Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in February 2026

A sprouting of independents

A sprouting of independents

February 13, 2026

Start with this: The state of Idaho never has elected an independent - a candidate running apart from any political party - to congressional office, or to any of the partisan statewide offices. It has not even elected any independent to the state legislature since nearly a century ago, in 1928.

And hardly any independent candidates have approached even shouting distance of actual election, though lots of independents have appeared on the ballot over the years. Most pick up something like one to three percent of the vote. A side note: Quite a few independents have been elected to county offices.

While some states (Vermont and Maine, notably) have been responsive to independents in recent years, Idaho has not. If most political watchers in the state tend to be dismissive about the chances of independents at least for major office, there’s good reason.

Idaho is now seeing a real sprouting of independents, for U.S. senate, governor, and first district U.S. house. Might any of them fare better than their many predecessors?

Looking first at the candidates, the answer wouldn’t be a resounding yes. While all have genuinely attractive qualities, none is (today) exactly a titanic political figure.

Todd Achilles, the independent running for the U.S. Senate (opposing incumbent Republican Jim Risch) is a former (Democratic) state legislator from Boise, articulate and active as a campaigner, with evident skill in generating some headlines.

Sarah Zabel, running for the U.S. House seat in District 1 (now held by Republican Russ Fulcher), has been campaigning steadily for weeks from Meridian to Sandpoint.

The newest and most prominent of the three is John Stegner, a former state supreme court justice and a district judge (in north-central Idaho), running against Republican Governor Brad Little. I’ve seen descriptions, apparently borne out in interviews, of him as a well-respected jurist, a centrist not far from, say, former Justice Jim Jones, who was for many years a mainstream Republican.

Democratic challengers already are in the field (including but not exclusively David Roth, Kaylee Peterson and Terri Pickens, for those three offices respectively). Since the Republican vote in recent elections (going back to the mid-90s) has been so strong, it’s hard to see how dividing the opposition will do much other than provide an additional, unneeded gift to the incumbents.

That is at least a reasonable view based on all the electoral data from Idaho now available. But let’s use our imaginations and suppose something about this election year is different.

Don’t dismiss the idea of disgust at both political parties.

Idaho’s voter registration system, with its differing rules for who can register in which party, makes it hard to determine the relative popularity of parties as opposed to non-affiliation. Look at registration-by-party stats for other states where the rules impose registration categories and standard rules - Oregon is a good example - and what you find is plunging support for both major parties. (Yes, Oregon has more registered Democrats than Republicans, but non-affiliateds there swamp both parties, both of them in steep decline.)

In Idaho, the Democratic Party has been so thoroughly slimed for so many years that support for anyone who runs under its banner has been rendered literally unthinkable for large swaths of the electorate - a flicker of an idea to be dismissed out of hand without a hearing. That doesn’t automatically mean any great love for the Republican Party, which for many people is just the only other option. More than that: The only option.

That wasn’t true 30 or 50 years ago, but among many of Idaho's voters it is today.

Historically, voters have looked to the two parties to sort between the candidates, an often-used (though too-relied on) shortcut for deciding who to support.

But what if the Republican option, for a key segment of the voting population, has begun to look unappealing too? You likely know as well as I why that might be; just consult the national headlines from recent days, weeks, months.

Would an independent start to look more attractive under those conditions?

Just a thought, for those who want to non-party like it’s 1928.

 

(image)

#+&**/%+#($@+

February 10, 2026

If you can read that, you probably swear as much as I do and you know just what I meant instead of using the actual words. Those are not good, respectable words, actually.

I find myself using more "foul" words lately - more than in previous times. Our mass and (un) social communications are full of the foul and getting - er, well - fouler.

As a journalist/broadcaster for several decades, I usually know the right words - the respectable words - to use. I was raised in a home where "not a discouraging word" was used or heard. In short, I know better.

But, as a casual Facebook user, I'm amazed - and often disgusted - by the continual use of such printed words in postings. Both in memes and individually written texts.

Sometimes, the gutter words - f**k, s**t, pi***d and more - seem to be in nearly every post. They're used - and re-posted - by people I know don't use such words in their everyday activities. For some, they're probably repulsed by others who use them. But, we all know what they are.

They've become verbal crutches for a lot of folks who think their use makes you sound more angry or more "adult" or authoritarian. In the stands at sporting events, heard at an adjoining table in a restaurant or just used in otherwise normal, day-to-day talk or postings between acquaintances.
As a society, we've either become more accepting of their use or we've learned to ignore them. They add nothing to any communication so if you block them out, you won't have missed anything.

For most of us, the shock value - if there ever was such thing - has worn off. Maybe that's why they creep into our speech without a second thought. I read more of them in a week online than I remember hearing in a year, living on a mountaintop above the Arctic Circle with 50 other guys 60 years ago.

It wasn't so long ago the American public was shocked - shocked, I tell you - when Clark Gable said to Vivian Leigh in Gone With The Wind, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" Now, you hear a lot worse than that on your TV any night of the week. You can even watch "constipated" actors sitting on toilets or bears in the woods wiping their butts with the latest tissue. The goal posts for shock value have been moved way, way down the field.

The overall coarseness in our nation is an ever-present and growing societal reality. You don't like it. I don't like it. But, it's hard to escape. Politicians are using the "bad words" in speeches. (See old Trump rallies.) Older folks, raised in more restrictive times, now post or re-post online words I would have gotten a soapy mouthwash for at home. A lot of young people - who certainly know better - pepper conversations and texts with 'em. They're everywhere.

We've gotten way past "damn" or hell" or other such old expletives. And we're not going back. The new, casual, more common use of profanity has worked its way into our usual, everyday language. Most of us try to ignore it. Most of us won't use it. But it's ever-present. And we're getting inured to it.

Damn!

Idaho’s case for term limits

February 9, 2026

While the MAGA folks in the Idaho Legislature are running amok, there are some glimmers of light and reason peeking through. Kudos to State School Superintendent Debbie Critchfield for telling the clueless budget cutters that she won’t go along with a $55.1 million cut in the education budget. She is on solid ground because Idaho spends less per student than any other state in the nation. Idaho is the second-fastest growing state, giving us the tax base and resources to keep our children from being the least educated and least competitive in the country.

Critchfield raised some hackles last year for giving in to the school voucher law, House Bill 93, which gave an income tax holiday for those sending their kids to private and religious schools. That reduced state revenues by $50 million, with virtually no accountability except the skimpy guidelines contained in the bill. That tax subsidy will not face the chopping block in the budget-cutting frenzy this year. Most of the recipients of the subsidy, except for the highest earners, will not contribute a dime to the vast array of state programs being cut by the MAGA crowd. She has partially redeemed herself.

There is no redemption for legislators savagely cutting budgets for so many necessary state programs–road construction, Medicaid, higher education, State Police, on and on. We were just told that our prison population is growing while prison financing is declining. Prison staff may have to be furloughed, leading to increased prison violence. Since 36.5% of Idaho’s prisoners were sentenced on drug charges, it would make economic sense to make drug treatment programs more readily available, both in and out of prison, but that does not seem to register with the legislative budget choppers.

Any reasonable and responsible legislative body would see the desperate need to increase state revenues to adequately fund essential programs. An income tax increase on the wealthier Idahoans would barely be noticeable to them, especially since they have seen $4 billion in tax cuts over the last 5 years. We should leave the modest earners alone while increasing the tax rate for those who can afford it.

Besides Critchfield, Rep. John Shirts has injected a positive note into the legislative mix. His House Concurrent Resolution 23 calls upon Congress to support a constitutional amendment setting term limits for Congress. Congress would likely cut their terms only after Hell froze over, but Shirts is to be commended for starting a conversation.

Idaho’s Congressional delegation is exhibit one in the case for limiting the time our exalted potentates can feed at the public trough.

Jim Risch has been in the Senate since 2009 and is now, at age 82, seeking another 6-year term. I worked for one of Idaho’s very best Republican Senators, Len Jordan. Unlike Risch, he was principled and courageous. When President Nixon was wrong on an issue, like withholding appropriated funds, Jordan publicly and effectively objected. Risch meekly goes along with anything Trump does or says–trashing our NATO partners, imposing unconstitutional tariffs, whatever. When Jordan was deciding whether to run for another term in 1972, he decided against it because he would be 79 years old when his term ended. Jordan was in good health, but he had a conscience.

Mike Crapo is 74 years old and there is every indication that he will run for another 6-year term in 2028. He was in the House for 6 years and has been in the Senate since January of1999. He is just a Trump puppet. It’s time for him to move on.

Mike Simpson has been in the House since January of 1999. Mike is the most disappointing because he has morphed into a full-throated MAGA convert. His recent opinion piece praising “our brave Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers for doing their job and protecting our communities,” is stomach-turning. He says, “left-wing agitators have taken to the streets to defend child sex offenders, drug traffickers, murderers, and other violent criminals.”

Mike overlooks the video evidence showing the intimidation and fear being inflicted by masked ICE thugs on Americans across the country– much like the British troops of King George III were inflicting upon peace-loving American colonials 249 years ago. It might not hurt for Mike to check out the ruling issued by a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, finding 100 violations of court orders by ICE in Minneapolis.

I regret having supported both Simpson and Crapo when they first ran for the Idaho Legislature in 1984, when I was Idaho Attorney General. They, along with Jim Risch, will not be turned out by a constitutional amendment. That job can and should be done by Idaho voters.

 

Battles over everyone voting

Battles over everyone voting

February 8, 2026

The plain meaning of Article II, Section 2 in the Oregon state constitution seems to be eluding a lot of people in high office in the state.

And that’s a little puzzling because the words seem basic: “Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution.” It does go on to restrict voting by residency and registration, and allow the Legislature to impose limitations on some financial ballot issues to taxpayers. But the rule is that in elections held by and paid for by the public, every qualified voter gets to vote.

Except that this isn’t true, in a meaningful way, in primary elections, the next of which arrives in May. There, if you’re not registered with the Democratic or Republican party (as a vast number of Oregon voters are not), you’re shut out from most of what’s on the ballot. That includes voting at a critical stage (often, in these hyper-partisan times, the only meaningful stage) for top elective offices.

Democrats and Republicans between them have an effective monopoly on most of Oregon’s top elective offices, but the theory is that those parties are private organizations that should be able to control participation in their activities (“freedom of association”). This leads to the perverse result of private benefit conferred by a government intended to operate for and by the people more broadly.

Two recent and separate legal challenges to this are underway.

One is a frontal constitutional legal argument. The group Our Primary Voice and plaintiff Mark Porter, a retired attorney, last summer sued the state in Marion County court to challenge the restrictive nature of Oregon’s primaries. They noted the state constitution language on voter access and said the primaries aren’t a special carve-out.

On Jan. 30, Judge Natasha Zimmerman rejected the challenge. There’s no written transcript or decision yet, and her reasoning wasn’t entirely clear. A message from Porter indicated she seemed to hold that primary elections aren’t covered under the constitutional provision. But Porter also said she acknowledged the state of Oregon didn’t make that argument.

An appeal is expected, so we’ll have to wait for the next round of legal filings for further analysis — probably long after this year’s primary election.

The second of the recent actions concern two proposed ballot initiatives (currently numbered 55 for a constitutional change and 56 for statutory changes to go along with it). They are intended to accomplish much the same thing as the Marion County lawsuit — to open primary elections — but in this case do it through a vote at the next general election. That effort has been driven by a bipartisan group including former Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

The proposed constitutional amendment says, “In primary elections, all candidates shall be listed on a single ballot, regardless of their party affiliations, allowing all eligible voters to vote for the candidates of their choice for: United States senator, representative in Congress, Governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, state senator and state representative and any other public office so designated by law.”

The debate now is the title (or caption) for the initiatives, written by the attorney general’s office. The certified version for each of them says, “Changes primary election processes for most partisan offices: single primary ballot, top two candidates advance.”

That may be accurate, but it sounds little like a clear description of what the planned ballot issues would, if passed, actually do. Nor does it sound neutral: It refers to a major election change, but not the nature of the change. By law, titles are supposed to be succinct, but they’re also supposed to be reasonably clear.

The initiative advocates have sued the state, at the Supreme Court, to change the language. They have offered a number of options.

A letter attached to the complaints and signed by four previous secretaries of state (Barbara Roberts, Phil Keisling, Kate Brown and Jeanne Atkins) concluded with this: “Enabling non-affiliated voters to have a say in selecting those candidates, a right which is denied to them currently, is the subject of these initiatives and will be their intended effect if approved by the Oregon electorate. Voters deserve to be informed of the subject and effect of this ‘main thing’ first and foremost.”

Very likely this year’s primary election, set for May 19, will come and go before these cases get resolved in court.

Along the way, and as voters consider who and what to support in the elections the state will have, they may want to think hard about which decisions they’re being allowed to make, and which not. That could become a consideration, owing to outside impacts from Washington, in the general election. But it might be a cause for concern in the primary too.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Extreme action there, not here

Extreme action there, not here

February 6, 2026

If you’re really concerned about immigration, especially the not-legal variety, there’s a tool available - and has been for years - that’s cheap, would entail no masked armed forces, and could be implemented quickly. In a state where the political tides seem to run strongly toward sharp control of immigration, this would seem to be just the ticket.

Idaho legislation to do this, at scale and apparently covering most employers in Idaho, was proposed in each of the last two sessions.

What’s happening this session, which is a little different, makes for a telling distinction about attitudes on the subject.

The subject is E-Verify, which was set up in 1996 and is run by the Department of Homeland Security cooperating with the Social Security Administration. Its job is to determine - on request from an employer - whether an employee is a legal resident of the country. Generally, the system is thought to be accurate, with some exceptions.

The states vary widely in how or if they deal with E-Verify. None bar its use, but it’s mainly a voluntary tool in most places. In some like Idaho, governments are required to use it in hiring, and some (like Idaho) include state contractors in the mandate. But some - Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina - require it much more broadly for private employers.

E-Verify has drawn some critics. Civil libertarians are concerned it could lead to a kind of national registration system. The American Farm Bureau, for example, has been a critic of E-Verify: “while E-Verify may not adversely affect some parts of the U.S. economy, it could have dire impacts on agriculture due to the lack of U.S. workers and the absence of a workable visa program.” Other economic sectors could feel some pain as well. You’ll notice between the lines that the concern is the system might work too well, and those business sectors might be deprived of many of the workers they (really do) need.

Averting those touchy areas, Idaho already has some E-Verify requirements for government employers and some state contractors. But it’s not mandatory much beyond that.

In the last two legislative sessions, much broader E-Verify bills were proposed in the last two sessions, in 2025 by Representative Jordan Redman of Coeur d’Alene and in 2024 by Senator Chris T. Trakel and Representative Judy Boyle. The 2025 bill, for example, aimed to “prohibit employment of illegal aliens and require employers to E-Verify each new hire's legal employment status as a condition of employment” - mandates covering “any employer,” in any sector. The 2024 bill was structured a little differently but had a similar end result.

Both bills in their respective sessions were introduced by and quietly died in the House State Affairs Committee. The idea has arisen in several previous sessions too, with similar results.

As hot as immigration is within Republican circles, you might expect this overwhelmingly Trumpian legislature to come back this session with something stronger, and maybe pass it this time.

You would be wrong.

There is a new E-Verify bill this session. The current proposal is Senate Bill 1247, introduced by Senator Mark Harris of Soda Springs. It would be the “Idaho E-Verify Act,” and would go into effect at the start of 2027, when “it shall be unlawful for any covered employer to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer, either for the employer itself or on behalf of another, for private or public employment within the state, an employee whose work authorization has not been verified through the e-verify program.”

Those covered employers, however, are “public agencies, at state and local levels of government, … [and] private employers that do business with state and local government, if they have 150 or more employees and contracts valued at $100,000 or more.”

More simply, Harris said “if taxpayer dollars are involved, the employer must use E-Verify to address the legal status of their employees.” More simply, he said his bill would be intended mostly to codify the existing procedures, which seems accurate.

More of the same, in other words, at a time when the Trump Administration is proclaiming a crisis of illegal immigration.

Must not be that extreme a crisis after all.

(image)

Back in the day

February 5, 2026

Old men like to tell stories. Some are good at it. Some aren’t. We tell them anyway.

I was in the Idaho legislature the last time and only time public K12 funding was cut. I was in the minority and voted against it. Medicaid got cut. It was a dismal time. I entered the Idaho legislature in 2010. The economic crash of 2008 was just washing over the state’s revenue stream. We were growing in population, but the general economic downturn was severe and money was tight. Reserve funds were depleted, zeroed out. That was the situation I joined.

Idaho trails the national economy. By 2010, when I entered the legislative swamp, I could see the national tide beginning to rise. But Idaho must balance revenue against expenditures, according to our Constitution. We cannot bet on a projection.

So we cut budgets.

I watched my colleagues. Mainly the Republicans, since they held the seats and were in charge. I appreciated that they knew the numbers, the fiscal situation, and our mandate. They voted to cut the budgets because there really wasn’t a lot else our state could do right then.

I was betting on more tax revenue coming in than we thought, as the national economy stabilized. I believed some Republicans low balled the projected revenue to justify the cuts. But I respected most of the Republicans who thought we needed to be conservative with our budgeting. We have to balance the book.

And I was right about the revenue. After cutting Medicaid and schools, we ended with a surplus.

I also watched who just wanted to cut the budget out of spite. There are those ideologues. Some conservatives think we should get the government shrunk down to the size we can drown it in a bathtub. But many of my Republican colleagues felt the pain of these cuts. They regretted our circumstance. They saw the need for the services the state provided and regretted we could not continue all those.

That was back in the day.

But Idaho is in this day. And this day, our Republican Idaho legislature has manufactured this “budget crisis”.

The national economy is not on the skids.

Idaho has a Billion dollars in reserves funds. That’s 20% of our annual budget.

But we have our elected representatives planning to cut funding for schools and health care as our population and economy grows. And after they have voted for a billion in tax cuts for corporations and rich people.

I have no idea who I’m talking to here. I’m an old man telling a story. It’s not going well. The room is silent.

This old man remembers those guys in suits in the Capitol with their name tags. I remember the things that were important to them.

I believed most of them listened to and represented their constituents. But also, I knew, some did not.

Once in the lunchroom, when I sat across from a Representative from North Idaho, I asked him who he talked to.

“Oh,” he said chewing his sandwich. “I meet with my central committee regularly.”

I knew this guy. He would vote for any budget cut. And he didn’t care who it might affect.

We do government to help this be a better place, mainly for our kids. So they can have a place to prosper and thrive.

That’s how this old man sees it. But while I’ve been going on, I’ve come to realize, some in the room don’t like the story I have been telling. So I go silent.

As I sit in my chair and ponder the silence, I come to realize, not everybody thinks like I do.

And as I age and decline, I wonder just what is the purpose of this fight?

Then my granddaughter runs in with her new outfit.

We need to be building this place for them.

 

Is speech really free?

February 3, 2026

Congress and the rest of us are about to run head-long into the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding "free speech."

Ever read all those words?  Well, here they are:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of free speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That's all of it. Right there.  Forty-five words.  But, just four words - "...freedom of free speech" are the ones pounced on by everyone who believes that right, as it may - or may not - apply to them, has been tampered with.  And, while many people may make that claim, constitutional scholars by the dozens have hundreds of "legal" interpretations but no clear answer.  It can be awfully fuzzy.

Please note right here.  I've spent a lifetime defending the right of free speech.  As someone who's been a reporter/writer for most of 60 years, I've held my nose and defended some really terrible "free speech."  And, for the most part, still do.  But, there are limitations.

Here's a list of generally recognized legal limitations to "free speech" I came across the other day: obscenity (depends on context but not regular old porn), fighting words, defamation, child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to lawless action, true threats, solicitations to commit crimes and plagiarism of copyrighted material.  Legal decisions have been rendered - and, for the most part, accepted - on all counts.  But, as I said, "fuzzy"still applies

Private companies - like the one who recently deleted all of Donald Trump's accounts - have a lot of leeway in how they handle users - DJT and others - including their own employees.

But, let's say you're a government employee.  Any government employee.  Your employer has the right to make sure your speech doesn't conflict with your job.  But, (un)social media has made it more difficult to regulate employee speech in a constitutional way. (Un)social media has blurred a lot lines.  Legal and otherwise.

So, let's consider what DJT said a while back which resulted in an attack on our Capitol. Were his words to a crowd of many hundreds, spoiling for a fight with Congress, really protected "free speech" as Republicans claimed?

Well, go back to the list above and see.  I find "incitement to imminent lawless action" and "solicitations to commit crimes" pretty well nails it.  True threats, too. You might throw in "fighting words" for a topper.  I don't think he's off the hook there.

When people talk of "free speech" relating to government, the issue is often turned on its head.  "Free speech" in the Constitution is really used to protect you from government punishing you for your speech - not the other way around.  But - and this is a big jump - the article citing "free speech" means government - and its representatives - are most often held to a higher responsibility to make sure what they do and say doesn't lead to unlawful actions.

So, again, "free speech."  Did Trump cross the line?  Did he abuse the right of "free speech?"  Did he use his speech to instigate or condone illegal actions?  My take is yes.

Trump has proven to be the false prophet so many of us - mainly New Yorkers - believed to be the case years ago.  A lot of Republicans in Congress - and I believe elsewhere - have recently thrown in the towel and decided that is a fact, too.  The defections in the House are interesting, especially some from the "hard" right.

While "Donnie" still has a corps of several million "believers," it appears he'll be too busy defending himself in one courtroom or another to "lead" effectively.  And, it seems, he'll be too busy scrounging for dollars to keep his heavily mortgaged companies alive.  Trump just has to be thinking that running for president was the worst decision he's made on his own.

"Free speech" finally got him.  Got him good.

But, look at the bright side.  He's got his own special place in our country's history.  And an asterisk beside his name, too.  Something no other former president can say.  Talk about speech.  And free, too.

 

Penny wise, pound foolish

February 2, 2026

Those in charge of Idaho’s executive and legislative branches have a difficult time seeing beyond the end of their collective noses when it comes to funding programs important to Idahoans. All we have heard from the governor and the penny-pinching legislative leadership is “cut, cut, cut.” When times are tough, cuts may be needed to make ends meet. But, if you listen to the president and our governor, times are not tough. Both speak of how we are doing very well under their stewardship.

Governor Little continually touts Idaho’s strong and growing economy. In December, he proclaimed, “Idaho is # 1 nationally for wage growth – proving our economy is strong and moving forward!” One might wonder then, why we are in such a budget-cutting frenzy. It might be partly because he approved $300 million in tax cuts that he knew were ill-advised. Or, that he greenlighted the $50 million tax holiday for primarily well-healed folks who can already afford to send their kids to religious schools. Delaying the effective date of that tax give-away until next year would be an easy fix to the $40 million budget deficit for this year. A graduated tax increase would be a long-term fix.

The main budgeting problem with the MAGA folks running the state is that critical programs which serve large numbers of modest-means Idahoans are put on the chopping block without considering the long term effects. We may save a few bucks today but end up spending gobs more in the future to address the consequences.

The poster child for this type of short-sighted budgeting is Idaho’s Medicaid program.

With spending cuts, both those implemented and proposed by the Governor, future expenditures are certain to substantially eclipse the immediate savings.

The Idaho Sheriffs Association warned in December that cuts to behavioral health programs would likely increase future outlays for emergency medical services, incarceration and public safety. The Governor’s proposal to cut $45 million in Medicaid spending could result in the state getting $106.8 million less in federal funds next year.

This is just a small part of a much bigger picture of concern in the budgeting arena. The Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill (BBBB), passed with the votes of Idaho’s Congressional delegation, will cut Idaho Medicaid by $4.3 billion over the decade, starting next year. It will likely reduce our Medicaid roles by about 40,000. Combined with whatever cuts are made by Idaho’s government, the impact on Idahoans are likely to be catastrophic.

Like it or not, Medicaid funding is the lifeblood of Idaho hospitals, particularly those in the rural areas of the state. The tremendous reduction in federal funds, combined with cuts made by the Governor and MAGA legislators, will imperil the existence of rural hospitals already on the brink. The piddly $100 million provided to the state in the BBBB will not suffice to fill the gap.

The MAGA legislators are clamoring for the repeal of Medicaid expansion that was approved by over 60% of Idaho voters in 2018. It covers about 90,000 Idahoans. Repeal would deal a hammer blow to our already-endangered rural hospitals, not to mention the damage inflicted on sick Idahoans. We get $9 dollars in federal funds for every $1 in state funding. That results in about $1 billion invested into Idaho health care.

Substantial cuts to Medicaid funding would be completely counter to another priority of some reasonable legislators who are trying to remedy Idaho’s chronic shortage of healthcare providers. Idaho ranks lowest in the nation for both doctors and nurses on a per capita basis. The lawmakers tell us that 1,400 additional medical professionals are needed to catch up to the national average. That simply can’t happen unless substantial funds are forthcoming. Idaho’s 4% cut in Medicaid reimbursement for doctors certainly won’t help. Idaho simply can’t attract the necessary healthcare workers to serve our rural areas by short-changing them. With the state’s unfriendly attitude toward doctors, there is already a stiff headwind to overcome.

Numerous headlines expand upon Idaho’s short-sighted approach to medical funding:  “Idaho Medicaid cuts for nursing homes are unsustainable”

“Proposed Medicaid cut could end meal deliveries for thousands of Idaho seniors”

“Idaho Medicaid cuts could force disability providers to close”

“Idaho Medicaid contractor to cut critical services for people with severe mental illness”

This is just a sampling of the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach of those currently in power in Idaho. There are many reasonable and pragmatic legislators in the GOP ranks who try to work across the aisle with Democrats to move the state forward in a rational fashion. They need the support of Idahoans of good faith who will speak out at the ballot box.

 

Oregon’s 3D road chess

Oregon’s 3D road chess

February 1, 2026

One of Oregon’s biggest needs, as the Legislature is about to consider in the short session that starts Monday, is financing maintenance and improvements of its transportation system.

In most times, that would be a no-brainer, right?

But over the last year, it has become a mind-bending puzzle with elements of three-dimensional chess and a Rubik’s cube.

For many years, the formula was simple: Gas taxes, with some related fees, along with federal grants and a few other sources, were enough to take care of the basic work.

In recent years, though, electric vehicles and better gas efficiency have cut into the revenue stream, and the cost of road work — a complex subject by itself — has shot through the roof. The system the state has relied on no longer meets the state’s needs.

This much is more or less indisputable. Few Oregonians argue those basics.

The problem has been apparent for a few years, but because any solution would involve either raising taxes or fees on one hand, or letting roads and bridges deteriorate (alongside mass layoffs at the Department of Transportation) on the other, there’s political pain in grappling with any answer.

So let’s review quickly our transportation funding quagmire over the last year.

During the 2025 regular session, legislators talked for months about transportation funding, although until its end not always in a wide-open fashion. Democrats argued that $14.6 billion (over 10 years) was needed, but couldn’t get the votes; then cut that down to $11.7 billion (over 10 years) which also couldn’t get the votes.

Republicans, who were barely brought into the process, agreed (in general) to oppose almost any Democratic transportation proposal. The session ended with no additional funding and the impending layoffs of hundreds of ODOT workers.

Gov. Tina Kotek understandably wasn’t satisfied, and called a special session, to pass a proposal finally priced at $4.3 billion — down more than two-thirds from the original stated need only months before.

That one — decried by Republican legislators as a tax increase of historic proportions — finally passed by a single vote only after a super-extended special session ended when a single member was able to return to duty after medical issues. Kotek waited until Nov. 7 to sign the revenue bill into law, which had the practical effect of shortening about as much as possible the amount of time opponents would have to get petition signatures so voters could opt to vote against it a year hence.

But surprise (or probably not): Within a few weeks before the end of the year, well within the deadline, a quarter-million Oregonians signed petitions to put the referendum on the ballot, an indicator of massive opposition to the transportation package.

Next, the Democrats said they would try to repeal the bill in the upcoming special session to head off the referendum.

Then, Republicans (and legal analysis) said it was too late for that — the referendum was going to the ballot regardless. That analysis seemed to hold up.

Next, Democrats said they would move the referendum vote to the May primary election, presumably with the hope of taking the issue off the table during the general election campaign. The (inevitable) legal challenges on that aren’t all in yet.

And then, the Republican field for governor (which office is on the ballot this year) grew in January to include state Rep. Ed Diehl of Scio, who was a leader of the referendum effort and strongly indicated he planned to make it a centerpiece of his campaign.

That may have had the effect of scrambling a Republican nomination race that had seemed all but in the bag for 2022 nominee Christine Drazan. But within days the race was scrambled again by the entry of 2010 gubernatorial nominee Chris Dudley, whose views on transportation funding (and much else) seem … unformed.

So, as the special session is about to start: Does anyone remember that Oregon still has, you know, a problem with fixing its roads and paying for it? Work that apparently lots of Oregonians do understand needs to be done?

This funding battle has evolved into an infernal knot. As the new legislative session and election cycle bears down, it’s worth asking if there’s any way out.

Maybe.

We could start by going back to basics. We could ask Oregonians if they do in fact recognize the need and, if they do, if they’re willing to in some form fork over the bucks to deal with it.

It could help to pose the question most directly, and unavoidably, to Republican legislators: What sort of an actual solution would you support? And ask Democrats: This time, are you willing to work more equitably with the Republicans?

A batch of town hall meetings around the state dedicated to the issue actually might help, and could focus people’s thinking.

The clock is ticking. As in hours more than days, days more than weeks.