protection issue here,” she told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

The Citizens Utility Board, a Portland-based watchdog group established by voters in 1984 to represent consumer interests, also has made energy affordability its top priority for the 2025 session. The group said it is “working to find long-term solutions to address the energy affordability crisis too many in Oregon are facing. We will also be focusing on adding more consumer protections for utility customers.”

The problem stretches beyond Oregon, however, and the Legislature’s ability to contain it may be limited. If electric utilities are obliged to add more expensive power sources in coming years, someone will have to pay for them.

Much the same can be said for cryptocurrency, management hubs of which also use immense amounts of juice and likely will be seeking out low-cost areas such as the Northwest, especially if the new Trump administration carries through with fostering crypto.

A third new source of pressure on electric supply concerns electric vehicles, both passenger units and commercial large trucks.

Electric vehicles have become notably popular in Oregon, and the number of charging stations around the state — by late 2023 there were 2,960 in 1,182 places — has exploded. As of November 2023, electric vehicles registered in Oregon totalled 83,047.

The number of large electric trucks in Oregon is likely to grow. On Jan. 1, a new state Department of Environmental Quality requirement says that at least 7% of all Class 8 heavy trucks sold in Oregon must be electric, with the percentage rising annually. That triggered Daimler, an international truck manufacturer with North American headquarters in Portland, to stop selling electric trucks in Oregon for a month. Still, the rule change reflects a shifting motor vehicle marketplace and a massive new user of electric power.

The council appears to be looking at some of these issues.

 

Off and running

In a stunning reversal of promises made during the campaign, and on the day he was installed in office as President of the United States for the second time, Donald Trump granted commutation of sentence and executive pardons to all of the individual defendants  accused or convicted of any offenses related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol break-ins.

Trump's action has or will affect more than 1,500 defendants related to the beak-in and demonstrations at the Capitol on that day and will result in the immediate release of all those in jail or prison, the termination of parole restrictions imposed on those  already released, and the withdrawal and dismissal of all charges against everyone. Previously, from the beginning of his recent campaign, Trump had indicated that pardons for the Capitol uprising would be issued, but only on a case-by-case basis, after an  individual review of each application, implying that they would be issued only to the minor convictions for "being there" crimes, and that none would be issued where violence occurred or was threatened.

Of the over 1,500 individuals pardoned, approximately half were convicted or charged with crimes of assault, battery, use of a deadly weapon, injury to officer, or resisting arrest. The two most serious sentences were the 22-year sentence to the leader of "Proud  Boys" for sedition and the 18-year sentence to the leader of "Oath Keepers" for conspiracy. Both are related to criminal action to cause others to commit violent crimes.

The power to pardon is granted to the President in article II, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides that the President "shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

It has  been held to be a plenary power to forgive entirely every offense known to the law.

Every state governor has some power of pardon, with most states imposing some limitations on the governor's action or some right of review by the state legislature.  In Idaho, section 7 of article IV of the state constitution grants power to pardon to a commission  on pardons and paroles. The governor may grant interim pardons directly, but they are conditional, to last only until the next meeting of the commission, which may then amend or rescind the governor's action. No condition, limitation, or right of review exists  for Presidential pardons except for the Constitutional exclusion for the crime of impeachment. The president's authority is otherwise unlimited.

Trump has been criticized for granting pardons to some individuals who were charged but awaiting trial and therefore before they were convicted of any crime. In the usual case, Presidential pardons are granted after extensive review by the Department of Justice  and the Presidential office. Also in the usual case, pardons are granted for specific crimes and only after the defendant is convicted. However, notable exceptions have occurred.

President Joe Biden's exit pardons of General Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former congresswoman Liz Cheney, members of the Congressional committee to impeach, and members of his own family, all allegedly based upon the threats of Donald Trump to cause criminal

action to be taken but before any such actions existed, are noteworthy examples. As also is the single action by then-president Geral Ford in granting a pardon to former-president Richard Nixon, who had resigned the presidency upon threat of impeachment for  the Watergate incidents but before any criminal action was commenced.

Notwithstanding this, Trump's action was a surprise to most. His vice president, JD Vance, had declared in an interview on Fox News only a week before, that "If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned." Informants responding  confidentially to inquiries from the press indicated up to the day of his inauguration that Trump's intention to pardon was not unconditional but was to be limited to otherwise innocent onlookers. Insiders now say that he made his final decisions only a few  days before his inauguration.

Whew. On his first day Trump has taken the office of President off into territories rarely considered possible, and in complete reversal of promises made during his campaign.

Pay attention, everybody – one suspects there will be more coming.

 

Going there

Yes: What the Senate State Affairs Committee did was simply vote to introduce a bill, prospectively a massive controversial bill, and that it may go no further, receiving not even a public hearing.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Eight years ago I wrote about a group called Abolish Abortion Idaho, based at Hayden, whose name reflected the intended goal. (The group’s then-website is no longer active, and I don’t know if the group still is.) It was trying to land an initiative on the Idaho ballot to make abortions punishable the same as murder. It “would set state policy that abortion, any abortion at any stage of development, be prosecuted the same as any heinous serial killer murder you can recall.”

The proposal failed. Some people suggested such an effort would be a bridge too far even for Idaho. I thought: Give it time.

Now, two and a half years into the post-Roe era, we have another test of the proposition in the form of newly-minted Senate Bill 1059, proposed by Senator Brandon Shippy of New Plymouth (co-sponsors are Senators Joshua Kohl of Twin Falls and Christy Zito of Mountain Home  and Representative Dale Hawkins of Fernwood), introduced with the favorable vote of all State Affairs members save the lone Democrat, James Ruchti of Pocatello.

The bill is not exactly the same as the 2017 ballot proposal, but the new "Idaho Prenatal Equal Protection Act" does have much the same effect: Declaring that (most) abortions are criminal homicides, to the point they should be charged as murder.

At the committee meeting, Shippy’s debate was not practical - he said specifically he wasn’t intending to address any particular medical circumstances - but ideological, when it wasn’t religious. He started his testimony: “I want to preface this by saying that today we know for a fact that our worth and right to life as human beings is not derived from external circumstances or opinions, but from the Imago Dei.” Actually,m this is opinion, not fact. (For those not adhering to the correct religious organization and therefore possibly unaware, that refers to the “image of God.”)

Ruchti asked him, “If a woman is pregnant and claims she has had a miscarriage, how does the government determine whether it truly was a miscarriage or an abortion?” Shippy said that such a case should be handled like the death of anyone else.

So, Ruchti said, if there’s a question about how the death happened, that would mean a police-led investigation by the government?  Shippy: “Presumably that would be the process.”

And, Ruchti asked, would the bill require a 12-year-old rape or incest victim to carry the pregnancy to term? Shippy’s answer was an implicity yes: “A baby conceived in rape is still equal to you or me.”

Apart from Shippy, no one argued in favor of the bill. It was introduced anyway.

It may never get out of the proverbial chairman’s desk. The committee chair, Jim Guthrie of McCammon, expressed no enthusiasm for it. Senate President pro Tem Kelly Anthon of Burley, who is a committee member, said that while the whole of the Senate Republican caucus (which is nearly all of the Senate) considers itself pro-life, a majority would not vote in favor of the bill. He and other committee members seemed to say the introduction was mostly a courtesy to a fellow senator and an opening to discussion of the broader issue.

But the introduction could be more than that. It is now an official, live, bill. If you’re ideologically clearly “pro-life” - as that is understood in most Idaho Republican circles - then you probably do think very much as Shippy does. And the logical conclusion of that is to consider most intentional abortions, maybe with a few exceptions, as some form of manslaughter or murder, and punishable as such. And that would mean jailing women unfortunate enough to encounter problems associated with their pregnancies … in Idaho.

If Idaho’s pro-life community is as serious about its intent as it proclaims - as serious about it as Shippy genuinely appears to be - then how long will this bill or something like remain in a chairman’s desk drawer?

And I thought: Give it time.

 

Bird dog

It’s a question if our (Idaho’s) Attorney General will still be in his role in a couple years. We all know he wants to be Governor.

But I’m just giving him a heads up here, not that he asked. There’s a lawsuit coming our way. I’m sure he’d be happy to fight this one. The legislature would be too, but they don’t get to go to court. They just write the checks. With our tax dollars.

Back in 2022 the legislature decided WWAMI students should come back to Idaho and practice. This requirement had been instituted by other WWAMI states. The thinking of the legislature, I guess, since no one talked to me about this, was that we, the taxpayers are subsidizing the education that gets these folks going into high paying jobs, so they owe us. And doing some time in the Potato State would pay us back some of our tax dollars.

Idaho is a low doctor state. Actually, we’re the lowest. So, the legislature’s bid to require these high earning professionals to come back here and pay us back, with their work, their taxes makes good sense, doesn’t it?

The bill requires any Idaho WWAMI graduate to come back here and work within a year after completing residency or obtaining a medical license.

This would have been a problem for me ages ago. I was in a three-year family medicine residency in Washington. I had completed my first year, so I applied for a medical license in Idaho. Idaho only required one year of post graduate education (residency) to get a license. I got an Idaho license in my second year of residency and did moonlighting ER shifts in Idaho for extra money.

But I had two more years of required training in the Washington residency. Under the Idaho law, I would have to move to Idaho to start practicing before I could complete my training. Maybe the Board of Education who is supposed to supervise this would grant me the year. As it turned out, I came to Idaho and did my service.

This scheme was not well thought out. But this would just be a minor lawsuit I’m sure AG Labrador could sort through.

Let’s get to the nitty gritty.

Let’s say I’m an Idaho WWAMI graduate who has gone into maternal fetal medicine specialty training after her OB/Gyn residency. She is learning to take care of complicated pregnancies that deal with the life of the fetus, the life of the mother. Some of these care decisions are very iffy.

The baby cannot survive. Should the woman have to carry it to term? If the mother is diabetic and her health is at risk, can she consider this?

Here in Idaho, right now, the woman and the doctor cannot consider these issues. The mother’s future health to have more children, her possible complications cannot be a consideration for terminating a doomed pregnancy.

And that is just what a maternal fetal health specialist is supposed to do.

And our laws are requiring that they come back here to “practice”?

Can you appreciate that OB/Gyn doctors who have to have these patient care conversations are leaving this state? Do you know anyone who has been in this position? I do.

So, AG Labrador, do you want to bird dog this issue to its Supreme Court decision?

Prohibiting women from having this choice might be defensible if you have that sort of perspective.

But requiring a medical professional to return to our state and then telling them they cannot care for women like most civilized cultures do seems a bit over the top. But it would be a fun debate in front of some mostly favorable Supremes, eh?

I am arguing that this is a forthcoming lawsuit AG Labrador should be drooling for. Maybe he wants to stay where he is. Or not.

 

IACI and the right direction

Drawing a laugh from Alex LeBeau is easy – if you refer to the Idaho Association of Commerce as a “liberal” organization. LeBeau, the longtime IACI president takes exception to that reference.

That is, when he stops laughing.

That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard,” LeBeau told me. “We have elected more Republicans in the state than just about any other organization, except for maybe the Republican Party.”

Business operators in Idaho don’t tend to be “liberal” by any measure, and LeBeau – who has been the group’s president for almost 20 years – wouldn’t be sitting in the president’s chair if he were promoting some form of a “woke” agenda. Over the decades that I’ve been following Idaho politics, IACI has been called a lot of things. “Liberal” is not among the more prominent references.

Our organization’s membership employs about half of the state’s population, and I’m very proud of our membership,” LeBeau says. “They work very hard to do the different things they do and make the economy great. You are going to have to tell me why that’s a liberal thing.”

Well … the organization generally backs Gov. Brad Little, who is widely panned by the GOP’s right-wing faction. And IACI supports the governor’s Launch program, which some Republicans have dubbed as a socialist scheme. As LeBeau sees it, the biggest objection for some is the fact that Little backs it.

It’s another level of school choice,” LeBeau says.

He has a point there. Launch gives Idaho students an opportunity to further their education by training for high-demand jobs, giving students the opportunity to pursue career opportunities in the Gem State. One immediate benefit, he says, is that community-college enrollment in Idaho is going up, while other states are experiencing a downward trend.

House Speaker Mike Moyle, among others, have talked about “tweaking” the Launch program, and LeBeau is receptive to that idea.

We’re perfectly fine with tweaking it. There will always be room for improvement when you have something new, but getting rid of it is not an option,” LeBeau says

In IACI’s world, the same can be said for keeping Little for a third term as governor. He has not announced his intention for seeking a third term in 2026, although signs seem to be pointing in that direction.

We definitely will get behind the governor if he chooses to go for another term,” LeBeau says. “He’s a former chairman of our organization and he has been a tremendous leader for our state.”

LeBeau gives props to the governor for his recent state-of-the-state message, which outlined his agenda for this session. The governor talked about most of the things that IACI likes, including the Launch program, tax relief and money for highways.

I think he touched on all the right notes in terms of doing what it takes to make this economy going,” LeBeau says. “I look at the state of the economy and the direction that Idaho is going … what are you upset about? We have the most freedoms, the best economy and the most opportunities. And people are saying they don’t want more of the same? I don’t understand what they are upset about, other than the fact that it’s Brad Little and they don’t like Brad.”

To the Idaho Freedom Foundation, the governor is “out of touch.” Ron Nate, president of the IFF, described Little’s state-of-the-state message as “90 percent platitudes, 5 percent rambling and awkward jokes, and 5 percent something – anything – resembling a conservative thought. In other words, disappointing.”

So, brace yourself for a spirited primary election campaign next year. LeBeau and IACI are ready for the fight.

Leadership in government matters,” LeBeau says. “It matters to employers, employees and the quality of life. What we see in Idaho, and from the standpoint of a lifelong Idahoan, we’re in a great spot and I’d like to see it keep going.”

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

 

Missing something

A long time ago - 1942 top be exact - I was in the second grade at East Wenatchee Grade School, East Wenatchee, Washington.

Remember your second grade classroom?  Wall of windows.  Wall of blackboards.  Little desks lined up evenly, front-to- back, side-to-side. Nailed to wooden rails.  American flag hanging up front.  Teacher's desk front and center.

Imagine 22-26 seven-year-olds.  About evenly split between boys and girls.  Sitting at attention.

Now, imagine four armed Douglas County Sheriff's deputies entering through the door in the rear of the classroom.  Their boots sounding loudly on the shiny wooden floor as they marched toward the now-scared-to-death kids.

Quickly, the big men scooped up half-a-dozen tots and carried them - screaming - out the door and down the empty hall.

Then - silence.  Except for the crying of kids in the room, now sitting in terror.  Absolutely scared to death.

I lived that scene.  I, too, cried.  For a long time.

In my time, the kids carried out were Japanese- American.  Again, early 1942.  When every Japanese-American in the nation was suddenly looked at as "personally" being our national enemy.  No matter how old.  No matter how young.  An enemy we were suddenly at war with.

I had no youthful bad feelings about young friends I'd probably have known since birth.  No excuse that Jimmy Yoshida had been born three blocks from that classroom filled with desks.  That seven-year-old was now treated as an enemy combatant.  Same for his parents who were being arrested.  At about the same moment.  And, likely, they'd have been born in this country, too.

All this - and much more - flooded my mind while reading about our President using the word "invasion" while describing immigration at our Southern border.  "Invasion."  "Invasion."  A word normally used to describe an armed attack by someone.  A word that conjures up scenes of tanks, artillery, hundreds and hundreds of heavily-armed troops.  Invasion.  By an "enemy."

What we're really talking about here are small groups of Mexican/Nicaraguan/Brazilian/Chilean, etc. families and friends coming North over our Southern border.  Mostly unarmed, carrying prized possessions and family heirlooms on their backs.  All seeking freedoms not available to them in their home countries.  All wanting a better world for their kids and their neighbor's kids.

"Invasion," he said loudly, using the word to condemn.
I sincerely wish we could "package" - and export - what these people are coming for.  Freedom.  Opportunity.  Better lives.  Respect.  Peace and safety for their families.

Since we can't "package" all that, they have to come for it.  And, therein, lies the crux of the problem. It's not so much the individual immigrant as it is what comes out of our President's mouth.  Words without thought.  Words without understanding.  Words without compassion.  Dangerous words.  Ignorant words that can hurt.

The President might not mean it that way.  But, some of the things he says regarding immigrants remind me of sheriff's deputies.  Of boots sounding in the hallway.  Of cries by terrified youngsters.Our President has no idea how to deal with the common man.  That's because he's never been one.  He's never had to reach for something just out of his grasp.  He's never had to live without something he couldn't have.

Like freedom.

 

Few winners, many losers

Let’s be honest. The push to require Idaho taxpayers to subsidize private and religious schooling is not about “choice.” Experience in voucher states indicates that the great majority of those who get the subsidy money are already sending their kids to private or religious schools. That will undoubtedly be the case in Idaho. The only real question is who benefits from the money extracted from taxpayers and who gets stuck paying the bill–who wins and who loses. Just follow the money.

The money trail started early in the nation’s history in a struggle between those who wished for an egalitarian society on one side, and the ultra-rich, who felt entitled to chart our destiny with a trickle-down society, on the other side. America’s public school system was established for the egalitarian side to give every child a fair chance in life. However, there has always been strong pressure by those with extreme wealth to take the reins and skew the national playing field toward the trickle-down side.

In the last decade or so, the ultra-rich have targeted the public schools, apparently seeing them as a threat to their control of society. The billionaire class and its right-wing allies, including the Koch network, the Heritage Foundation and the State Policy Network (SPN), are doing their utmost to privatize K-12 education in America. Those groups are represented in Idaho. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) are both part of the SPN. IFF wants the state to get out of the public school business. MSPC is a member of  the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which advocates a universal voucher system.

Some of these dark-money-funded groups may have a profit motive, while others may see it as a way of indoctrinating kids in their world view. Whatever their motivation, the fact is that out-of-state billionaires have been pouring campaign money into Idaho in the last several years to elect legislators who will do their bidding on school voucher legislation. Their campaign money has been effective in knocking off many voucher opponents, particularly in the closed GOP primary. They now have an army of lobbyists roaming the legislative halls to grab as many tax dollars as possible to privatize education–$50 million in Rep. Horman's bill and $250 million in Rep. Hostetler’s bill. Of course, those figures would skyrocket in future years.

Many well-meaning Idaho parents have joined the out-of-state lobbyists to push for voucher legislation. One person who lobbied last year had four children enrolled in Nampa Christian School. He said, “I’m already paying taxes that the public school benefits from that I don’t receive any benefit from.” If he gets a tax credit or voucher payment of either $20,000 (Horman’s bill) or $38,000 (Hostetler’s bill) for those kids, he might not have to pay any state taxes for any government program. Many people pay state taxes for programs from which they do not personally benefit.

Any number of churches that operate religious schools have been lobbying for subsidy money, even though it would cause legislators to break the Idaho Constitution’s strict commandment against using public funds for religious education. About 90% of subsidy payments would be used for religious education. I certainly don’t begrudge Nampa Christian, Cole Valley Christian, Catholic schools, Lutheran schools or any other schools from seeking government subsidies. But, it seems the proper way to do it would be to first amend the Constitution to remove the prohibition against religious school funding. As it is, religious school parents are being used as an inadvertent battering ram against the public school system–to support the billionaires’ effort to weaken that system, while also injecting religious doctrine into taxpayer-financed education in Idaho.

Idaho churches that do not operate schools will receive absolutely no benefit from subsidy programs. Take, for instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which  has a strong and historic presence in the State of Idaho. Church members have been stalwart supporters of public education, but the church does not operate a system of religious schools. They handle religious teaching the right way– without use of public money in their seminaries. Many communities of the church’s faithful are located in rural areas around the state, particularly in the southern part of the state. These factors indicate that Mormon public-school patrons will suffer disadvantages in a subsidized system–no public education funding for church members and a reduction of state funding for the rural public schools that their kids attend.

The best way to prevent the families of Idaho’s 313,160 public school students from losing, while subsidizing about 36,000 kids schooled privately, is to vote down any subsidy program. The solemn commandment prohibiting publicly-subsidized religious schooling has worked well since statehood and will serve us well into the future.