West of the Rotunda

During the four years I served on the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee (JFAC) I worked with many fellow members to craft budgets for where the state should spend the taxpayers’ dollars. Most of the time, as a minority Democrat I was working with Republicans, since that’s the main flavor in the Idaho Statehouse. But when considering how money should be spent, it really was about common sense, not political idealism.

We would get together and pore over the information and negotiate. Sometimes you could get something cut here, then someone would want to add something there and there would be honest negotiating. It was hard work but rewarding. We knew our job was not to make policy but balance the budget.

So, when the Idaho House votes to kill budgets, I’m scratching my head. Are they saying their colleagues on JFAC aren’t doing their work? If so, they should be lobbying to get onto JFAC and do the work themselves. It’s tough work, but not beyond their effort, I am sure.

Or are they wanting this state agency to behave differently? If that is the case, they can write a law directing the agency with new policy and direction. I can see they are doing that with “Social Justice”, “Critical Race Theory” legislation. Read House Bill 377 please. The bill states it is a public policy that no public school shall:

“direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets…” I guess the legislature, and the Freedom Foundation don’t trust our public-school teachers to behave professionally.

Indoctrination is not education. Wayne Hoffman and Richard Butler both graduated from public schools and attended public colleges. Maybe that was before this “social justice” threat. They both managed to grow up and think for themselves.

Maybe the “NO” voters just want this branch of government to go away. For the four years I built the Idaho Health and Welfare budgets, there would be 5-10 “NO” votes in the Senate, and 20-25 “NO” votes in the House. Nobody every spoke to me about the specifics of how this money should be spent differently. If there was any debate against the budget in the Senate, it was about “too big” or “not the role of government”. Which again, could have been addressed with legislation to eliminate the Division of Welfare, or the Division of Medicaid, or any of the other parts of DHW.  But those bills never came up.

A colleague explained it to me. Legislators get negative points on the Idaho Freedom Foundation Index if they vote for a budget. And LOTS of negative points for voting for the Health and Welfare budgets. IFF keeps score. If you want a good Freedom Index score, vote the way they tell you to. I would argue the IFF is working hard to indoctrinate legislators. And they are doing a great job of it.

It looks like this session the IFF has put the bullseye on education funding, both higher ed and K12, with the social justice boogeyman as the excuse.

The Idaho House killed a budget for K12 teacher pay. They also killed the higher ed budget. And the Federal Money from the Trump administration for preschool support got killed. Representative Shepherd (R-Riggins) said it clearly, when asked if he would support the Preschool grant. “And if I cannot educate them (the voters) on what the bill actually does in time, at this point it’s almost political suicide for me to support the bill.” I guess he’s not free to think for himself. He’s watching his Freedom Index.

Promoting good schools is a noble cause. I just don’t see the boogeyman the IFF has carted out for us. If Idaho legislators want to fight indoctrination, they should start thinking for themselves and not pandering to their Freedom Index.

The legislature was still in session, so the Capitol doctor still had to show up for office hours, though it didn’t seem like he was doing much good. Still, these part time retirement gigs kept his mind in the game, though he felt his heart fading from it a bit.

Doc Hasty shuffled up the steps of the domed building early. He hoped the morning hours would be brief and he’d make his 11AM tee reservation at the club. He unlocked his basement office door and flicked on the computer

It had been a weird session with all the pandemic brouhaha. He’d done his share of nose swabs. Prior sessions he mostly dealt with the worried well, the bad cold that hung on, the sore shoulder that wasn’t a heart attack. But there was real medicine to do sometimes. He once drained a painful purple fingernail with a red-hot paper clip. And there were nose bleeds and hemorrhoids, but this year had tested him.

First, he couldn’t get anybody to wear a mask except the Democrats, and that made the issue political, not common sense. He winced whenever he thought of it.

Then nobody would agree to get a vaccination, even though some of these guys were prime candidates for a ventilator, should they get the virus. That is, of course, except the Democrats, the dozen of so walking the halls with their “I Got the Shot” buttons. It was like they thought that might convince their counterparts across the aisle. Doc Hasty shook his head at the thought. Common sense ain’t common even here in the “Peoples House”.

But he was most bothered by the secret requests for hydroxychloroquine. Senators would lean in and whisper if he had any “Hydroxy”. The first time this happened last year, when the pandemic was still on the rise, he’d mistaken the request. He’d done enough ER shifts to know folks who wanted “hydros”, the short for hydrocodone, and “oxy” the short for oxycodone, both prescription narcotics with street value and narcotic effect. So, the whispered “hydroxy” request made his eyes bug out at the conservative Senator. With no answer, the Senator had filled in the “hydroxychloroquine”, but still whispering.

Now it was Doc Hasty’s turn to whisper, and he didn’t know quite where to go. He had read the studies, heard the news and knew the politics of the drug. And he also knew the risks. But he didn’t want to offend anyone for their beliefs either. He whispered back, “Hard to come by.” And shook his head. He hoped that would spread the word. The couple more times he got the ask he handled it the same. It faded and last session ended. Nobody had whispered such requests to him this session.

But there had been a few tough calls this session. Some folks had come in with bad colds, maybe a fever or a cough, so he’d swabbed their nose and told them to go home to await the results. It was awkward when he still saw them in the halls later that day sniffling or coughing. He’d glare at them, but he didn’t have any authority besides his professional advice. And he didn’t want to scare off folks from getting checked.

He shared this with his golf buddy one afternoon on the back nine. “Acting like a bunch of high school kids not wanting to miss the big game, huh?” had been Jack’s response.

Hasty chuckled. “Yeah, kinda, I guess.”

“How do you handle caring for all those prima donnas? It sure would drive me crazy.”

“Oh, they’re just normal people, like you and me.” Hasty offered.

Jack lined up his putt. “Well, if they’re normal, like you and me, I wish they’d act like it. I think getting elected has gone to their heads.”

“Oh?”

“You know Doc, what those guys need is a prescription for hydroxycommonsense. You got any of those pills?”

The Idaho legislature took a few days off back in March, did you notice? But they are set to get back together this Tuesday. I hope they got the studded tires off their rigs before they head to Boise, because I doubt they’ll be wanting to twirl a lug wrench in their suits and ties. Studs gotta come off here in Idaho by the end of April. Maybe they’ll be done with their lawmaking duties by then. But it isn’t going to snow in Boise in April; they should take them off now.

That’s the kind of thinking I want from a legislator; minimize the damage done to others. You see, while the studs make your traction better in ice and snow, they damage the roads. And we wear our roads out enough here in Idaho. Tire studs are regulated in Idaho law.

I bought some studs this year on Craigslist for my little two-wheel drive pickup. The old street tires were getting pretty bare. I was glad I had them with the snow and ice we had, but it’s time to take them off. Probably need a new set of street tires. If they are all-weather, I might be selling those studs on Craigslist next fall.

Some states ban studded tires, but they are like Hawaii and Florida and Texas. But get this, Minnesota also bans studded tires, and they get winter, I’ve heard. Washington state had a ban on studded tires until 1969 when the legislature allowed them. Every year since the Washington Department of Transportation has recommended reinstituting the ban, but their legislature hasn’t bit that bait. Washington does charge a $5 fee on every studded tire sold in the state. It goes into the highway repair fund, but they claim it doesn’t cover the damage done. Heck, in Wyoming they are legal all year. But they have oil.

So, past Idaho legislatures have decided to regulate some things, despite the tone of the current session. Maybe when they get back this Tuesday, they’ll take a look at that studded tire law and throw that one out.

They haven’t been too welcoming to regulations this year.

That is, unless it’s public art. They want to regulate how municipalities do art.

And historic names, like schools or parks, the legislature wants to put their hand on that scale.

Oh yes, and anything to do with “social justice” is facing hard times.

And they want to make it harder to turn in absentee ballots because, as House Majority leader Mike Moyle says, “Voting shouldn’t be easy.”

Maybe studded tires are next.

It really is about freedom, after all. There’s a guy down the street drives by my house all summer on his way to Arby’s with his studs on. I can hear him coming three blocks away. He’s celebrating his freedom to run studs in the summer while he ruts up the road in front of my house.

One person’s freedom is the next person’s rut in the road.

I don’t know about you but I’m looking forward to the legislature getting back together. I heard some got the Covid so that’s why they shut down suddenly. I really hope they are all better and nobody else gets sick. I hope they are ready to get back to work.

Maybe their perspective has changed in this little two-week break. We know the faces haven’t; the same butts will be in the same seats. And, despite the little Covid scare, most won’t be wearing masks.

But maybe they swapped to the summer tires. It would be the responsible, neighborly thing to do.

I listen to the radio when I’m working on that garage I’m building down the hill. Can’t hear it above the saw but it keeps me company. When I heard the ad for a “Health Care Sharing Ministry” I listened carefully, because I know what they are; and what they are not. But the ad sure didn’t help me know that.

Most HCSMs allow membership if applicants share the same religious beliefs. Some only ask that you have a “healthy lifestyle”. You are expected to pay a monthly fee, then when you have a medical cost, you apply for reimbursement.

I got my introduction to these when a fellow State Senator brought a bill before my committee back in the anti-Obamacare days. I’d never heard of them before. It turns out the ACA included an exception for these; folks so enrolled didn’t have to pay the Individual Mandate penalty. But the Obama compromise also limited these entities to ones in place before the year 2000. And that individual mandate penalty is now $0.

Back when the ACA compromises were being handed out, there were only about 100,000 people enrolled in these. Small potatoes to the insurance industry, and Obama, the great compromiser, thought this was a practice worth defending, so folks who participated got written out of the requirement for the Individual Mandate.

The bill before us that got me studying “just wanted to make sure” Idaho didn’t treat these entities like insurance. And they aren’t. But that radio ad I heard last week sure made them sound like it.

“Health insurance unaffordable? Try us!” was basically what it said.

Nowadays, HCSMs have over a million participants nationwide. And I guess radio ads are part of their marketing plan.

Remember, we (that is, Congress) have been doing nothing for the last ten years to keep health insurance affordable. I can see why folks are looking for a low-cost alternative. But HCSMs are not insurance.

Health insurance companies are regulated, both at the federal and state level. Health insurance companies cannot exclude you for a preexisting condition (thanks to the ACA). HCSMs can. Health insurance companies cannot kick you off for getting sick (expensive), also thanks to the ACA. HCSMs can. Health insurance companies must spend 80% of their revenue paying for health care (thanks ACA). And they get audited. HCSMs have no such obligation for transparency.

When I first heard about these long ago in committee, I thought they sounded like an informal mutual aid society, with a scriptural inspiration. The Apostle Paul said, “Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.” Galatians, Chapter 2 Verse 6. Why not let like-minded folks pool their resources and care for each other? My question is, why do they need to advertise on the radio?

It seems that some Idaho legislators might listen to these radio ads in their neck of the woods too. A bill was attempted to be introduced back in February to put some regulations on these actors. It was interesting to me that a Republican legislator carried it, and the committee rejected it. Now, as an Idaho Democrat, that’s familiar territory, but a Republican sponsor, and a member of the committee? He must have had a real stinker. Oh, that’s right, it had to do with regulations. We don’t need no regulations.

But another bill was introduced and printed, so we can read the suggestions. It is in a chairman’s drawer.

The bill proposes HCSMs have an annual audit that is made public, not exclude anyone based on their health risk, and not misrepresent itself as insurance.

I doubt the Idaho legislature will want to support such brazen regulations. We all just need to be careful when we are buying stuff, don’t we? We’re on our own here folks.

As the Idaho legislature plods through the ides of March, Governor Little should not be afraid they will stick around to override his veto. They will. They are in no hurry to leave. So, Brad, go ahead and veto the Initiative Killer Bill. It looks like they have the votes to override it. Then it will all be on them.

I understand the legislature’s twist about initiatives. It seems a lot of this session has been about their umbrage. After all, we elect them to make the laws, don’t we? And elect them, we do.

But there is this little thing called the Idaho Constitution. Article 3, Section 1 says:

The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature. This power is known as the initiative, and legal voters may, under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature, initiate any desired legislation and cause the same to be submitted to the vote of the people at a general election for their approval or rejection.

So, this proposed law (SB 1110) is well within the power of the legislature. But the details of the law will make the initiative process impossible, which is probably the legislature’s goal.

Twice in the last decade the people of Idaho have either over-rode the legislature (repeal of the Luna Laws) or taken up what the legislature refused (Medicaid Expansion). But then the voters returned the very same legislators they were disagreeing with to their places in the statehouse.

So, I can see why these elected folks feel pretty safe. Safe is not what our representatives should feel.

I’ll bet Governor Little doesn’t feel too safe. I hope that doesn’t keep him from doing the right thing.

Past judicial rulings (2001) have held that the county-based requirements for initiative passage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution (14^th Amendment). But the legislature has fixed that by moving to legislative district requirements. Under current law in Idaho, to qualify an initiative for the ballot, signatures from 6% of the voters in 18 of the 35 legislative districts need to be submitted. If SB 1110 passes this week (and it will), this requirement jumps to 35/35 districts.

This will make an initiative or referendum impossible for the citizens of Idaho, despite what the Idaho Constitution guarantees.

Why doesn’t our legislature just propose changing the Idaho Constitution, getting rid of the process altogether? It would be harder, requiring 2/3rds vote in both bodies. It sure looks like they will have that margin. But then we’d have to vote on it, the people. A majority of us would have to say, at the next general election, sure, forget it, we don’t need no stinking initiatives. Given our tendency to elect these folks, we just might go along with them.

But then, twice in the last ten years we haven’t.

Two years ago, Governor Little vetoed a similar bill that had the purpose of making initiatives impossible. That time the legislature had adjourned, and it didn’t really look like they had the votes to override.

This time will be different. If Little vetoes, they’ll still be in town. And they probably will have 2/3rds in both bodies. I hope an override doesn’t deter him.

The Governor said in 2019 with his veto, he feared a Federal Judge would throw out the law. That argument has never stopped the legislature from their proposals.

I sure like having the power of the people proposing or rejecting laws here in Idaho. Believe me, it’s not easy now, and it shouldn’t be. Legislators point to the California or Washington State initiative boogey man. That’s not Idaho. And Brad knows it.

So, it’s been four years of a Republican administration and congress vowing to “Repeal and Replace” then “Repeal”, then “Let’s Beg the Courts to” deal with the great abomination they perceive the Affordable Care Act to be. But, I guess, elections have consequences. Now we have a Democratic administration and congress. Are they doing anything? Let’s look.

You remember I have written about the problems with the ACA before. When Nancy Pelosi said “We have to pass the law to find out what’s in it” she wasn’t kidding. There have been lots of quirks.

There is this thing called the “Subsidy Cliff”. It affects some people who purchase insurance on the exchanges (about 10% of Idahoans). Most Idahoans get health insurance through their employment (about 50%). Then there’s us Idaho geezers on Medicare (about 15%) and the poor or disabled on Medicaid (another 15%). Approximately 10% of Idahoans are uninsured (2019 numbers). You see, everybody is in a different boat. The single payer folks think this would be easier to fix if we were all in one boat. It would sure be a big boat.

But some of the folks in the Idaho Exchange boat are getting juiced. They face the subsidy cliff. Currently, if you make less than $50K and you buy your insurance on the Idaho Exchange, your premium comes to about 10% of your income. If you make $55K, the premium percentage jumps to about 20% of your income. It doesn’t make sense that a $5K raise would actually cost you $5K more in health insurance, but that’s how the current set up is.

And just like he promised, Joe Biden proposes to address this. He campaigned on fixing the problems with the ACA. Remember, lots of Democratic presidential candidates raised their hands to “Medicare for All”. But we got Joe.

The current $1.9 Trillion Covid relief budget reconciliation bill has “a fix” for this subsidy cliff. If it passes both houses (passed the Senate this weekend, maybe House on Tuesday), this cliff will disappear. Instead, folks buying insurance on the exchange will see gradual increases in the percentage they pay as their incomes go up, not the steep jump.

Here’s the catch. It’s only a two-year fix. Unless it is continued, in two years, the cliff comes back. What else happens in two years? Yup, mid term elections. The House will probably go back to the “Repeal” crowd and nothing will be done awaiting another presidential election.

It’s our fault folks. We don’t demand our elected officials address the health care mess in this country. We can’t stay focused on a problem longer that it takes to watch a Tick Tock or read a tweet. And if we can’t, we sure can’t expect our elected officials to have that discipline.

This fix has been in a lot of congressional drawers for four (maybe ten!) years getting no discussion, no traction. We, the splintered masses, have not asked for this simple fix with any sort of voice that could be heard.

It makes sense, given the many boats we are in. This problem probably affects about 1-2% of Idahoans, and about the same percent nationally. That’s not a large electorate, even for a simple fix. Especially when all you have to say is “Obamacare” and the AR15s come out.

Yes, it’s our fault. But it is a very complicated law, that ACA, Obamacare thing. There are lots of folks paying attention to it with ideas and suggestions. But we sure don’t want to hear any of that, do we?

Maybe, the scream and Tweet crowd would rather we have a simpler system, one where we are all in the same boat? If we don’t do the work to fix the many little boats we are in, we’ll all be swimming soon enough.

Courage isn’t something you think of when you’re talking about politicians. Indeed, if politicians are just supposed to be mouthpieces of their constituents, what courage is called for?

But some of our problems demand a greater perspective than a single constituency. There can be little incentive for a politician to take a broader view. Just keep the district happy and toe the party line seems to be their marching orders. Indeed, nowadays, most proposed solutions seem to gather support depending on your side of the aisle. Breaking rank may be political suicide.

So, when an elected representative does just that, voices dispute with his partisan colleagues, it gets noticed. And depending on the position taken, and the conviction of the speaker, it is judged foolish, petulant, disloyal, but rarely courageous.

I judge Idaho Representative Mike Simpson courageous.

He has proposed breaching the lower four Snake River dams in an attempt to restore a signature and endangered Idaho species: native salmon.

His proposal attempts to address the concerns of all parties. The port jobs in Lewiston and Clarkston, and further downriver will need support. The cheap transport costs area farmers have gotten will need support. Hydropower users will need support. He has a long and comprehensive list of the affected parties and how they need to be addressed. It is a very detailed proposal.

But judging from the immediate backlash from many of his fellow Republicans and conservative voices he’s catching a lot of heat. It takes some courage to get yelled at. And he knew he would. Despite that certitude, he has spent three years meeting with the affected players and crafting a solution. He stuck with his vision.

It’s not easy getting a controversial subject in front of a reluctant audience. I know from experience. And, indeed, my attempts to do such got me unelected. And this stance may do this for Representative Simpson. But what better use of public office than to take a principled public stand? That’s what I call courage.

I have been reading the criticisms of Simpson and his proposal. They run the gamut from partisan dismissive insults, to “hey, he’s not guaranteeing it will work”. The line of critics is long and predictable, from the Idaho Governor’s office down to the Farm Bureau, with many Republican legislators in the middle of the line. Most critics acknowledge that what has been done ($19B spent for “salmon recovery”) has not moved the needle. Some argue that hatchery stocks are just fine. Others point to native harvests, or ocean conditions as excuses to not take this action. But if any critic wants to be honest, they need to answer this question: does the survival of Native Idaho Salmon matter to you? I hear clearly that it does to Representative Simpson. I respect a clear, principled public statement.

We elect people to represent us, not lead us. I always cringed when someone referred to me as a “leader”. I just wanted to work on problems.

But we have lots of problems that most of us don’t want to do the work to solve. And many of the problems in this crowded, complicated world require more than a change in a single person’s behavior. Leaders help us see our problems and work on solutions.

I heard a man speak about the loss of Idaho salmon at our church some twenty years ago. Reed Burkholder held no elected office, but he sure wanted the runs of native salmon back. He proposed breaching the lower four Snake Dams back then. That’s about when I started seeing bumper stickers: “Save our Dams”. I asked local representative what they thought of the dwindling salmon runs. It seemed the Democratic candidates bemoaned the loss but couldn’t voice any solutions. The Republican candidates dismissed the problem and voiced support of the vital interests of their constituents: Palouse wheat farmers who needed cheap grain transport. The lines were drawn back then.

It takes courage to step across a line. Mike Simpson has courage.