A place for the writings and the ideas of the people in and around (and coming to the attention of) the Ridenbaugh Press.

Published November 29, 2016 by

The brokest states

rainey

“Brokest.” Interesting word. Doesn’t exist. But it should. In this age of disintegrating media accuracy, one national outlet used that word in a headline. “Brokest.”

Regardless of the linguistic ignorance, the story really was about the “brokest” states in our nation. The ten at the bottom . The ten, based on household wealth and income, that showed up in a 2014 Federal Reserve survey – a sampling conducted every three years.

Now, I don’t know how much research time was devoted to this work by our national government. Nor do I know the cost. But, in 2017, when it’s done again, I hope they call me first and give me a chance to bid. ‘Cause their conclusion was the same as mine. Yours, too, I’d guess. These were the words in the summary. “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Wow! They actually paid for that?

Now, an outfit called “WalletHub” has analyzed that pile of stats and tweeked the formula to update the rankings. It used income, gross domestic product per capita and federal taxes paid per capita. A double weighting was given to income because of its importance. Nearly the same results.

Here they are in order from 40 down to 50. The “brokest”10: Maine, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico, South Carolina, Alabama, West Virginia and, as usual in nearly any survey of just about anything, Mississippi dead last. 50th.

One interesting commonality jumps out when you look at these 10 that wound up on the economic bottom. They all have Republican governors and GOP control of the legislatures in either one house or both. In other words, Republicans call the shots in each state. Nary a single Democrat control in any.

I suspect if we had a survey of this type now there would be at least one change in the ranking. I’d guess Kansas would replace Mississippi at the very bottom. Ol’ Gov. Brownback and his mossy legislative brothers and sisters have whittled and carved on so many state budgets Kansas couldn’t get a loan from the Mafia.

Given the overwhelming GOP persuasion of those in charge, it would seem budgeting decisions in those states have been made mostly for political expediency rather than actual need.

The two can coexist, as many of the states in the middle rankings can attest. But, when ideology trumps need, there’s seldom a reasonable balance. Idaho Republicans, with continuing abject refusal to extend health insurance coverage to nearly 100,000 uninsured, is such an example. A long-lasting Idaho GOP propensity to create bad laws while rejecting competent legal advice is another. Many millions of Idaho tax dollars have been paid out because of laws based on faulty political “thought” and an absence of common sense.

Certainly not all states suffer economically because of Republican economic intransigence and decisions based on philosophy rather than need. Some are doing quite well. Ranking nicely in the Federal Reserve and WalletHub surveys.

But, what about the top states? What about the ones ranking highest when dealing with income and all that? Who are they and what’s their makeup? Glad you asked. The top five, in reverse order: Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut and a tie for first place with New Jersey and the District of Columbia. How ‘bout that?

And the political makeup? Three have Democrat governors and all are in Democrat legislative control of one or both houses. In the case of DC, the mayor and city council are all Democrats.

Now, I’m not saying Republicans are bad at economics and Democrats are better. But, the rankings by economic factors, and the politics of the governments of the top and bottom states, make for some interesting thought.

One fact does seem to float to the surface. When budgetary needs of a government are answered with true economic means rather than political expediency or other non-budgetary considerations, those states tend to rise to the top of the rankings. Reverse that formula and they drop to the bottom.

And nobody wants to be among the “brokest.” Nobody.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Published November 26, 2016 by

Now or later

stapiluslogo1

We see examples of this all over, in our personal lives as well as public. Fix a small leak in your house’s roof today, or wait and let it become a much more expensive problem in a year or two.

Or a minor pothole in the road that turns into a major repair project after several months of neglect.

There’s a common phrase for it: “Pay me now, or pay me later.” With the “later” usually being a lot more pricey.

Last week came another good example, and we’ll be interested to see how the Idaho Legislature responds.

This comes in a request by the state Department of Health and Welfare – there’s one strike, since hardly anyone in official Idaho really likes funding those guys – for new funding (how are you going to manage tax cuts if you go adding more spending?), to the tune of $11.2 million. At least the amount is modest in the context of state budgeting. What would it be going for? Drug and mental health treatment? You can almost feel the lack of legislator ardor.

You might say the proposal doesn’t enter the process on a glide path to passage.

Here’s the background.

In Idaho, about 15,000 people are “in the system” of state probation and parole. Officials have been breaking them out into categories, based on risk of having to return or send them to prison. Around 2,000 are considered low-risk, so the parole and probation people have begun to keep them on a looser leash.

The higher-risk probationers and parolees are another matter. In a great many cases, half or more, these are people who have drug abuse and mental health problems.

Those factors have a lot to do with how much time and effort our “system” spends on them. I’ve seen this personally recently, watching not far from where I live a household with people snarled in drug and mental issues turn into a problem for the area, with local law enforcement, jails, probation and parole spending endless hours over a period of years trying to deal with it. You probably can easily find similar examples in your community. (If you can’t, just ask your local police.)

So: The $11.2 million DHW is seeking would go toward providing drug rehabilitation and treatment and mental health services directed toward the significant number of parolees who would benefit from them.

Getting back to the matter of paying now or later: A study last year by the Western Intermountain Commission on Higher Education estimated the average cost for this kind of drug/mental help would amount to about $1,514 per offender.

The state now spends about $30,400 per offender to manage these people through conventional probation and parole. More than a third of felon offenders typically have returned to prison, where the cost for housing them is upwards of $20,000 a year – but that’s just the beginning, if they’re then paroled out again (or even serve their terms and then return to the streets unprepared). They will again, one way and another, eat up many our dollars, tax dollars and otherwise.

We could pay all that, or … a much smaller amount on the front end, and maybe even get a productive citizen out of the deal.

We’ll see what the Idaho Legislature does.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

Published November 25, 2016 by

Trump and tribal sovereignty

trahant

A few years ago I had a chance to ask President George Bush what he thought about tribal sovereignty in the 21st century. His answer went viral: “Tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign. You’re a … you’re a … you’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”

Think about that question today; we would be lucky to get a similar answer. Bush (except for the “given” part) was correct: tribal sovereign means that, you’re sovereign.

This idea is relevant now because during the campaign Donald Trump was dismissive of any sovereignty except his perception of what America’s sovereignty is all about.

So a treaty with Mexico and Canada? Junk it, day one. A United States pledge to reduce global warming? Out. Perhaps even historic military alliances will disappear into lost budgets.

And when it comes to the federal relationship with American Indian and Alaska Native governments as sovereigns we will likely see ideas pop up that were long ago discarded as impractical, expensive, or out-and-out wrong.

At the top of that list: Shifting power from the federal government to state capitals. That was Ronald Reagan’s plan when he came to Washington. In 1981 he proposed rolling dozens of federal programs into block grants for states. Then the budget was cut by 25 percent, the argument being states could deliver the services more efficiently. But a Republican Senate didn’t buy the whole plan. In the end most of the programs were managed by states, but under federal oversight. According to Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, then chairman of the Senate Labor Committee said at the time, it was the best deal possible. “We’ve come 70 to 80 percent of the way to block grants,” Hatch said. “The administration is committed to pure block grants, and so am I. But there was no way we could do that.”

Expect Hatch, and House Speaker Paul Ryan, to take another shot at substantial block grants to states, representing a fundamental shift for programs that serve American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Ryan’s agenda, “A Better Way,” proposes to do this with Medicaid. It says: “Instead of shackling states with more mandates, our plan empowers states to design Medicaid programs that best meet their needs, which will help reduce costs and improve care for our most vulnerable citizens.”

This is a significant issue for the Indian health system. Under current law, Medicaid is a partnership between the federal and state governments. But states get a 100 percent federal match for patients within the Indian health system. Four-in-ten Native Americans are eligible for Medicaid funding, and, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, at least 65,000 Native Americans don’t get coverage because they live in states that did not expand Medicaid.

The Affordable Care Act, which is priority one for repeal and replacement, used third-party billing as a funding source for Indian health programs because it could grow without congressional appropriations. The idea is that when a person is eligible, the money is there. The Indian Health Service budget in fy 2017 includes $1.19 billion in third-party billing, $807 million from Medicaid programs. This funding source is especially important because by law third-party billing remains at the local clinic or other unit. And, most important, when the Indian Health Service runs short of appropriated dollars it rations health care. That’s not the case with Medicaid funding.

One problem with the Affordable Care Act (after a Supreme Court decision) is that not every state participates in Medicaid expansion. So an IHS clinic in South Dakota would have less local resources than in North Dakota or Montana. This especially important for health care that is purchased outside of the Indian health system.

The most important gain from the Affordable Care Act has been insuring Native children. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation: “Medicaid plays a more expansive role for American Indian and Alaska Native children than adults, covering more than half of American Indian and Alaska Native children (51%), but their uninsured rate is still nearly twice as high as the national rate for children (11% vs. 6%).”

Ryan’s House plan would convert Medicaid spending to a per capita entitlement or a block grant depending on the state’s choice. There is no indication yet how the Indian health system would get funded through such a mechanism.

During the campaign Trump promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including Medicaid expansion, but said there would be a replacement insurance program of some kind.

Earlier this year Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, introduced legislation to “improve accountability and transparency at the IHS.”

Barrasso is a physician.“A patient-centered culture change at the Indian Health Service is long-overdue,” he said. “This bill is an important first step toward ensuring that tribal members receive proper healthcare and that there is transparency and accountability from Washington. We have heard appalling testimonies of the failures at IHS that are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. We must reform IHS to guarantee that all of Indian Country is receiving high quality medical care.”

What will reform look like after the Affordable Care Act goes away?

Last week Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, said on CSPAN that the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was one of the good features of the Affordable Care Act and ought to be kept. But nothing has been said by Republican leaders about how to replace the Indian health funding stream from Medicaid, potentially stripping $800 million from the Indian health system that is by all measures underfunded.

Perhaps the most important idea in government, one that had been expanding, is the idea of including the phrase “… and tribes” in legislation and funding. That means tribes get money directly from Washington rather than the round about from DC to state capital to tribal nations. And clearly in this era that’s a hard sell. Just last week the state of North Dakota opted to punish (or so it thinks) tribes by canceling a joint appearance before the legislature because the state is not happy with the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. At a moment where there should be more talk, not less, the state walks away.

That, of course, begs the question, is this how government will work over the next four years?

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Share on Facebook

Trahant

Published November 24, 2016 by

Happy Thanksgiving!

thanksgiving_1900

Happy T-day – and we’ll be back on Friday.

Share on Facebook

Reading

Published November 23, 2016 by

Slow learners

carlson

Once again inhabitants of the pacific northwest’s Columbia River basin are being put through an “examine your belly button” exercise regarding the future of the four Lower Snake River dams and their adverse impact upon migrating salmon and steelhead.

This is the fourth time a Federal District judge has ordered the Bonneville Power Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation; and, NOAA Fisheries to go back to the drawing board.

The flaw the court finds is the inadequacy of the agencies examination of the “remove the four dams” option. A team from those agencies spends years and millions of dollars developing a “BIOP” or the biological opinion on operation of the dams and the consequent environmental impact.

When the judge agrees with plaintiffs, again, almost always lead by a contingent of fish and wildlife adherents, such as Save Our Salmon and the National Wildlife Federation, he finds the biological opinion to be insufficient. This time, though, the judge added a twist saying the EIS also had to be redone because the previous one, started in the 90’s was clearly outdated.

Federal agencies have become “sophisticated” about public input to the process required by law. Rather than hold a formal hearing they have adopted the “information session” model. One is told that for several hours an “open house” will be held and the public is invited to see static displays. Unfortunately, these displays seldom say one word about why an EIS is underway nor is there any admission regarding their defeat in the court.

This column has two recommendations to the agencies:

(1) Expand the BIOP and EIS task force by providing a seat at the table to Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and to the EPA. It is a no brainer that adding the agencies which have expertise in environmental law will ensure a better more complete analysis. To date they have been excluded.

(2) Have a section that examines options for paying for dam removal if ordered by the court. An often heard refrain is even if a court orders the four dams breached Congress will never appropriate the funds. That’s probably correct. Are there other ways to obtain the funding? Yes.

Congress passes legislation that mandates the BPA to accelerate the pay-off of the Federal debt it owes to the Treasury for the construction costs of the Federal Base System (the dams). The legislation mandates the FBS be sold to the four northwest states for a reasonable price. The four states reincorporate BPA with the Northwest Power Planning Council becoming the board of directors. The new entity is to work out a lease agreement with the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation to continue operating the dams with the excess revenue from power sales beyond standard costs of operation and maintenance for the dams and upgrades on transmission lines being distributed to the four states on the basis of population.

This could bring new revenue to these states in the billions of dollars. It would facilitate investing in new infrastructure and help cover the costs of the states’expanding needs without any new tax increases. A small portion of the excess revenue would be diverted to a fund that would be drawn upon to pay for breaching the dams.

Far-fetched? Not really. BPA’s outstanding debt right now is $15.2 billion. Last year, BPA made a higher than average payment to the Treasury of $1.9 billion. In earlier years payment on principal and interest had been approximately $1 billion, but over the last three years BPA has made higher than average payments.

The average interest BPA calculates and includes is 5.11%. The $15.2 billion includes both non-federal debt (which has a priority) and the federal debt. On the surface then, accelerating the debt repayment and then selling the system back to the region looks doable. BPA could help the proposed process by renegotiating the interest rate given that home loan mortgage rates are currently hovering around 3%.

BPA could also drop out of its “o and m” costs the massive subsidies that undergird supposed efforts to restore salmon and steelhead fisheries. To some, items like “the Columbia Basin Accords” look like nothing less than legal bribery – payments to fish and wildlife agencies and tribes not to talk about breaching the four lower Snake dams through 2018.

BPA officials will argue that for years they have been operating on a plan which would never have them paying off the debt completely primarily because they do crank so many other costs into the budget and are constantly reinvesting in system upgrades.

More than anything agency chiefs and the region’s political leadership have to recognize where there’s a will there’s a way. For too long too many have just paid lip service to the law’s requirement that the fish runs be restored. Creative thinking has to be undertaken, collective will has to be established and the dams breached. This proposal could be a win/win for all and achieve removal of the four lower Snake dams without using taxpayer money.

Does anyone have a better idea?

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published November 22, 2016 by

De-rigging the system

harris

This year’s election has convinced voters that we can’t trust our electoral system.

The Sanders campaign was undermined by insiders of the DNC. Trump and his fake news reporters from Russian territory made up conspiracy theories and the Trump camp treated the truth as optional.

The candidate who got the most votes for President didn’t win – again. And money money money money, at both the State and federal levels, played kingmaker in most races in those few districts where there was competition. In most legislative districts the results was a foregone conclusion due to gerrymandering.

De-Rigging the system is crucial

The Independent Party will be working on a Anti Rigging platform. A handful of proposals that to empower voters by changing some processes and rules. The goal is to give voters more options and reduce ability of special interests to rig the system using big money and insider status.

While the Democratic and Republican insiders will hate this everyone else, from American constitutionalists to progressives, should band together and demand changes.

If we allow those in power to put party success – even your own party – above a healthy functioning Democracy, we’ve failed our ancestors and our children.

Will Democratic and Republican legislators support an Anti Rigging Platform in the 2017 session? Will you?

Stay tuned. We’re about to find out.

Share on Facebook

Harris

Published November 21, 2016 by

I’ve got this friend

rainey

The little towns on the Oregon coast are quite unique – one from the other. But one trait they share: a lot of people from many interesting places with amazing and interesting backgrounds live here.

Here are some examples. Last week I went to a local senior educational seminar. The speaker – who lives about 10 miles up the highway – was one of the surgeons who performed the autopsy on the body of John Kennedy at Bethesda in November, 1963. Another fella who lives South of us has been a Middle Eastern expert for NBC News for several years and you’ve often seen him on your TV. Near him, a former Hollywood producer with a few Oscars for “High Noon,” “Longest Day” and some others. As I said, amazing and interesting backgrounds.

I’ve made a friend in these parts I’d like to tell you about. An influential fellow? Yes. Maybe not as famous as some of the others, but, in my long life, he’s one of the finest men I’ve ever known.

Let me tell you a little about him.

He’s four months older so I call him “Pops.” He lives in a house three times larger than my own. He travels a lot! I don’t. He’s dedicated to kids. Any kids. Me, not so much. He’s a “man of means” with a comfortable retirement. I’ve got Social Security. He’s on this-that-and-the-other Boards of Directors. I’m not.

He and his wife entertain a lot. We don’t. He has friends on several continents. We don’t. Politically, he’s very conservative. Me, not so much. He has a strong dislike for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I don’t. He ocean fishes and kayaks alone at the age of 80. I don’t. He spent all of his life in Iowa until moving to the coast several years ago. I’m a native Northwesterner. He has a law degree and has taught law in Europe and the Middle East. I don’t and haven’t. He was a US Navy officer. I was a USAF NCO. He drives a new Audi 8 Quattro. I’ve got my four-year-old pickup.

Just two peas in a pod, right?

By now, you’re probably wondering (1) how two such disparate individuals got together (2) what’s my point and (3) what in the world we talk about when we have long breakfasts or lunches every couple of weeks.

We first got together because our wives belong to PEO and we met at a social function for husbands, then renewed our acquaintanceship at a local church. As we talked, I said I’d like to get together for lunch of a breakfast. He was similarly inclined. So we did.

As we spent more time together, it was increasingly obvious we had little in common. We agreed on nearly no subject and our views on just about everything were not only different but almost in direct conflict. Socially, educationally, economically and politically we were a couple of opposites.

So what do we talk about? In all our time together, he and I have discussed those “social, educational, economic and political differences” head-on. And you know what? We’ve never had an argument. Not one. The reason is, we deeply respect each other. We accept the differences – and there are many – but never challenge them in a personal way. We acknowledge the strength of character of each person and work from a basis of mutual respect.

What we’ve found in getting to know each other better is we accept each for the distinct individuals we are. We’ve realized the importance of what ties us together is greater than what could separate us. We’ve recognized the differences – and many there are – have offered us an opportunity to learn and grow. The relationship has been mutually beneficial. And educational.

And my point? Just this. Our badly divided nation is made up of people just like my friend and me. Very different backgrounds. Very different viewpoints. Almost nothing in common. Strangers to each other and to millions of others. But we also share many, many things. Just like my friend and me.

Suppose we stop talking “AT” each other, began to listen “TO” each other; cast aside those voices working daily to divide us (hate radio, phony religious hacks, the know-nothing rhetoric of ignorant political nutcases, etc.) and struck up some personal conversations with people outside our own comfort zones. Suppose, in doing so, we discovered and dwelt on those areas of commonality like patriotism, raising the kids, paying the bills, pride in our communities and all our hopes for a better future.

I’d like to think the experience of my disparate friend and me could be extrapolated to a nation in political and social trouble. That acknowledging and accepting national differences could take a backseat to personally honoring those things that bind us together. Things too often forgotten when hate takes over the conversation.

I really believe it can. If we’ll stop talking AT and start listening TO. Like my friend and me.

I really think you’d like him, too.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Published November 19, 2016 by

Pot osmosis

stapiluslogo1

One of the less-heralded effects of this month’s election was to nearly surround Idaho with states different from it in a significant policy decision:

Almost all of Idaho’s border states now have legalized marijuana, in one way or another. And that’s going to put more pressure on Idaho on the subject.

Washington and one-state-over Colorado legalized in 2012. Oregon and one-state-over Alaska followed in 2014. This year, you can add California and Nevada to the list. (Arizona came close.) All of those allow “recreational” marijuana sales; Montana allows medicinal sales. Don’t be surprised if New Mexico follows suit in 2018.

In Wyoming, an initiative proposal this year didn’t make the ballot. But polling (from the University of Wyoming’s Survey and Analysis Center) has shown growing support there toward legalization, for medicinal pot at least. (It showed support for medicinal legalization at 81% and rising, and recreational at 41% and rising.) Ballot efforts are likely to continue there, and as California and Oregon showed, past failures don’t preclude eventual success.

So how will Idaho, whose officials at least, have been rigorously opposed to anything resembling legalization, respond to all this?

On the near-term level, and at least officially, there’s no reason to think there’ll be any change soon.

Police probably will be keeping a closer watch on vehicles from out of state. The Twin Falls Times News reported that police tracking the Highway 93 stretch from Twin Falls to Jackpot, Nevada, will not be deploying any new specific monitoring force at the border, but they will be watchful for any erratic driving they see in the area. That may be the general approach in Idaho’s border areas.

But what about the effects of a outright ban in one state of what is legal in another?

Might there be some tendency on the part of out of staters to avoid Idaho – even those not carrying marijuana, but simply concerned about the potential hassle factor? (Even if the risk of that actually isn’t very high, a reputation for it could have a big effect.) Might it be a negative in case of people considering moving? Might it, over time, start to have an economic impact? A whole lot of travel around Idaho, after all, is generated from states which have now, in whole or part, legalized.

What subtle effects might there be about the idea of a resident of those states crossing the line into Idaho?

There may also be an osmosis effect as Idahoans see their next-door neighbors sprouting new businesses and tax revenue, and without serious negative effects. This hasn’t been the subject of a lot of news stories, since we’re talking here about the absence of something, but it has been informally noted among the residents. And there have been some reports from the front. A Forbes article in August, for example, said “Two consequences that pot prohibitionists attribute to marijuana legalization – more underage consumption and more traffic fatalities – so far do not seem to be materializing in Colorado, which has allowed medical use since 2001 and recreational use since the end of 2012.”

Official Idaho isn’t likely to take much cognizance of any of that any time soon. But Idahoans around the state likely will, and that will have an effect over time.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

Published November 18, 2016 by

Angry at the jets

frazier

High performance fighter jets may sound like a whisper compared to the roar of angry citizens on the Boise Bench. Boise Airport manager Rebecca Hupp faced an angry crowd Wednesday evening as she attempted to present the latest “master plan” for the airport.

About 150 citizens packed the meeting room, expecting to have a talk about noisy fighter jets. Instead, they were shown Power Point slides more effective than Ambien sleep aid. She discussed planned meetings, outreach, studies, neighborhood meetings, and committees full of “users,” but no common homeowner-types like the entire audience.

The vast majority of the audience came to the meeting to protest any plans to base F-35, F-15 or other excessively noisy fighter jets at Gowen Field. A spokesman had told one citizen that airport officials had “no control” over the Air Force. Hupp herself avoided comment when it was noted the mayor and council have gone on record supporting the F-35.

huppManager Hupp clearly lost control of the meeting after telling the audience there was a lot of “disinformation out there” regarding condemnation of residential property. Their issue was only the basing of fighter jets, not the number of passengers carried or claimed figures about economic impact.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all people want is a commitment from the politicos to join forces to prevent noisy fighter jets. Folks we talked to love the Air Guard, they want freedom, peace, motherhood, apple pie, and a flying mission. They DON’T want the noisy fighter planes racing around above the most densely populated area between Salt Lake and Seattle. These aircraft belong at Mountain Home.

When people complained about recent noisy F-18 fighters, Hupp said they had no control over transient military aircraft. She could easily have defused the situation by offering to speak with the military about noise abatement protocol. The Air Guard had already promised to alert visiting pilots about being quieter when flying into Boise.

Creating a master plan, noise study, and all the rest aimed at expansion and accommodation of fighter jets is diametrically opposite the mood of the people. That type of arrogance allowed Donald Trump to became president-elect…the entrenched elite failed to listen!

Share on Facebook

Frazier

Published November 17, 2016 by

Idaho gov 2018 is underway

carlsonlogo1

By all the traditional political metrics Lt. Governor Brad Little should be the prohibitive favorite to be Idaho’s next governor. For years he has traveled Idaho showing up at county fairs, board of education meetings, and always at Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter’s side during the governor’s numerous “Capitol for a Day” sessions.

As governor when Otter is out of state he has been the “real” governor well over a year. Reportedly, he has already accumulated $250,000 for what could be a $4 million dollar campaign just to obtain the Republican nomination.

He meets people well, is thoughtful, intelligent, personable and a solid conservative befitting the successful rancher he is. He is not an ideologue and therein may be his challenge.

Idaho’s Republican Party is veering to the “Tea Party” extreme right which expects rigid adherence to a party platform that contains items such as repeal of the 17thamendment which created the popular vote for U.S. senators, who originally were elected by state legislatures. To Little’s credit he does not agree with every item in that agenda.

In the mind of others that has created an opening to challenge him and some dare to accuse him of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only).

Former Meridian State Senator Russ Fulcher, who came close to upsetting Governor Otter in the 2014 GOP primary, quickly stepped into the breach, wasting no time in announcing his candidacy shortly after Little made his declaration.

If Fulcher hoped to pre-empt the Tea Party support and keep First District Congressman Raul Labrador in the nation’s capital, he failed. Numerous reports are circulating through Republican circles with some prominent behind-the-scenes players flat stating Labrador will declare for governor one day after he takes the oath of office sometime in the first week of January, 2017, as a member of the new Congress.

Further confirmation of the congressman’s intentions come from reports that former Idaho Lt. Governor and Attorney General David Leroy is forming an exploratory committee to gauge support for a bid to replace Labrador in Congress in 2018. The Lewiston native is one of the most astute political animals around. It is unfathomable to think he would let word start to spread unless he was sure the seat will be open.

Other possible aspirants to succeed Labrador include Third District State Senator Bob Nonini from Coeur d’Alene; Fourth District State Representative Luke Malek, from Coeur d’Alene; and, Coeur d’Alene Mayor Steve Widmeyer. A dark horse possibility would be Sandy Patano, the former State chief of staff for Senator Larry Craig.

Little recognizes that Labrador could be a serious roadblock to his gubernatorial ambitions. That alone may be the answer to why Little chose to split with Governor Otter on passage of HJR 5, which some major members of Idaho business wanted badly. It should have been entitled the “Expand the influence of Lobbyists Act.” Little kow-towed to the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI) in part because he did not want to create an opening for Labrador.

While there are mixed views about Labrador there is no one in Idaho’s political cognoscenti who does not recognize his considerable skills. He has demonstrated both when in the Idaho Legislature and the Congress that he is not afraid to take on his party’s leadership. And like legislative leadership, during the last election cycle Labrador reportedly donated almost $20,000 from his own campaign PAC to Republican state legislators in contested races.

In doing so he may have hurt himself with some of his Tea Party base. For example, his PAC contributed $500 to Rep. Caroline Nilsson-Troy’s re-election even though Tea Party favorite Ken DeVries, from St. Maries, was running as an independent in the 5th district house seat.

Nothing prevents him, either, from converting his congressional PAC to his campaign for governor.

Labrador is on record saying his decision to leave D.C. will be based in part on whether he feels he has accomplished or put in motion to accomplish immigration reform and criminal justice reform. Beauty though is in the eye of the beholder and he can define progress and success.

On criminal justice reform Labrador deserves credit for his ability to work constructively with Democrats, such as the recently retired Virginia Senator James Webb.

There is a fourth possible gubernatorial aspirant that neither Little nor Fulcher nor Labrador can ignore—-Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden. Now in his fourth term, he is a proven vote-getter and has a reputation for thoughtful, solid work. Given his canny handli

ng of the Department of Energy’s inept handling of the Batt Nuclear Waste Clean Up agreement, Wasden owns that issue.

Most political observers know that any primary with more than three contenders gets hard to predict. From Little’s standpoint it should be the more the merrier.

The fun is just starting.

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published November 16, 2016 by

To be or …

mckee

And you thought once the race was over, things would return to normal? Hah!

Now we have to worry about which Trump are we going to get – the reasonable fellow who met with the President and gave the gracious acceptance speech after taking Secretary Clinton’s concession? Or the T.V. mogul leering at his women, polishing his brand and promising a Christmas list of changes to everything? Or the misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist ranting about Muslim terrorists and Mexican rapists?

The next few weeks will produce some huge signals on what we can expect from a Trump administration – being the individuals that Trump announces for his key cabinet and staff positions. Not the names of the wannabees that keep spewing forth from the hangers-on in the bleachers, but the real list of real McCoys from the Horse’s Mouth himself.

Who he selects and who he leaves out in these appointments will tell mountains about how Trump’s administration will perform substantively. Will he go for ability and skill – as he promised – or merely loyalty? What will be the mix between Washington insiders and those from outside the beltway? Will everyone be a hard right conservatives, or will there be room here for a moderate voice? Will the opposition be acknowledged at all, or totally left out? Where, if at all, will women fit in, and who will they be? Consider, for example, one key appointment: Secretary of State.

Heading up Department of State is a huge job. Foreign policy is not a strong suit with Trump. He has no experience in this area, and his policy declarations to date have been bumper-sticker slogans with no substance. He has wandered all over the place in trying to come up with a consistent set of goals for the Middle East. He has managed to bring into question our commitment to NATO, our role in the defense of the Pacific Rim, the future of the Balkan states, and nuclear proliferation. The rest of the world is up in arms over Trump’s election in light these pronouncements along the way.

One thing Trump needs to do immediately is send a strong message to the rest of the world to calm the fears of foreign leaders that while some changes may be in the offing, drastic change in the relationship with our allies is not contemplated. One way to do that is to name a Secretary of State of international prominence; one that would send a calming message to all.

A truly bold move on Trump’s part to send such a message to the world and also to declare his intention to reunite the country and attempt to bring an end to the crippling divisiveness that has developed, would be to reach across the aisle and appoint a Democrat to this key cabinet post – asking Secretary Kerry to stay on, for example, or drafting Joe Biden for the job. If asked, and if either would accept, this would be a monumental step in demonstrating Trump’s true intent at being a President for everyone and to reconcile and reunite the country.

There is a strong tradition for the appointment of at least one key cabinet post from the opposition party. Every president back through FDR has selected at least one cabinet secretary or other high appointed official from the opposite party. Appointing a moderate Democrat to head State and help guide foreign policy does not denigrate the right wing’s true interest in domestic policy, commerce and taxation, and would be a huge relief to the rest of the world.

If Trump is not persuaded to go that far with this position, the Republican candidates most often mentioned for the job of Secretary of State are John Bolton, Newt Gingrich and Senator Robert Corker. Bolton is a hard right, hawkish ideologue. He could not garner the votes to get confirmed as Bush’s ambassador to the U.N., and has been on the sidelines ever since. Newt Gingrich is an enigma. More to the center than Bolton, Gingrich has been said to be of the “Reagan-John Paul II-Thatcher” strain of aggressive diplomacy developed during the 1980’s. He has been out of anything connected with foreign policy for 30 years. Senator Bob Corker is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is clearly the most current of the three on worldwide problems. Although a conservative Republican, he is the most moderate of the three in his foreign policy, often voicing a more cautious and non-interventionist note than his more hawkish colleagues.

Barring the dramatic step of selecting a Democrat, the selection of Senator Corker would signal an intent to aim at moderation in foreign affairs. It would assuage most of the country and most foreign leaders that reason and common sense will continue to guide U.S. policy.

Selection of John Bolton would signal a toleration for brinksmanship and military intervention everywhere. It would mean a resurrection of American Exceptionalism, a tolerance for nuclear proliferation, and the return of the Ugly American. It would scare the bejesus out of half the country, the rest of the world, and me.

Picking Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State would leave it a mystery for now, until Gingrich’s policies firm up more, and it is clarified whether, on foreign policy, he tends towards the hard right or would tolerate the more moderate center. The delay would not serve to calm the fears of the foreign leaders. Also of Newt is the fact that since he has lived off the dregs of politics for more than 30 years, his appointment would not be viewed as consistent with Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp.”

Most of the picks will be conservative Republicans; that is to be expected. There will be some token exceptions, but these will be flagged and well labeled. All of Trump’s appointments should be examined for answers beyond the mere name of the individual involved. It will all come down to one question: does the individual possesses the flexibility to adjust to meet the needs of the entire country, or will all answers only address the demands of the far right?

The answer will be revealing

Share on Facebook

McKee

Published November 15, 2016 by

Defending law and order

jorgensen

Working at the Oregon State Capitol, protests become a regular part of life. This is especially true during legislative sessions. Every group you could imagine has its own lobby day and busses people from all over the state for some sort of rally or protest.

I always try to make it a point to go check them out, if I can. If people care enough about something to take time out of their day to come to the capitol to be heard, I figure the least I can do is try to listen.

That’s just how it is when you work at the most public building in the state. But such a high level of accessibility has its upsides and downsides.

Sometimes it can be amusing.

The first legislative session I worked was in 2005. An Alaska resident went and bought a bunch of cheap beer to advocate for a higher beer tax in Oregon. His entire argument was that our tax is so low that it encourages underage drinking.

This man was kicked out of the capitol by the Oregon State Police after it was discovered that he was handing that beer out at legislative offices—some of which were staffed by underage interns. I was among those that he handed half-racks of beer to as a TV news crew followed, but was 24 and over the legal drinking age. Of course, there’s no small degree of irony in a guy saying that beer is too easy for minors to obtain getting in trouble for handing it directly to them.
Sometimes it can be scary.

During the February 2016 session, a bill was being passed to honor former Senate President Brady Adams (R-Grants Pass). I had gotten to know him during my days as news director of the Grants Pass Broadcasting Corporation and thought the world of him. He was a pillar of that community until his passing last year.

Because I had such respect and admiration for him, I wanted to be on the Senate floor when he was honored. Adams was praised for his character and good deeds by Senators from both parties.
All of this was rudely and inappropriately interrupted by a group of protesters who stood in the gallery unfurling banners and shouting slogans. Another group did the same in the House while a third was causing a similar disruption outside of the governor’s office.

It didn’t take long to realize that we were sitting ducks down there in the Senate floor. They could have easily hurled projectiles at us, or much, much worse. And this went on for what seemed like an eternity. Going back and reviewing the video footage, I could see myself in the bottom of the screen, visibly agitated and wondering why this was being allowed to continue.

No arrests ever resulted from that disrespectful disturbance.
Maybe that’s why an anonymous e-mailer felt empowered enough to send a message to Senate Republicans weeks later threatening mob action at their homes. It appears to be the same kind of mob action being done in Portland in the aftermath of the 2016 election.

More recently, Second Amendment activists staged an open carry protest on the capitol’s front steps. The sight of men armed with guns scares some people who work there or know people that do and makes them feel nervous and unsafe. Many people who support the ability to protect your family in your own home draw the line somewhere between there and having guys display their firearms at the state capitol building.

The OSP were there, as always, and thank God for that. Their large presence that day may have seemed a little excessive. At one point, it almost looked like there were as many police officers as protesters. There was a whole line of them beyond the revolving front doors, and another cluster visible from there, up above and in front of the governor’s office.
I went outside to see what the fuss was about, and there was an effigy of Governor Kate Brown. It was obvious what was going to happen next so I went back to my office. The overwhelming OSP presence made much more sense.

That particular act, which is an implied threat of violence, seemed to accomplish little but make Brown more of a hero and martyr to her supporters. Anyone would be hard-pressed to say that it drew more people to the cause.

It reminds me of a book that everyone in politics should read, Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. This would be the polar opposite, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People. If nothing else, it’s a great example of what not to do.

My thirties have taught me virtues that I lacked in my twenties. Among them are humility, temperance and tact. The key to tact is simple—Don’t be a jerk. There’s not much else to it.

Sometimes the protests happen elsewhere.

A protest in rural Burns over the imprisonment of some ranchers turned into a prolonged siege at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That all ended over a month later with many arrests and one occupant shot by police.

After spending most of the year in jail, the occupiers, who started as protesters, were found not guilty on all charges.

And just to think—many people commented on online news stories about the standoff that the government should just use predator drones to kill them all on site without due process.
I was at a dinner event the night the verdict was read. The keynote speaker was the U.S. Attorney, whose office had handled the case. Both his work and private cell phones rang off the hook as he spoke, interfering with the PA system. It’s easy to imagine that some of those calls may have been from people wondering what had happened on what could have been one of the worst days of his life.

The people in Portland protesting the election of Republican Donald Trump by damaging other peoples’ property need to remember the Golden Rules of Tact:

Don’t be a jerk.

Don’t jam up roads and public transit so people can’t get home or to work.

Don’t destroy things that aren’t yours.

What makes it worse is that this is happening on a holiday to honor those who fought for Americans’ rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. Once again, tact is important.
History shows that there can be consequences for these kinds of things. I wasn’t around for the 1960s, but I could just imagine all those anti-war protesters being aghast when Richard Nixon was re-elected in a landslide in 1972.

Nixon did it by being the Law and Order candidate. As protests went from peaceful to violent, Middle America did not like what it saw and demanded a return to Law and Order.

These kinds of protests are probably not the kind of thing Barack Obama wanted as part of his administration’s legacy. But if the public wants more Law and Order and a Trump administration can deliver it, these protesters may end up with eight years of their worst nightmare. And no amount of protesting will be able to stop it from happening and may very well guarantee it.

Share on Facebook

Jorgensen