Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in May 2025

Deal

Deal

May 22, 2025

It seems Republicans everywhere want to have work requirements for people who receive Medicaid health insurance. Our governor has said he’s on board, as has the director of the Department of Health and Welfare. The legislature has long argued for this, and they are again. Idaho has long had a request pending.

And this Medicaid work requirement plan is in the “Big Beautiful Bill” Trump has before Congress. If we can just get enough savings by kicking people off Medicaid, we can give the wealthy their tax cuts.

I understand the concern. Why should us taxpayers give our tax money to folks loafing on the couch all day? If that’s the case.

I first ran into this sentiment when I was campaigning for office. A local labor union gave me a chance to make my pitch to them. Democrat, Union, you’d think we were simpatico. Maybe not.

I introduced myself and then asked them what they wanted from the state government. The young guys were reluctant, but finally a guy spoke up. “Why don’t we drug test people who want welfare?”

I told him I would look into it. After I got elected, I did.

Some states had imposed this testing. There was widespread belief that druggies were taking our tax dollars. It must have been on talk radio.

The actual numbers showed that the cost of drug testing and the administration of this requirement had added significantly to the taxpayers cost of the program. Further, the number of folks using drugs on Welfare was well below the number of the general population. So just what is your point?

I believe most folks do not want to give something out through government-imposed taxes to another of their fellow citizens who might be undeserving of their generosity. I understand this sentiment. And I’m an Idaho Democrat.

But the laws we write are supposed to promote domestic tranquility and the common good. Anyone remember that?

So, let’s look at the work requirement proposed for Medicaid health insurance. Idaho’s proposal has many exceptions for “work”. Caretakers, moms, folks recently unemployed are exempted. So, who might be abusing this government benefit? I would argue, it’s a very small fraction of the Medicaid population.

Maybe you want to build a department of government to find these scofflaws and make sure they don’t have health insurance that we are all paying for. Okay, so we add to the bureaucracy. That’s what you want?

Given our current system, that is that health insurance is a work-related benefit, it makes sense that we should be pushing people to gain employment, and then their health insurance would be the employer’s problem, not us taxpayers.

So, here’s the deal I offer you “work requirement” afficionados. And I believe it is a plan that would be accepted by our federal partners.

Let’s do an experiment.

Idaho should propose to the federal government, our Medicaid partner since they pay 70% of the bill, a study.

We get to impose Medicaid work requirements on half of the folks who qualify for Medicaid. We study this half, and also the half that don’t have the requirements. We watch them for their long term, let’s say five years, outcomes. How many become employed and off the dole? How many just stay uninsured and a burden on us all.

Do we really help anybody with this requirement?

I have my bias.

You probably do too.

Let’s study the question.

This has been done only briefly before when Arkansas instituted work requirements. There was no randomization. The results showed folks left Medicaid because they couldn’t manage the bureaucratic mess.

Maybe that’s all some folks want. Kick people off.

It comes down to the question of whether you believe people, our society, your neighbors, all of us, are better suited to serve the common good if we have health insurance.

So let’s study this work requirement thing. Let’s see if it helps people.

 

Town hall lessons

May 21, 2025

Former Idaho Congressmen Richard Stallings (1985-93) and Larry LaRocco(1991-95)  recently held 11 in-person town hall meetings to gauge Idahoans’ reactions to the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Below is the report they promised.

Open Letter to Idaho Congressional Delegation:

Beginning February 28th and concluding May 3rd we held 11 in-person town hall meetings throughout Idaho --Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Nampa (2), Boise (2), McCall, Lewiston, Moscow, Post Falls, Boise, Twin Falls -- to listen to all Idahoans concerned about the chaotic and centralized agenda of President Trump and Elon Musk.

At their core, our statewide meetings amounted to a democracy tour that centered on the foundation of the US Constitution and the duty of elected officials to honor their sacred oaths of office. Deep concerns over the rule of law and due process were repeatedly expressed. We heard distinct fear over exploding executive authority and waning influence from Congress. In fact, concerns over possible implementation of martial law were shared as President Trump expands power in defiance of the courts and Congress.

Attendees repeatedly asked whether the use of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful. Town hall participants queried us about the growing number of constitutional questions before the courts. We were repeatedly asked whether America was in a constitutional crisis. We both affirmed a looming crisis.

Your avoidance of Idahoans has resulted in your further isolation from the common sense and pragmatism of Idahoans.

During our town halls Elon Musk shared news cycles with President Trump grotesquely demonstrating how $290 million in 2024 campaign contributions can corrupt our elections and buy a seat adjacent to the Resolute Desk. Idahoans expressed shock at how an unelected billionaire took a chainsaw rather than a scalpel to our government. You would have received an earful on the Musk team’s hacking of our most personal data. Idahoans believe they must rely solely on the judiciary to protect citizens’ rights under the constitution while Congress stands complicit. Our neighbors clearly know the proper bounds of executive power and the constitutional role of checks and balances by Congress in preventing authoritarians from hijacking our democracy. What is unclear are your views on these important subjects.

If you had accompanied us, you would have heard a great deal of anger and frustration over the shock and awe emanating daily from the White House. They voiced serious disdain for the performative executive orders, rambling press statements, revenge-based ad hominem attacks on opponents, sycophantic fawning from cabinet members and daily violations of due process. We heard all of this from your constituents.

Idahoans are not fooled by the White House gaslighting strategy of quickly diverting Americans’ attention from one shiny object to another. It seems like ancient history when you remained silent as 1600 January 6 insurrectionists were pardoned after rioters disrupted the peaceful transfer of power by violating our Capitol and your offices. You meekly stand by as President Trump upends our 80-year-old international alliances through bullying and belittling. Idahoans don’t understand why ALL CAPS intemperance has replaced diplomacy.

Town hall attendees expressed concern that MAGA ideologues and tech-capitalists are gunning for our public lands, thereby restricting our ability to hunt, recreate, graze, hike and cherish our magnificent resources. Current and retired public land managers spoke passionately about their love of country and pride in their special knowledge so important to protecting our natural resources.

Concern by rural Idahoans were shared with us. Cuts to Medicaid could cause closures of rural hospitals despite an ballot initiative approved by 61% of Idahoans to expand Medicaid. The lack of clarity on tariff policies is causing chaos among farmers who rely on exports. Similarly, Idaho small businesses appear to be collateral damage on the mis-handled tariff rollouts. The dairy industry is waiting for the next shoe to drop on immigration. Rural school districts are threatened by vouchers prioritizing urban private schools. An end run on clear water standards can threaten anadromous fish runs. Sources of objective news for rural Idaho through the Public Broadcasting System are headed to the chopping block, creating larger news deserts.

Idahoans stated concerns about dark money in the political system. They equate your silence with dollar-fueled intimidation and raised the Citizens United decision on many occasions. Billionaire cabinet members have been confirmed who appear to be ideologically selected and driven primarily by personal loyalty rather than to the constitution. Idaho has a strong record on human rights that could be displaced with DEI conspiracy theories and anti-WOKE messaging. Misinformation is rampant.

Clearly, town hall participants were upset with Democrats and Republicans alike for allowing President Trump to shatter norms, challenge constitutional safeguards, defy court decisions, govern by executive orders, upend decades-old alliances, prioritize loyalty as a primary qualification for public service, attack institutions based on revenge, lie and dissemble daily, and put our economy and retirement security at risk through chaotic tariff gambles.

Overall, our town halls were centered on protecting our democracy, rule of law and constitution. We listened. We learned. We were inspired by the patriotism and civic concern of our fellow Idahoans who approached the microphones to speak on issues big and small. In each town hall there was a deep commitment to find common purpose to protect our precious democracy now under attack.

 

Rewind 2019: Keeping faith

May 20, 2025

With the possible exception of the Civil War, our nation now seems more divided, more acrimonious, more splintered and filled with outright hate than at anytime in our history.

The causes are many. Solutions seem few. Each day, it seems another dose of division is sewn into our nature and those divisions appear wider than ever. None of us can escape them. Nor should we if we're ever to come out of this dark period intact.

But, one societal separation bothers me more than any other. And that's the often stark divide between citizenry and law enforcement.

It's not enough to say there's fault on both sides. Which, of course, there is. Our suspicion of some of them and their suspicion, and on occasion, treatment of some of us seems to make the news daily.

What set this train of thought going for me was an incident that happened just down the road from our house the other day. Six local officers coordinated their morning break time to meet at a coffee shop for a latte or two. As they sat chatting, the manager came to the table and asked them to leave. Just go! Seems a customer had complained the presence of the officers was making him/her "uncomfortable."

There's so much wrong with this picture. Obviously the action of the manager was ridiculous. So, too, was the unreasonable request from the customer. The presence of half-a-dozen local officers was disturbing? Why? My first reaction to the story was what was in the custome's mind - or background - that made him/her so uncomfortable? And the next thought: was the customer Black? A totally outrageous situation made worse because of the extreme ignorance of both the customer and the manager.

This dustup may be isolated. But, there's more at play here than just a citizen complaint. While conduct between most law enforcement and most citizens on a daily basis is routine, we've seen many instances when it' not. The oft-photographed murder of unarmed Black men and teens springs to mind. The difference in treatment by law enforcement on the basis of race has been well-documented. And, whenever it happens - wherever it happens - it's wrong.

And so is this: the dangerous decisions by lawmen in many parts of the country that they'll enforce certain laws and ignore others. Our western sheriffs are often the most strident. In Washington, Idaho, Utah and Oregon, many have not only said they won't enforce gun laws but will actually arrest federal officers who may try to do so. Sworn to uphold all laws, some have decided to be selective. Which is illegal and sends terribly mixed messages to citizens. When is a law right and when is a right law deemed wrong? That's what courts are for. Not cops.

The relationship of law enforcers and law abiders is one of the most important basics in a civilization. The balance is best when there's trust demonstrated by all participants. But, when officers become selective - when they become threats to unarmed citizens through words or actions - the results can be deadly.

Similarly, citizens can also alter that delicate balance by acting inappropriately or making unreasonable demands. Our local uncomfortable latte drinker is one such.

In younger days, I spent a lot of nighttime hours doing ride-alongs with cops. I became very familiar with some of the dangers they face each shift and some of the unreported good things they do just because they're the right kinds of people. I have a healthy respect for what they do, how they do it and why. Often dangerous work. More often, thankless work.

We need them. They need us. It's just that simple. We may live in difficult times. We may be surrounded by politically turbulent times. We may be victims - or perpetrators - of the hateful divisions faced daily or deluged by lies and disappointments in our national politics.

But, we must strive for - earnestly work for - a continuing respect for laws and the people who enforce them. If we lose that trust - that faith - that respect one for another - not much else matters.

 

Trump against Labrador

May 19, 2025

The Trump Justice Department has asked a federal district judge in Amarillo, Texas, to throw out an abortion pill case filed by the Attorneys General of Idaho, Missouri and Kansas. Federal lawyers correctly point out that the suit was filed too late, that it was filed in the wrong place and that the three states do not have standing, that is, the right to sue. Anyone with a basic understanding of the law would have known that a suit with just one of those major infirmities would not survive even casual scrutiny.

Aside from  all of that, the case is completely without merit–no beef in their 199-page complaint.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2022 by a group of doctors who claimed the pill, mifepristone, was dangerous to women seeking early termination of their pregnancies. As matters progressed, it was revealed that those doctors had never prescribed the drug and their so-called scientific evidence was badly flawed. Nevertheless, the district judge, a long-time abortion opponent, ruled that the drug had to be taken off of the market.

At that point Raul Labrador and the other two AGs sought to intervene in the case. They wanted to ban mifepristone, but also another medication, misoprostol, which has been safely used for a variety of purposes for decades. The original case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The three states asked to join in the appeal but their request was denied. The Supreme Court decided last June that the group of doctors did not have standing to bring the suit. The case was sent back to the Texas judge for disposal.

Rather than accept a well-deserved defeat, Labrador and the other two AGs tried to resuscitate the case last October. That is when they asked for permission to file their 199-page complaint. That complaint dropped the misoprostol issue but doubled down on challenging the imagined dangers posed by mifepristone. They did not seek a total ban of mifepristone. Rather, they targeted rules the Food and Drug Administration adopted in 2016, during Trump’s first term, to make it more readily available.

Although the new complaint was substantial in length, it failed to establish that any of the three states had standing to sue. The AGs needed to show that their state suffered a concrete injury from the 2016 rules in order to establish standing. Labrador’s injury claim was that the eased rules made mifepristone more available to internet-savvy younger women, which would result in fewer Idaho births, which would result in a “diminishment of political representation” and “loss of federal funds.” The Trump lawyers were seemingly unimpressed with that flimsy standing argument.

The federal lawyers also pointed out that Texas was not the proper place, or venue, for the suit. Venue for a suit exists in a location where some of the operative facts take place. A third fatal flaw raised by the Trump lawyers is that the suit was filed too late because any challenge to the 2016 rules had to be brought within 6 years.

The Justice Department’s motion to toss the lawsuit did not get into the merits of the case, but the lengthy complaint contained absolutely no competent evidence that mifepristone was dangerous to women. In fact, the overwhelming weight of medical evidence in the record of the original case supported the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that mifepristone is safe and effective.

All told, the lawsuit was a tremendous waste of time and resources for all concerned. But there is another aspect of the case that is even more troubling. The original lawsuit by the group of doctors was engineered by a well-heeled Christian nationalist group, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations hate group in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF has worked closely with Labrador on a number of cases in the last two years and it is hard to tell who is calling the shots. ADF purports that it is providing free legal service to Labrador, while Labrador tries to give the impression that he controls any litigation.

It appears that ADF is using Labrador’s position as Idaho’s chief legal officer to accomplish what it cannot do as a private litigant. That is, use Idaho’s sovereign position as a state to add strength to its litigation posture. It would be totally unacceptable for an outside extremist group to use Idaho’s sovereignty and good name to advance its private interests. The move by the federal lawyers to abort the case may indicate it is even too extreme for Trump’s taste.

 

Sourcing the news

Sourcing the news

May 18, 2025

No easy or obvious solution will resolve one of the top and less-acknowledged crises in America, the collapse of local and regional news reporting. Whether Oregon Senate Bill 686 passes or fails, it should at least open a discussion about improving the ability of Oregonians to get the information they need to govern themselves.

The problem is obscured a little by the fact that most news outlets in the state haven’t disappeared completely, and a few new ones (the Oregon Capital Chronicle, for one example) have arisen.

Good journalism is still being done in the state, but much less comprehensively than two or three decades ago. But the newsgathering capacity is a sliver of what it was at the century’s turn, the number of journalists in newsrooms way down. Broadcasters have seen serious cutbacks too.

There’s little coverage now of local city councils, county commissions, school boards and more. Local angles on the work of legislators and state and federal officials is nearly gone.

The larger picture is of a balloon, once full, but now with its air mostly having run out.

This would be only a business problem except that it means we’re not getting the information about our government, our politics, our society, our problems and our successes as we did not long ago. That gap, and the rise of misinformation to massive levels, has become one of our great national crises.

Enter SB 686, which intends to at least provide some help. It is not a totally new idea, being a variation on similar attempts in other places (California and Canada for two), to direct public assistance toward civic journalism.

The operating idea comes from one of the (many) reasons for journalism’s economic collapse, the use of locally-created news reports with little or no compensation in online media platforms — think here of Google and Facebook, with others as well. The idea is to force those platforms, which have been swimming in profits in recent years, to help pay for production of local news either through fees to the organizations, or by way of arbitration, or a contribution to a new Oregon Civic Information Consortium.

The bill, which at this writing seems to be progressing steadily through the legislature, has understandably drawn lots of testimony. Critics, including the social media platforms, have raised legal questions about it, and the tech giants have suggested that Oregon news reports might be restricted or even banned on places like Facebook or Google. Other questions include how much money might be involved, and exactly how it would be spent. ($122 million has been one estimate noted, but that’s not at all definitive.)

Less discussed: What results Oregon news consumers might see, provided the bill passes and survives legal challenges.

If any of the big platforms — from Facebook to Google — did decide to block Oregon news, that might send most Oregon news readers elsewhere, and maybe back in larger numbers to Oregon news sites. Many of Oregon’s newspapers and broadcasters have highly active websites that could become a boon for those companies with an additional readership push.

A shift away from the mega-platforms also might reshuffle access to news. National news has had aggregate sites like Drudge or Memeorandum for years, and many people have used them. Oregon has some lesser-known aggregators too, such as the right-leaning Oregon Watchdog, and these might become more popular, or a new generation of them might be developed.

Suppose the platforms agreed to pay up? That’s a realistic prospect; California and Canada, after launching legislative efforts that loosely resemble Oregon’s, have extracted money from them for journalism. The platforms are understandably concerned about similar initiatives in 50 states and beyond, but the reality is they can easily afford it.

How much good would it do? In some cases, newsrooms might be beefed up somewhat, and in other places where newsgathering has collapsed, it might be reinvigorated, at least somewhat.

The upside looks good, and the downside risk doesn’t seem large.

Consider a small city in a small county whose newspaper has disappeared or has hardly any remaining presence. If two journalists were hired, with money for training and support, that could make a lot of difference, resulting in significant coverage of the area. The remaining questions would involve how to get people to check it out.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image)

Death to knowledge

May 17, 2025

When the British set fire to much of Washington, DC in 1814, including the U.S. Capitol building, the 3,000 volumes that constituted the young nation’s library were destroyed. Thomas Jefferson, needing the money, offered to replenish the collection from his own library of more than 10,000 volumes.

As the Library of Congress notes on it’s website:

Jefferson promised to accept any price set by Congress, commenting that “I do not know that it contains any branch of science which Congress would wish to exclude from this collection . . . there is in fact no subject to which a member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.” Records indicate the total of volumes received by the Library of Congress was 6,487.

The Library of Congress was launched. And it has been an illustrious institution every sense.

Harry Truman, an ambitious reader all his life, sent for books from the Library during his presidency, including on one occasion researching Abraham Lincoln’s sacking of General George McClellan during the Civil War. Harry was searching for historical support for his own firing of Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.

The Library hold the papers of 23 American presidents from Washington to Coolidge, as well as senators, artists and writers. Jefferson’s personal library has been recreated by the Library. I’ve spent some of my best days in the Library of Congress. It is a truly magical place staffed by great and good Americans. And it’s all free.

While I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting the librarian - Carla Hayden - that the famous non-reader in the White House canned this week, by most accounts she is a star in the library world who pushed, among other things, plans to digitize more of the Library’s vast collection.

As the Washington Post noted in an editorial in 2021:

One of the country’s oldest cultural institutions is now writing the book on how to adapt to a brave new world. Only a few years after being labeled a digital laggard, the Library of Congress is bringing its hundreds of millions of documents’ worth of history to citizens across the country in ever more innovative ways. The success story is one that other government agencies, from the federal level to the local, should consider.

Imagine that, bringing history to the public by making access to history easier. I can personally attest to how marvelous it is to have desktop access to digitized material from, for example, the papers of presidents like John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

But back to the librarian Donald Trump just fired:

Prior to her current role, Dr. Hayden was the CEO of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, Maryland, since 1993. She was the deputy commissioner and chief librarian of the Chicago Public Library from 1991 to 1993, an assistant professor of library and information science at the University of Pittsburgh from 1987 to 1991 and library services coordinator for the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago from 1982 to 1987. She began her career with the Chicago Public Library as the young adult services coordinator from 1979 to 1982 and as a library associate and children’s librarian from 1973 to 1979.

Dr. Hayden was president of the American Library Association from 2003 to 2004. In 1995, she was the first African American to receive Library Journal’s Librarian of the Year Award in recognition of her outreach services at the Pratt Library, which included an after-school center for Baltimore teens offering homework assistance and college and career counseling. Hayden received a B.A. from Roosevelt University and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Graduate Library School of the University of Chicago.

Among her numerous civic and professional memberships and awards, Dr. Hayden is an elected member of the American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Read about the remarkable professional accomplishments of Carla Hayden while you can. The White House, as of Sunday morning, hadn’t gotten around to scrubbing her bio from the Library of Congress website.

Still, in an administration where expertise and judgment count not at all, the White House has its agenda, as forehead slappingly stupid as it is:

“There were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a news conference Friday, referring to Trump’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion programs in government. “We don’t believe that she was serving the interests of the American taxpayer well, so she has been removed from her position, and the president is well within his rights to do that.”

That is highly debatable, indeed arguably illegal.

The Library is technically and legally within the prevue of Congress, not the president. It is, after all, the Library of Congress. There is even a joint House-Senate committee on the Library that dates to 1802. The Senate confirms the librarian to a ten-year term. Ms. Hayden has a year left on her term.

Additionally, the Library of Congress, unlike the talking points of the White House press secretary, is legally the depository of every single book printed in the good ol’ USA, and it doesn’t open its collection or reading rooms to anyone under 16 years of age, but the Library does offer a wide range of programs for families.

What’s more the MAGA world clearly didn’t get the Trump memo on the awful job being done by Carla Hayden at the Library of Congress.

At a hearing of the House Administration committee Tuesday, Republican Congressman Bryan Steil praised Hayden and her staff, saying they "dedicate a lot of time and service to the country and the Library of Congress, and their work should be commended."

Wait. What?

Maybe we’re overthinking all this.

Perhaps what Donald Trump and his book banning staffers really don’t like is the fact that a remarkably accomplished Black woman was in charge of the country’s library with a mission to make its vast and incredibly valuable contents more widely available?

Oh, and Ms. Hayden was appointed by Barack Obama. Another mark against her.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries got it right, I think.

“Donald Trump’s unjust decision to fire Dr. Hayden in an email sent by a random political hack is a disgrace and the latest in his ongoing effort to ban books, whitewash American history and turn back the clock.”

Early on this administration signaled a mission to disband American knowledge and distort American history. As The New York Times pointed out:

A push to purge references to diversity and inclusion led to a page on Jackie Robinson’s life and military career temporarily vanishing from the Pentagon website. Arlington National Cemetery web pages highlighting the graves of Black and female service members disappeared. Books including “To Kill a Mockingbird,” the novel by Harper Lee about racism in the Depression-era South, were purged from schools run by the Defense Department, according to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The administration is after the arts and humanities, local libraries, public broadcasting and colleges and universities. Non-profit foundations are next. The aim isn’t really to silence some “woke” approach to history or even purge books, but to twist our complex and complicated national story into some Trumpian mind pretzel of dumbness, and further eliminate critical thinking on, well, anything.

“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library,” the great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges said. He was right.

The opposite of paradise is what is happening with our country’s great cultural institutions.

If you agree - resist.

Resist it with all you have.

 

Whose civics

Whose civics

May 16, 2025

A public better educated on civics ought to be one of our top priorities, and the arrival of a bill this last session - which since has been signed into law - to revise Idaho state law on the subject was cause for immediate interest.

Interest, yes, but also concern. The opportunities for mischief here are almost limitless, and Idaho’s isn’t a legislature usually known in recent years for cautious self-restraint.

Welcome to House Bill 397, sponsored by Senator Cindy Carlson of Riggins and Representative Tony Wisniewski of Post Falls. The bill on its surface doesn’t seem especially problematic. The issues lie in the details and in what it easily can lead to.

Idaho for years has had a law on the books covering civics education which, as a description for the new one notes, requires “all secondary students demonstrate that they have met the state civics and government standards through the successful completion of the civics test as a graduation requirement.” That demonstration comes in the form of 100 questions drawn from the national citizenship test; the idea that American high school students should know as much about their government as newly-minted Americans do seems reasonable.

It also feels incomplete, which is why the idea of improving on it makes some sense. But one advantage of the current naturalization test is that it’s of long-standing and broadly accepted. If you’re going to tinker with the requirements, you should be careful - that is, if your intentions are honorable.

The new law, which is intended to take effect with the 2026-27 school year,  replaces the citizenship test with “an assessment developed by the state department of education with the approval of the state board of education that includes but is not limited to the following components from the Idaho content standards in American government …” It goes on to list 11 specific items which must be included. These include “the influence of the history of Western civilization,” particular sections of the national constitution (not necessarily all of it) and the functions of state and local governments.

The bill also said “The state board of education may promulgate rules, subject to legislative approval” - which puts the legislature directly in the process of outlining and describing what students should think about their government.

None of those included items are necessarily wrong as a part of study, but they too feel incomplete, and people are likely to differ widely on what should and shouldn’t be included. They also seem grounded not in any kind of objective or scholarly standard but in a more ideological one, such as might appeal to (say) a Republican Idaho legislator.

Which brings us to the more subtle problem: The legislature now is getting into the question of what specifically must be taught in civics classes in Idaho high schools.

How long will it be until the learning requirements start to closely resemble the Idaho Republican party platform?

How long before civic education is used as a rationale for religious (Bible) instruction in classrooms, on grounds that the Bible was an influential document in national history? (Well, we’re pretty close to that right now.)

There’s a thin line here between education and indoctrination. The new law in itself doesn’t quite cross it, but it opens the temptation for legislators, starting in next year’s session, to dictate that Idaho students be taught - and formally accept as fact, as reported on tests - whatever it is their legislators want them to believe.

This is how you can move from a government responding to the will of its citizens, to telling those citizens what they must think - starting in school.

That is what is meant by a slippery slope.

 

Assessment

Assessment

May 15, 2025

Congress is trying to squeeze money out of Medicaid to pay for the tax cuts. They’ve got to come up with the trillions somewhere, why not healthcare for the low income?

Their current scheme is to take away a scheme states came up with years ago to augment the Federal money they were getting to pay for this cheap healthcare.

Remember, total Medicaid funding, Federal and State for healthy adults’ costs taxpayers about half what we spend on our health insurance coverage for our legislators. That’s because the Medicaid payments to hospitals and providers is so low.

Hospitals here in Idaho back in 2008 saw Medicaid payment cuts coming when the financial crisis sent us into recession. They suggested a solution, one many states had been doing for a while, but Idaho was slow to adopt.

“Tax us” they said. Hospitals suggested the state place a 10% tax to hospitals on every Medicaid dollar they received. This tax would then be used to spend on the states Medicaid payments to hospitals.

Why would they do that? Why would they want to pay back 10% of what they were paid, just to then have the state pay it back to them.

Here’s where the Ponzi aspect of this rears its head.

Back in 2008-2010, for every dollar the State of Idaho spent on Medicaid, the Federal government matched three. It’s currently dropped down to 2.5/1, but as you can see, we get back more than the tax takes.

Many states “assess” their hospitals at a higher rate. A few states don’t use this scheme at all. I use the term “assessment” , because that is what this is called in Idaho statute, an “assessment”.

But it’s a tax. Conservatives don’t like taxes, but assessments were just fine with the Idaho legislature.

Just like tariffs, which are taxes on us consumers, are tolerated as long as we can pretend that they aren’t a tax.

I have to admit, I didn’t like this when I found out about it in the legislature. Nursing homes pay an assessment too since they get Medicaid payments. But the hospital association said they couldn’t live without it, so I carried the renewal of this tax bill in the Idaho Senate. Makes sense, doesn’t it, an Idaho Democrat has to carry the tax bill most Republicans supported?

Written into this sleazy bill was an exception that also burned my gut. Private, for-profit hospitals lobbied to be excluded from this “assessment” and they got themselves written out of it. They claimed they didn’t get Medicaid payments. I looked into that. They were getting millions.

But congress wants to take this scheme away from states. In Idaho, we will lose about 10% of the Federal funding. For some states it’s almost a 40% cut.

There are only a couple ways to do this.

#1. Decrease enrollees = kick some folks off. The number of uninsured patients will climb, hospitals will still care for them, and they will get less money.

#2 Pay doctors and hospitals less for what they do. I’ve already told you Medicaid payment rates are the least of any payer. Hospitals cannot refuse to see Medicaid patients, but doctors can. Many already do. More will.

So, these are the choices we are making in this, our country. We enjoy the richest economy in the world. We spend by far the most per person (about 50% more than the next country spends) on healthcare of any country in the world. And we don’t have universal coverage. They do.

And we are about to send poor folks off coverage to provide somebody tax cuts.

Says something about our values, doesn’t it?

 

 

 

Taxes and the nursing shortage

May 14, 2025

A guest opinion by Stephanie Saltzgaver on an approach to dealing with Idaho's ongoing nursing shortage.

Idaho is experiencing one of the worst nursing shortages in the country, jeopardizing the health and safety of residents, especially in rural communities. One of the easiest ways to alleviate the issue is for communities to hire licensed health care workers from out of state to deliver exceptional care and serve patients. While there is a financial cost to hire and certify these workers, Congress has an incredible opportunity in the upcoming tax legislation to ease the regulatory burden and help solve Idaho's health care crisis.

Ardor Health currently has hundreds of nursing jobs that are unfilled in the western U.S., including nearly three dozen in Idaho. We have contracts in place with local health care providers such as hospitals and rehabilitation facilities to recruit workers, confirm they hold the proper certifications, find them housing, and ensure they are ready to care for patients. One tool to finance these start-up costs are business loans, which allow us to recruit and onboard the best health care workers for Idaho.

Currently interest rates are at historic highs, making borrowing expensive and challenging. Not only that, but the federal tax code also penalizes businesses like ours for taking out loans. Before 2018, interest on business loans was 100% deductible, making it easy to borrow to expand operations, hire staff, or otherwise reinvest in a company. However, recent changes to federal tax law, known in Washington as the 163(j)-interest deduction limit, caps the interest deduction to just 30%, and businesses must now use a strict calculation that does not account for the depreciation of assets.

The problem with change is simple. Rather than spending money to hire and train nurses to address Idaho's nursing shortage, companies like mine must pay the government additional tax dollars for taking out loans. It makes no sense to penalize companies for investing in their future and hiring more employees.

Meanwhile, the impacts of this tax policy are personal for Idahoans. Every dollar that we spend on taxes and interest is one less dollar that we spend on recruitment. That means communities like Pocatello, McCall, and Lewiston are waiting for health care workers when we could be hiring and training new nurses to fill open roles.

One recent estimate found that Idaho is short more than 1,800 registered nurses. Such a significant and immediate need cannot be solved through in-state nursing programs alone, as it can take years to stand up programs and recruit instructors. And while many communities have sought to alleviate the issue with foreign workers, securing the necessary immigration and visa approvals is even more burdensome. The most effective way to quickly address this crisis is through travel nurse programs.

Lowering the cost of borrowing through federal tax policy will pay dividends into the future. Many of our recruits have completed more than a dozen different assignments since we were formed in 2001. That means that new nurses we hire may go on to serve multiple Idaho communities for years to come. That is a measurable impact that will close the shortfall and ensure that more Idahoans are getting the care they need.

We can fix Idaho's health care crisis – we just need Congress to act. As Congress considers a tax bill to grow our economy and provide tax relief, I'm asking U.S. Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, as well as U.S. Representatives Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher to raise the 163(j)-interest deduction to 50% and allow businesses to apply it against the EBITDA standard. Doing so will better enable us to address the nursing shortage and help ensure that Idaho's communities get the care they need.

 

Stephanie Saltzgaver is the President of Ardor Health Solutions.