Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in March 2026

Raiders of the lost dedicated funds

Raiders of the lost dedicated funds

March 8, 2026

Pull a dollar bill out of your wallet and you can trust that dollar will spend like any other.

And if you think the story ends there, you’re obviously not a government accountant.

Many critics of government point to a specific need — say, a ripped-up street — and angrily proclaim: “We seem to have plenty of money for (fill in the blank with some presumably less critical need). Why can’t we just use that to (do something more important, such as fix the street)?”

The short answer is, if the government did that, it probably wouldn’t be legal. The slightly longer answer is, it would be unwise — and could uproot already-shaky broad trust in government.

That’s a consideration we’ll circle around to, in a moment, in the case of the state’s immediate and critical need for transportation funding.

Money, from taxes, fees and other sources, often comes to governments with strings attached: This money is being provided under certain conditions, often limiting how it can be spent. While some revenues (mostly, the state income tax for example) can be sent to a state general fund — which ordinarily can be spent as the legislature or other governing body sees fit — many other revenue streams have to be accounted for in other ways.

This is more than commonplace in governments at all levels. You’ve seen this if you’ve ever served on or watched a local government budget committee. Cities and counties receive money from room taxes, urban development funds, state or federal funding for infrastructure and other sources that allow for their use for one thing and nothing else, and they have to be maintained in separate specific accounts. The state and federal governments do much the same thing.

Dedication is not always, forever, though, and the appearance of a revenue stream which doesn’t seem to be too heavily encumbered whets the appetite of non-recipients.

When the Oregon Lottery was launched by Ballot Measure 4 in 1984, the state’s profits went mostly to economic development with a small piece to help with curbing problem gambling. In 1995 public education got a slice, and natural resource programs were added to the mix in 1998; veterans programs got a portion after Measure 96 in 2016. None of these were very controversial, but all marked a real change from the original intent.

One heated dedicated-fund controversy in this session concerns use of lodging or transient tax revenues, started in 2003 and intended mainly to help promote tourism. Local governments can impose the tax, and use of the revenue from it is tightly restricted. There’s also a state tax, revenue from which also has been focused on tourism, and this session the legislature has been wrangling over it.

House Bill 4134 would increase the lodging tax from 1.5% to 2.75%, with the increase going toward a collection of wildlife-related programs (from the Recovering Oregon’s Wildlife Fund to a state police poaching program to a range of others).

The plan, which passed both chambers and awaits Gov. Tina Kotek’s signature, has drawn sharp reactions.

Environmental advocates have weighed in strongly; Water Watch, for example, said the relatively small tax increase would “help protect Oregon’s iconic fish and wildlife and their habitats. Providing dedicated funding to protect Oregon’s fish, wildlife and habitat will help to conserve over 300 species and their habitats.”

Travel industry groups are strongly opposed. The Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association said the bill “would harm local hospitality and tourism businesses as well as create an additional $11 million tax on Oregonians.”

All of this is likely to be only a small sideshow in this year’s dedicated fund-raiding picture. For the big picture, look to the big-money budget sectors, like transportation.

In flush revenue years, agencies usually wouldn’t have a lot of interest in raiding funds they haven’t traditionally tapped. This is not such a year for Oregon government. The revenue picture does look better now than it did a few months ago, partly because of legislative responses to federal tax changes and partly because of an improved economic picture. But parts of the state budget, notably transportation, remain stressed.

Transportation in Oregon traditionally has been funded in large part by dedicated funds, from gas taxes, vehicle fees and more. To keep up with rising transportation costs at a time when those sources are under-producing, the 2025 legislature passed a collection of tax and fee increases, but that effort has been short-circuited through voter referendum rules and other efforts. The upshot may be personnel cuts and reductions, slowdowns or elimination of a number of transportation projects.

There is another option: Raiding dedicated funds from peripheral areas to fill some of the gaps.

Legislators should be wary about that, though, and they would be wise to move cautiously. Dedicated funds often get on the books owing to specific voter approvals, and those approvals might become hard to get if Oregonians get the idea that their original intent isn’t being adhered to.

 

Lots of Democrats, again

Lots of Democrats, again

March 6, 2026

Two years ago, something remarkable happened in Idaho when the filing deadline had arrived for securing ballot status: Democrats turned out to run for the legislature in numbers not seen in decades.

I wrote then, “In contrast to the typical 50 or so candidates Democrats have been fielding (some of those competing against each other in the primary), this year 99 have filed for legislative seats. Some of those are in fact running against each other in the Democratic primaries. But: When the filing deadline closed, at least one D had filed in all 35 legislative districts. How many years has it been since that last happened? I’m not sure, but I’d guess you have to go back a few decades.”

And this cycle, the filing period for which ended February 27?

The Secretary of State’s database last week listed one more, an even 100. The exact numbers could change over time (in all parties) with withdrawals and people who file as write-ins for empty ballot spots. Still, Democrats are beginning to set a pattern of challenging widely and running candidates in places that don’t hear much from Democrats.

Democrats have filed for all but one of the 35 Senate seats, seven more than last cycle - and the same number of seats Republicans are contesting. (The Democrats didn’t file in District 1, in the panhandle, and Republicans didn’t in District 18 in southeast Boise). This hasn’t happened in a very long time..

They didn’t do badly in the House either. There, where Democrats now hold 11 of 70 seats, D candidates have filed for 58 seats (compared to 55 in 2024).

There are a few primary contests among them, but they’ve spread out their candidacies well. To the extent these Democrats actually develop serious campaigns, they could make some long-range difference on the ground.

That’s the kind of thought Kaylee Peterson, one of the two Democrats running for the first district U.S. House race, made after her filing this year, after being trounced in the last two cycles: It takes time.

It may be worth noting here as well that Democrats are contesting all three congressional seats up for election with multiple candidates (three for U.S. Senate and two for each of the House seats). As well as four for governor and one each for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, controller, treasurer, attorney general and superintendent of public instruction - a complete slate among major offices. That was a rarity even back in the days when the two parties were much more genuinely competitive.

What does all this translate to, when the general election is done and over?

Could be that it’s not a lot. For all the larger number of Democratic legislative candidates in 2024, when the party fell from seven to six Democratic senators, and from 11 to nine representatives in the House. Filling ballot slots doesn’t automatically mean election to office, and Idaho remains heavily Republican.

And these Democratic candidates have far from equal candidacies. Most of the incumbent Democrats in Boise are likely to win re-election in landslides, but many of the large group are in effect placeholders - holding down the ballot slot (either permanently or until a more energetic replacement appears) but unlikely to do much to advance their candidacy.

Of course, if 2026 really does turn into a national wave year for Democrats (which right now looks like a real possibility), and if some of that reaches down into Idaho, the larger number of candidates on the ballot could matter a great deal. In Idaho and elsewhere, placeholders have been known to unexpectedly win office under those conditions.

There’s impact though beyond the raw numbers of eventual winners and losers. In many parts of Idaho, and in some of the fastest-growing places, Democrats have been so invisible that they seem exotic at best or, at worst, the embodiment of whatever trash their adversaries throw on them. To the extent they become visible and speak up for themselves, they become harder to dismiss as an unthinkable option.

(image)

 

Heading

Heading

March 5, 2026

Back when I was a sailor, heading meant where you wanted to go. The compass might swing, the winds might shift, the swell change, but you had your heading. Deal with it.

Idaho is taking a different heading under our current legislature and Governor. You need to be aware the course has shifted. We aren’t just crew. We get to vote for the captain and officers on this ship.

Senate Bill 1314 gets rid of a bunch of stuff. Mainly it gets rid of citizen oversight. It has passed the Senate. It will pass the House. You, the citizens this government is supposed to serve need to know this course shift.

SB1314 eliminates the regional mental health boards. Citizens involved with mental health get together and discuss what should be done, what should change. I guess these voices are no longer welcome on this ship.

SB1314 gets rid of the State Board of Health and Welfare, on which I serve. I guess the Idaho legislature, our Governor and the Department don’t want citizen input.

The Senate sponsor of this bill pointed to our lack of having regular meetings. She didn’t mention the cause. I was going to tell the Senate committee the story of this but was prevented from testifying. Maybe they don’t want to hear the truth.

You should.

The House sponsor of this bill in committee referred to how the H&W Department thought this might be a cost savings. The cost is $10,000 a year for the Board of H&W. That’s a hundredth of our Governor’s security budget.

The house sponsor, in his hurried testimony did let the cat out of the bag. “We have managed care in mental health, so we don’t need these citizen boards. And we are going to have managed care in Medicaid, so they aren’t needed.”

That’s the punchline. Our elected representatives have decided we would be better represented in our dealings with how our state spends our tax dollars by the corporations they choose to contract with, than a citizen board.

Fellow sailors, does that sound good to you?

I wrote last week about Governance, kind of leading up to this. I was asking, just how do we want to be governed?

Corporations have governance. They are beholden to their stockholders, their boards. Their CEO can get hard questions at those board meetings, or they should.

Maybe that’s the heading Idaho wants, to turn our governance over to corporations. What do you say, sailors?

Here’s why the DHW Board didn’t meet for 10 months. I confronted the Director with a policy choice he had made. He cancelled all further meetings until he got ensconced in a Trump HHS spot.

Departments, Directors don’t like hearing from us sailors. It turns out we listen to folks they might not.

And legislators are the same. They really don’t want to hear from us. I emailed all the Senators I knew about this. None replied.

Maybe it’s a DOGE thing, eliminate all waste, I understand that. I looked for waste long and hard when I reviewed budgets on JFAC. But governance isn’t efficient. It requires listening, understanding, consideration.

Idaho’s heading has changed.

So our elected Republican representatives here in Idaho are embracing governance by corporation. Maybe they just read the Trump tea leaves. I have read the science fiction books. Corporations can run everything. But their decisions consider their own balance, not ours.

You cannot do a thing to change this. You have voted these guys into office, and they now call the shots. They set the new heading.

You could vote somebody else into office.

But that would mean you want a different heading. And that you might care.

God, I hope you do.

 

Rewind: Suffer the children

March 3, 2026

This column originally ran a few years ago.

Trying to write about our national political activities these days is getting much harder to do.  Used to be you could take the usual issue and the politicians involved in it and opine this way and that in reasonable commentary.

No more.  The amount of misogyny, cruelty, idiocy and just plain B.S. being passed of as political "discussion" these days has made it tough even to consider some of the elected cretins fit to hold the offices they do much less quote them.

The following two despicable examples appeared on "news" pages within three hours a few days ago.

Rep. Dana Rhorabacher is known for saying alarming, ignorant and quite stupid things on a regular basis.  His latest?  He told a convention of Realtors in D.C. last week home sellers "shouldn't have to sell to people who offend their personal beliefs."  Meaning buyers who are Black, gay, lesbian, atheist, Muslim, etc..  Next day, to their credit, the Realtors cut him off their endorsement list and, more important, from their PAC.

Then, the always - always - moronic Rep. Louis Ghomert.  His latest?  He told an interviewer Special Prosecutor Mueller had "spent his entire career defending Muslim terrorists."  Even followed up with a national news release.

Of course, there's the House "Freedom Caucus" writing the Nobel Committee to formally push for the next Peace Prize to be given to Donny Trump for his work with North Korea.  Can you even imagine the reaction within the Nobel Committee when that hit the mailbox?

But, here's one entirely sadistic political story that didn't just reach the bottom of the barrel.  It broke through to new mud and took the current GOP "administration" to a new, much lower cesspool.

This mighty nation - this "shining beacon on the hill" - this nation made up entirely of immigrants - this proud country -  has begun stripping babies and children from their families at our borders.  Tearing apart families whose only "crime" has been to cross our borders, seeking their own liberties in this "bastion of freedom."

Now, we're told, in addition to that cruellest of acts, our "government" has lost nearly 1,500 hundred of those kids - 1,500!  Authorities - or what passes for "authorities"- have no idea where they went, who has them, whether some are being sold into sexual slavery or other human bondage and, if so, by whom! Trump's hardline Chief of Staff said they'd be "placed in foster care - or whatever."  "WHATEVER?!"

Trump's people are also trying to "justify" this inhumane family destruction by saying maybe more people "will be deterred"  from trying to cross our borders if they know what awaits  And our Attorney General mumbled much the same thing!

What the Hell kind of people are these?

And now our "government"claims it's "not legally responsible."  "NOT RESPONSIBLE?"

I cannot even imagine the sadistic political "minds" that ordered these crimes-against-humanity.  Much less the actual government employees doing it - reaching out to grab crying children and stripping them from their parent's arms.  Whose "government?"

As I said, it's much harder these days to even comprehend some of the political goings, much less write something cogent about them.  The Rhorabacher's and Ghomert's and some of their Cretin kin are hard enough to deal with.  Maybe - just maybe - a couple elections will send them back to their loyal "bases" and they can enjoy their full taxpayer paid retirements in well-deserved anonymity.

But, I'm trying to comprehend what's happening in our beloved country.  My mind wonders  how far we've strayed from being a welcoming nation with a compassionate populace.  I'm trying to find the words to describe the cruelty, anger and rank idiocy so prevalent  in our nation's politics.  Wondering if we'll ever rid ourselves of the mindless, sadistic, lying and corrupt "leadership" currently driving this country further into a huge ditch.

As I search for words, the ones that repeatedly flash in my head are "...suffer the little children...."  Biblically, the word "suffer" meant "let the little children..." or "do not impede the little children..."

Trump, Sessions, their minions and a Congress that stands idly by are using the word "suffer" in its worst application.

 

Idaho school lands a working system

March 2, 2026

When Senator Mike Lee of Utah began calling for the sale of public lands in the western states last year, it raised a firestorm amongst westerners across the political spectrum. And, rightly so. Westerners don’t particularly love the federal agencies that manage those lands, but they like even less the idea of turning them over to private interests that will fence them off and exclude hunters, fishermen and others from accessing what westerners regard as their sacred heritage.

Some in Idaho’s Congressional delegation briefly flirted with Lee’s idea, but backed off quickly when they saw the rising outrage from Idahoans. Even Idaho’s Attorney General, who had earlier supported a federal lawsuit to force the turnover of federal lands to the states, went silent on the issue.

The public land issue has resurfaced in a somewhat different format during the current Idaho legislative session. Several legislators want to set constitutional requirements for how any future federal land grants to Idaho should be managed. While it may not seem to be an unreasonable question to address, it is pointless. Practically every Senator from a public land state has been frightened away from the idea of privatizing or transferring public lands to the states. But even if a transfer should happen, history tells us that the feds will direct the state how to utilize and manage any land transferred.

Four proposed constitutional amendments confuse future land transfers of land to the state with lands that the state received upon gaining statehood in 1890. The section of the Idaho Constitution, Article 9, section 8, that is the subject of the proposals is an important part of Idaho’s school law. That section deals with lands granted by the federal government to Idaho in 1890. Those grants were made for the sole purpose of financing Idaho’s public school system.

Section 8, as originally written, required the state to obtain “the maximum possible amount” from sale or rental of the school lands. The federal government approved of the language and granted Idaho 5.55% of the lands within the boundaries of the State. Those lands were to be held in what is often called a “Sacred Trust” for the sole benefit of the public schools. The Idaho Admission Bill, which is still the law of the United States, provided that those lands would “be reserved for school purposes only.”

As time went by, the “maximum possible amount” requirement was thought to be too restrictive, requiring short-term liquidation of lands and depletion of the land base. In 1982, Idaho voters approved a constitutional amendment to change the management requirement to the “maximum long-term financial return” (MLFR) from the school lands. The change has allowed our state to retain productive land and manage it for consistent, long-term, high-value returns. There is no compelling need to change that management directive.

The amendments proposed in the House, HJR 8 and HJR 10, would make a dramatic management change. They would replace the MLFR requirement with a “priority of use” scheme, giving first priority to “revenue-generating activity” and secondary priority to a variety of public uses. The undisputed fact is that over 96% of school lands are already open and accessible for the full range of public uses.

As far as revenue generation goes, the MLFR requirement brought in $58,435,191 for our public schools last year, 92.4% of which was produced by 749,017 acres of timberland with 4.5% coming from 1,357,461 acres of rangeland. Those funds go into the public school endowment fund for the benefit of public schools. Changes proposed in HJR 8 and HJR 10 would more than likely reduce those returns because the Legislature would be able to grant sweetheart deals to certain land users. In the past that has been attempted for the benefit of cabin site lessees and livestock grazers, but the courts have batted those attempts down because they violate the MLFR requirement.

There have been claims that the MLFR requirement has resulted in the rapid liquidation of school lands, but that is not true. Since 2015, the school land base has increased by about 53,000 acres. Timberland has increased by 65,191 acres since it is the primary revenue generator. Holdings of residential and commercial lands have decreased since user and legislative pressure has helped keep market rentals unattainable.

We have all served on the State Land Board, which manages the school trust lands. The greatest controversies have arisen when rentals on leased parcels near rapidly appreciating private properties are exceedingly low. For instance, we’ve had shoreline leaseholds with rentals that are nowhere near market value. A private landlord would not rent land for a small fraction of the going rate and neither should a governmental entity with trust responsibilities.

The present system has worked well to provide substantial funding for public schools, while also providing virtually unrestricted public access and usage of school lands. The system is not broken and does not need fixing. Further, the proposed fix is contrary to the wisdom of our constitutional founders and violative of the terms of the Idaho Admission Bill. HJR was held in the House State Affairs Committee on a tie vote on February 23, but the concept remains a threat to Idaho’s school endowment lands.

Jerry Evans, former Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction

Lawrence Wasden, former Idaho Attorney General

Ben Ysursa, former Idaho Secretary of State

Jim Jones former Idaho Attorney General

J.D. Williams, former Idaho State Controller

 

Will Chavez-DeRemer be first out?

Will Chavez-DeRemer be first out?

March 1, 2026

In the year-plus of the second Trump administration, no Cabinet member — despite a year-long gusher of toxic headlines relating to many of that group — has yet resigned or been fired.

Speculation for months has centered on more than a dozen names, at various times and degrees of seriousness, about who will be first to leave.

Today, there’s some basis for looking at the only Oregonian in the group, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.

That’s not exactly a consensus view. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been mentioned often, as have Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others. Loud campaigns calling for the resignation of each have surfaced for months.

Chavez-DeRemer, a former one-term U.S. representative from Oregon, has not been as high-profile as any of them, and the toxic elements of her story could be considered less important from a governing or policy view than those of some of the others.

Still, the betting platform Polymarket pegged her prospect of being the first cabinet departure at 27.3% in mid-January.

What’s the case for an early departure for the former Oregon member of Congress?

They seem not to reach into her past. She had served without significant controversy on the Happy Valley City Council and through two terms as mayor, and she ran competitively twice for the state Legislature.

A Republican, in 2022 she won a U.S. House seat in a district specifically designed to elect a Democrat. When she lost the seat in 2024, the reasons mainly reflected the gap between the slightly Democratic-leaning district and national Republicans, more than with any concerns specific to Chavez-DeRemer.

The current problems developed, or at least went public, after she joined the Trump administration. Some relate to her job execution and policies. A group of Democratic senators (including Ron Wyden of Oregon) this month sent a letter to the department complaining of the secretary’s actions “rolling back safety regulations and systemically reducing enforcement efforts at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.” None of that was likely to hurt her standing with the president, however.

But that followed complaints about her management, involving staff incidents and styles that drew inquiries from the department’s inspector general. One report, for example, said that during a formal work trip back to Oregon, she took staffers to a Portland strip club. Another said she required assistants to undertake personal errands for her. She was accused last month of drinking alcohol in the workplace and having an extramarital affair with a subordinate. Through an attorney, Chavez-DeRemer strongly denied any claims of wrongdoing.

But then came more recent headlines about her husband, Shawn DeRemer. The New York Times reported that he has been barred from entering the Department of Labor headquarters building after a Jan. 24 report by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department about what was described as “forced sexual contact” in the department’s offices. Federal prosecutors, in the U.S. attorney’s office led by Jeanine Pirro, opted not to file charges.

The Times concluded in another article, “Morale is low among both political appointees and veteran staff members, some of whom said Ms. Chavez-DeRemer was rarely present at the department and seemed largely interested in her future political aspirations.”

The accumulation of incidents and optics have reached a level that would have resulted in an automatic ouster in most presidential administrations. The Trump administration, of course, is different. But there is reason to think Chavez-DeRemer might be a little more vulnerable to external pressure than some of the other Cabinet secretaries.

First, she is not personally or professionally especially close to Trump. She has been a loyal member of the administration, defending Trump on several fronts, but she’s not part of the inner circle the way Hegseth and Bondi seem to be.

She also doesn’t have a large national platform or support group. Kennedy, for example, had a significant personal constituency based on his activism on health and other issues; Chavez-DeRemer has a lower national profile, and so a smaller personal support base.

And the consequences of cutting her loose with the potential of Trump-damaging headlines as a result do not seem large.

So far, like all other members of the Cabinet, she has lasted for more than a year. Maybe she will stay in place for some time to come. Unlike in his first term, Trump seems reluctant to let Cabinet members go.

In the meantime, keep a watch on the betting markets.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.