West of the Rotunda

Yesterday morning in the Agricultural Affairs Committee we heard from two commissions. These are trade organizations established under authority of the legislature, given the right to tax their members for the purpose of promoting their industry and the state of Idaho. Along with the authority to tax there is granted to the commission the right to inspect the accounts of members to make sure proper taxes are paid.

First we heard from the Aquaculture Commission. They represent the fish farmers of Idaho. They raise trout, sturgeon, also a few frogs for research and ornamentals for fish tanks. Idaho produces a lot of trout for fancy restaurants on both coasts. Sturgeon is a growing product both for caviar and meat. The new commission secretary described plans to promote marketing and brand recognition but there has not been widespread enrollment by industry members. Their annual budget is low five figures. It seems the fish farmers do not see the value of such a commitment.

Next we heard from the Potato Commission. They have almost 100% of potato producers enrolled. They do random audits and make sure the taxes are paid. And it seems the Potato Commission is satisfying their taxpayers. Idaho potatoes are the top brand, recognized world-wide.  We are still the #1 potato producing state.

The Potato Commission was established in 1937. The tax was initially set at 10 cents a hundred weight (cwt). Just a few years ago the producers voted to raise their taxes to 15 cents/cwt. We reviewed their audited annual statement with revenues and expenses of eight figures.

What a concept.  It is almost one you could build a country on. A group would choose to cooperate, agree to be taxed based on their production, enforce fair cooperation and be happy to do so with the faith that it would promote the general welfare.

In the last few sessions of the Idaho legislature more than 800 bills have been introduced each year. Over 600 get enacted into law. And we consider ourselves a conservative state? Maybe we should be doing less. I will now discuss a bill that never should have happened. It didn’t need to. 

One of the things that inspired me to run for this office last year was some of the bills I saw passed that I thought were harmful. It’s really something when you can deal directly with something that has inspired you. So this job is an inspiration. 

I refer you to Senate Bill 1353, the Health Care Provider Freedom of Conscience Act. It’s short. Please read it. Thus you will know what our laws are made of. 

The bill is trying to keep health care professionals from having to do things they are ethically opposed to doing. Or so it says. 

When I first heard of this bill last winter I was offended, then inspired. Now that I am elected I wondered what to do. Before I decided to do anything I wanted to speak with the author and understand his intent. He sat down with me in the Senate chamber one day after adjournment. I told him I was concerned the bill would promote unprofessional behavior. He assured me he was only trying to protect professionals in difficult ethical situations. I have always thought the reconciliation of ones values with those one cared for was a supreme act of compassion. I didn’t need the protection of legislation in this difficult but important process.

I have rarely had to refuse to provide the care requested by a patient because of my own ethics. If I had to refuse I always explained my position and offered to find a different physician for the patient.  My goal has always been to provide appropriate, compassionate care. Sometimes I cannot give the patient what they ask for. But ones professional demands cannot be dismissed, nor should the needs of the patient. 

So the words and the intent of the bill were confusing to me. And I was only slightly reassured by the author’s words. 

In November of 2010 a Nurse Practitioner in Nampa called a pharmacist and prescribed Methergine. This is a drug used to stop uterine bleeding after childbirth or an abortion. The pharmacist asked the prescriber if the patient had had an abortion, and then hung up on the nurse. 

The nurse who worked for Planned Parenthood complained to the Board of Pharmacy. The Board investigated and determined that no sanctions were in order. Idaho, like 45 other states in our Union, has no statutory requirement for a pharmacist to fill a prescription. Pharmacists do so at their discretion. I studied the Idaho Code one afternoon and find I agree. 

So why did we need a Freedom of Conscience Act for pharmacists? They didn’t have to do anything they didn’t want to before the law was passed. And physicians and nurses had a law already protecting them. 

When I spoke with the author of the bill I told him of my worries about the consequences of such a bill: that we, a mixture of people who have widely varied beliefs and values, might stop treating each other with respect. I believe the vague and unclear intent of this bill has indeed promoted such behavior. We should do better. Or do nothing.

We have scheduled breakfasts, lunches and dinners. I get emails, letters, packages and phone calls. I try to return the contacts whenever possible. 

I got a real angry message on my phone this morning about “nullification”. He was upset because he thought he’d heard me on the radio and thought I had called the bill submitted to the House as “grandstanding”. I was confused because I had done a radio interview on KRPL but I didn’t remember using that term. When I read the Boise Statesman I realized he had me confused with House Minority Leader John Rusche. It’s OK. We’re both doctors. He’s a pediatrician, I’m a Family doc. We are both Democrats. 

But I am trying hard to respect the differences we all have. I think nullifying federal laws the state considers unconstitutional is denying our part in this Union we all share. I cannot support it. But I can understand the passion. It may be like that of our revolutionary patriots. We have our Republic to thank for their sacrifice. The cynical might point to self-interest, not the ideal of liberty. They might point out that in 1776 America had the highest standard of living of any country in the world. Did we rebel to protect our wealth, stolen from a decimated native population? The romance of liberty is powerful. And ideals are worthy of our effort. 

But the appeal of nullification is muted by the truth that we elect those that represent us. And we do vote for (or against) the taxes we pay. And our representatives answer to us. I answer to you.

I try to meet with constituents whenever I can.

Wednesday at lunch it was the Troy FFA.

Tall handsome FFA officers escort me to my table

Last night it was the University of Idaho Alumni Association.

Yesterday at lunch I sat with our city officials. 

Which brings me back to the angry phone message. His message had a lot of emotion. He was upset. I called the number back. I got his machine. I offered to meet. I love talking about health care policy. I’ll try to get in touch. That’s the best I can do.

Today we take testimony from the public regarding Health and Welfare cuts. Our governor, the voters and the majority of the legislature have clearly indicated that raising revenue, taxes, is not an option. So we must reduce what we spend. Heath and Welfare is the target.

Idaho is unique in the Western States in that we support developmentally disabled adults extensively in the community. Ten years ago these programs were funded as a cost-cutting measure. If we could keep these clients out of institutions, in the community, we could save the taxpayer money. 

These very programs are on the chopping block. When H&W presented this to our committee I asked them, if we cut this much, how many folks will end up in institutions? It’s just a matter of statistics, but they couldn’t say. We don’t really know how sharp are these tools we use. 

There are many programs for qualifying individuals. H&W pays for the treatment. Last week Butch Otter was in Cul de Sac for a town meeting. A woman got up to complain about the cuts to developmentally disabled programs. She was caring for her son in her home. He had meningitis as a child and was disabled. The proposed cuts would reduce her financial support from $110,000 a year to $86,000. She didn’t think this was fair. 

So we as a state and as a nation are at this place of conflict. How much can we ask our fellow taxpayers to give to care for those less able to care for themselves. And how often does such a policy create a demand? Can we as a nation have this discussion and strike a healthy balance?

I have received three dozen or more emails, phone calls, and letters about these proposed cuts. I always try to understand the motivation of the person sending the message. It’s not always clear. I will sit in the auditorium for the public testimony Friday. I will listen carefully.

Any new job there’s alot of figuring out just how to do things. When to show up. Where the bathrooms are, what to wear.

The answer to the last question is jacket and tie ALWAYS. Often a suit. I had to dig ties out of the back of my closet from Residency days. They still fit. And I bought a suit. Then I found two at a consignment store, so I’m set for clothes. And I can wear a jacket and tie now and not feel like I’m sticking out like an unseeded row in a Palouse wheat field.

The Capitol has great bathrooms. I haven’t tried them all yet.

But the question I have been working on has been how to get around. I have arranged an apartment over off Warm Springs that is almost exactly a mile from the Capitol. I walked every day the first week, but it was 20 minutes each way and I’d be hot and sweaty when I came to work. I walked home in the rain last Tuesday and decided a bicycle might be a good idea. I have a car here. And a parking pass for the garage. But drive a mile and back? It seems wasteful.

I asked Jonnie, my attache, about bikes in Boise and he told me about the Boise Bicycle Project. I walked there on Wednesday afternoon after Health and Welfare Committee and made this $50 purchase.

They were pretty amused to be selling a little Schwinn to a guy in a suit and tie with an overcoat. But they were sure helpful. And friendly.

It’s a Schwinn two speed rear hub with a coaster brake. I just had to raise the seat a little and get a light. So now it’s a short 10 minute ride and my thighs are getting stronger.

I still am working on the when to show up. I was the first one in this Monday morning. And the last one here last Friday too. I figure I’ll get more efficient with my time.

We hear more about the Superintendant’s and the Governor’s plan for reforming education in Idaho. The details fill in for where the money comes from and goes, what teachers will face in contracts and in the classroom, what students will find when the bell rings. I am listening. There is public testimony right now before JFAC about the proposal. There are lots of people in the halls. I watch on the computer.

I cannot find much to support in the details other than the concept of changing direction. Old saying: “If you are going in the wrong direction, each step forward is a mistake.” Education needs our support and energy.  I wish the superintendant had collaborated with the stakeholders. I am still studying details. I do not serve on JFAC or Education so I need to pay attention. I appreciate all the emails and comments I have gotten.

Senate Health and Welfare Committee hearings have dealt with rules but also background. We met twice with House H&W, Senate H&W and JFAC (30+ legislators) and just yesterday with House and Senate H&W. These joint meetings were to provide budget information and organizational background. The Governor recommends trimming about 25 million General Fund dollars from Medicaid. We will lose the $58 million in federal funds that match this so that means about $84 million less in benefits for Idahoans. How to best do this, that is, make the best decisions for our state will occupy our efforts in the next months.  As I watch the public testimony at JFAC I am struck how unlike a kitchen table discussion it is. Our Governor said we should solve our problems like a family around a kitchen table. If I had a kitchen table between me and the people testifying before Health and Welfare and JFAC next week, I would ask them if they thought we should raise taxes to support the programs they do not want cut. And who should pay to preserve this program. And if we do not raise taxes, which other part of the state should be funded less to preserve the program they are defending.

We have a Health and Welfare budget on both the State and National level that is unsustainable. Governor Otter’s address referred to the trap of entitlements, and to a certain extent, I can understand this. Maybe it is the principle of giving some one fish vs. teaching them to fish. But honestly, the programs that are facing cuts were instituted years ago as a way to save money. Idaho offers these programs for adults with physical of intellectual disabilities in an attempt to keep them out of institutions. So are we shooting ourselves in the foot here?

We will take testimony next week from the public. I have heard from many already. I would be glad to hear from you. I wish it was a kitchen table but it might be email.

Early this week I saw a lot of Republican Senators carrying around the book Nullification by Tom Woods. I had a constituent send it to me a few weeks ago, thus I recognized the cover.  I understand people upset about national health care reform. Change is difficult. But, like education, health care needs to change in our country. Health care costs grow at a pace greater than the rest of the economy and quality is not what it should be. So let’s get to work on the solutions. Do those who want to refudiate the health care bill have suggestions to solve the mess? I would love to hear them. Idaho has a great opportunity here to do some creative things both in the public arena with Medicaid and in the private sector. (In another post I will outline my suggestions.) If we could make Idaho a shining light of high quality, low cost health care business might see this as a healthy place to set up shop. That is where I want to direct my energy.

I see the passion of those who find federal health care reform as an intrusion on their rights. Governor Otter even mentioned nullification in his State of the State speech. And a House freshman has introduced a bill that calls for Idaho to “Nullify” the federal legislation. The last serious attempts at nullification were George Wallace and segregation. I hope Idaho does not chose such a battle.

We go to the Senate floor every day usually about 11:30. We work through the order of business in about a half an hour with no real debate or conflict at this point in the session. Most of the work this week has been in committee meetings. We are reviewing rules.

I am told this rule review by the legislature makes Idaho unique.  Where other states leave the implementation of legislation up to the executive agencies, the Idaho legislature is given the prerogative to set administrative rules to ensure the intent of the legislation is carried out effectively and efficiently. Sometimes they update rules to fit changes in procedures that have evolved. Sometimes they just try to make them work better.

When these rules are changed they need to be reviewed by the legislature.

It can be mundane. On the Health and Welfare Committee we reviewed 4 rules for 4 different programs that needed the new words to allow an electronic signature. It didn’t take long.

We also considered a new rule in the Health and Welfare Committee to raise the asset limit for people applying for Food Stamps. The rule used to set the limit at $2000. So it didn’t count your house and one car, but your ATV and fishing boat and tools could have kept you from getting food stamps. Idaho has led the nation this last two years in new people applying for food stamps. We are in tough times. So last year the asset rule was suspended. No questions about assets were asked of those that applied. This didn’t sit well with last year’s legislature so the department drafted a rule that set the exclusion limit higher at $5000. We heard testimony and passed that rule this week. You can keep your tools and trailer when you are laid off and still qualify for food stamps.

 Among the rule that were Okayed in the Senate Commerce Committee were rules for mortician training and barber testing.

The Senate Agriculture committee reviewed the change in standards for milk. And we learned what a rancher will be allowed to feed cattle and still qualify them for the designation “Organic.”

 About the only drama came this morning when we were reviewing a rule about domestic elk. There’s a long history of disagreement between the guides and hunting associations and the domestic elk ranchers. There is a big worry that the domestic herds will harbor disease that will get out and infect the wild elk. And domestic elk have and do escape. But there has never been a reported case of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD, the elk equivalent of Mad Cow disease) in domestic Idaho elk. Colorado, Nebraska, Utah, Montana, Canada, New Mexico, and places east have had the disease. But not Idaho, not yet.

 So we had a proposed rule change with two parts. First the Ag Department wanted increase what domestic elk ranchers pay so the costs of the program were covered. And the Department of Agriculture wanted each ranch to have a management plan. But the process failed. Over the last year and a half the Idaho Dept of Ag had tried to get the elk ranchers to sit down and negotiate what the rules should be. They wouldn’t meet. So there was testimony today for and against the new rules. These hearings are open and public comment is taken. We had the Director of the Ag Department ask us to approve the rules. Two folks asked us not to approve the rules. We got to ask them questions. Nobody took an oath and the questioning was pretty mild.

 It seemed pretty clear to me. Elk ranchers don’t want to have more rules placed on them. They want to do what they want to do on their own property.  “Private Property Rights” was a recurrent phrase. They see the regulations as excessive intrusions. I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given the importance of elk hunting and the risks to the native herds from disease.

 But we could not agree. A motion to postpone the vote was made and then a substitute motion was made to approve the rule. It failed and now we will vote again on the rule Feb 10^th. So much for making the hard decisions our governor asked us to do. I thought with all those people there, showing up and expecting us to decide, we ought to do our job. I voted to approve the rules. I lost. Maybe I’ll get another chance. Our schedule for Feb 10^th has the Senate Agriculture Committee on a bus to visit a dairy. Maybe the decision will be made out of the view of the public.

 I asked a colleague on the committee why she voted against approving the rule change. “Dan, there’s just too many regulations.”

Monday, the first day of the regular session, I found myself in the front row of the House Chambers scrunched up against the teleprompter listening to our governor deliver the State of the State.

There are a lot of ways to interpret such a speech. Here’s mine.

Idaho has problems:  unemployment, foreclosures, a slow economy, bad roads and programs that need changes (in my opinion, Health and Welfare and K12 Education). Our Governor chose to characterize the problems as simple ones we can solve around the kitchen table. Results will come from more volunteerism, stronger bootstraps, actively defending ourselves from the Federal Government up to and including “nullification”. (But we will borrow from the feds to bail out our bankrupt unemployment fund.) We can escape the “tyranny of entitlements” by doing less.

He expects businesses to come to Idaho to bring jobs and prosperity without significant solutions for funding our roads, modernizing our tax structures, or improving the state of public and higher education; the things that potential employers want. These are the hard decisions that need our attention. Instead we were promised a secret solution for schools, to come from Superintendant Luna on Wednesday.

In medicine we always look for the simple solutions. I like simple solutions. These felt disappointing. There is a maxim in business about simple solutions:  “The easiest way out of a problem is also the easiest way back in.”

The fact that Superintendant Luna’s unilateral solution for our schools was secret didn’t bode well. I find solutions in organizations are best hashed out with the folks who will have to do the work. It can be messy and time consuming, but it can stick. Like the legislature, bad solutions die, compromises are forged, and the common good is served.

Luna too was disappointing. Both he and Otter cited the recent election as evidence their policies reflected the will of the people. And most people do want education to change. But his recommendations for increasing class size, having students taught by laptops (not highly effective teachers) and hiring administrators who have never taught seemed to be saying teachers aren’t important. I believe they are. 

As the week progressed I settled into committee assignments. We toured the Idaho Department of Agriculture and met with the Dairy producers. We’ll start reviewing rules in Agriculture Committee next week. We started reviewing them this week on H&W.

As I was walking back up a drizzly Capitol Blvd. toward the statehouse I was discussing funding for our roads with a senior Senator. I had studied the Governor’s task force report and thought I could see an easy answer. The wise Senator explained some of the nuances to me and smiled, shaking his head. “There are no easy answers.”

We went through the big doors and into the rotunda.

My wife, Martha, came to Boise with me for the inaugural. I sat in the crisp sunshine and heard all the state-wide elected officials sworn in. I was impressed with Idaho’s “stay the course” choices. All Incumbents, some now serving for record lengths. Here we are facing drastic budget cuts and the voters wanted more of the same from their statewide officials. Indeed, I was the only Democrat to take a seat from the other party in the Legislature.

Saturday night there was a Processional for the inauguration in the remodeled Capitol. We Senators assembled in front of the Senate Chambers, then walked around to lead the members of the house down the steps to the next floor. There was a rope stretched up with lots of folks in fancy dress on the outside. Shook a lot of hands as I proceeded with my beautiful wife down to the rotunda.

The remodeled Capitol still has the traditional feel but is quite accessible to the public. And it is beautiful. I am honored to be representing my District. Tomorrow we hear the Governor’s State of the State address and we get to start talking about how to make ends meet.

Right after Thanksgiving I made my first trip as a Senator-elect to Boise. There were three days of Orientation, then a swearing in and a day of Organization. We selected leadership and made committee assignments. All during orientation I was impressed with the need to know the Senate Rules, so I studied them most nights. I will have to keep rereading them.

My Standing committee assignments and schedule:

8AM Agricultural Affairs TTh

1:30 Commerce and Human Resources  TTh

3:30Health and Welfare MTWTh

I was also assigned to interim committees:

CAT Fund (which provides legislative oversight for the catastrophic insurance fund)

Millennium Fund (which oversees tobacco settlement funds used to deter tobacco and substance abuse)

Health Care Task Force

I got my office assignment, phone number, parking permit, and made arrangements for housing. But most importantly, like any new job, I met lots of people. I met the other newly-elected legislators during orientation. I am still meeting staff and incumbent Senators, and Representatives.

While back in Moscow I had more meetings with constituents (the North Idaho Medical Society, Dental Society, Moscow teachers, University, EMS, commerce representatives, North Idaho Health District and more).

The Millennium Fund Committee met the second week of December so I made another trip to Boise for this. After two days of hearing proposals on how to spend the $7.9 million that is available from the endowed fund, I began to wonder. We can spend money to discourage smoking, why not consider increasing taxes? I bet a lot of teenagers would find another dollar or two per pack at least a mild deterrent. And keeping kids from starting smoking is a healthy investment.

As I left the capitol parking garage for my drive back up through this beautiful state, I saw a coyote trotting through a parking lot right across the street from me as I exited. People on the sidewalks did not seem to notice. I rolled down my window and called. He was a young one, not yet in full winter coat. He stopped and looked at me for just a second then trotted on across the North End of Boise.