Press "Enter" to skip to content
Jim Weatherby

Jim Weatherby

March 1, 2024

Jim Weatherby, who died on February 20, was visible for decades to many people in Idaho as the go-to “observer” or “analyst” of Idaho government and politics - probably most often on public television but elsewhere too, electronic and print, not to mention lots of panels, association events and much more.

Probably at least some of the people who watched and listened wondered: Why him? What makes his pontifications so worth our attention?

Several things did, and I can testify to them.

Jim was a friend of long standing, and I worked with him on a number of projects, including a book we wrote called Governing Idaho (published by Caxton Press). Among Jim’s other fine qualities I can list patience, because the process from outline to actual printing of that book took more than a decade. But we spent many of those hours - and before and since our work on that book - consuming lots of coffee and lunches while hashing over Idaho’s political and government activities.

His viewpoint was valuable to me as it was to other people, not least in the days when I was intensively reporting on Idaho politics. Those insights tended to be so useful partly because he came at the subject from more directions than I did.

First, the academic. He had a doctorate in political science (from the University of Idaho, and hence the frequent reference as Dr. Weatherby), and for years was on the faculty at Boise State University, but his approach was that of a methodical researcher: Understanding how things are supposed to work, whether they actually do and why they often don’t, observing and learning how people actually use this system of government. If Jim’s mindset was academic– and his thinking was appropriately rigorous –  it was not especially theoretical: It was highly practical.

That happened partly because, second, he also was a practitioner in government and politics. That tended to be glossed over in recent decades, but he lobbied for the state’s cities association and helped other groups, and was highly effective at the legislature because he understood the practice of politics.

A few years ago, after receiving a civic award, he remarked to one group, "I was a lobbyist for 15 years, and to be praised for being so kind - I was told on more than one occasion that I was too nice a guy to be a lobbyist - I took great offense at that.” His manner was so friendly, almost diffident, that you wouldn’t expect hardball from him. But he was capable of it when occasion arose.

He learned from experience, and from absorbing hardball too. On another occasion (in another book on politics he co-wrote with former legislator Mark Stubbs and myself) he talked about a bill he'd worked on as executive director of the Association of Idaho Cities relating to property tax exemptions. The bill seemed poised for passage on a Friday, but died the following Monday. Why? “Apparently there were a lot of sermons preached,” he said. “Everyone is a potential lobbyist, whether a preacher or a parishioner. It just depends on the issue.”

So he understood how the machinery is intended to work, and how it does work in practice.

And then he understood the people. He worked with an endless number of people and groups covering the spectrum of publicly-involved people around Idaho. When I wanted a sense of individual people involved in Idaho government and what they were up to and why, Jim would know.

And then, for decades, he kept refining all that, by talking with people and thinking through and delivering his well-considered takes on what was happening. Writing and presenting about a topic usually hones (not always, but it did in Jim’s case) your thinking and understanding of it. What might have sounded off-the-cuff usually had been extensively polished over time.

Like a lot of people, I always found Jim Weatherby’s observations well worth the attention paid. Kudos to him for the illumination he brought the state over so many years.

 

Immigrants

Immigrants

February 29, 2024

The Idaho Republican Party is doing its best to keep all immigrants out. And I don’t mean the Border Wall, Shelby Park border fight. I mean you and me.

Well, maybe not me.

You see, I am a registered Idaho Democrat. And I can’t defect. Well, I could, but it would have consequences.

Let me explain.

I have been appointed to serve on a Board that requires partisan balance. The Redistricting Commission I served on back in 2021 required I be a Democrat. We had equal, bipartisan representation. Bring your gerrymandering gripes to me.

And the Health and Welfare Board where I currently serve, requires that there be three members from the minority party, four from the majority. I’m in the minority.

So, you see, I can’t just switch party affiliation, willy nilly. I can’t try to immigrate to the party where my next idiotic legislative representatives will be chosen. No, I have to stay in this measly mess of insignificance. As an Idaho Democrat, I know my place.

But most Idaho Democrats can. And most Idaho Democrats in districts where it might make a difference just got the mailing I did.

The nondescript mass mailing came to my wife and me, both of us registered Idaho Democrats. My daughter got one too. The mailing told us how to register in the Republican Party so we might have some say in the upcoming primary election. They didn’t want to spell it out, but I will for you.

Do you insignificant Idaho Democrats want any say in who represents you in the Idaho legislature? Because, if you do, the Republican primary this May is where you will have a choice. You can support a moderate Republican, or a crazy Republican. Because your Democratic candidate ain’t got a chance come November.

That was how this county was represented for many years. I got my introduction to Idaho politics in the 1980’s and 90’s. Back then, before the Treasure Valley boomed, my county was a legislative district. When I first got elected to the legislature in 2010, I represented Latah County. But Boise boomed and we needed to combine with Benewah in 2012. Redistricting.

But Latah County had mostly Republican legislators back in the 80’s and 90’s. It was wise to vote for Republicans because they could get seniority, maybe become a committee chair, maybe get into majority leadership. You need to know that Latah County voters have been playing this partisan game for years.

Back then, voters could go to the primary election and choose a Republican ballot. Heck, I really liked some of those Republicans. And I’d vote for them. In the general. I didn’t do the primary switch.

But now that option isn’t informal. Now, if you want to vote in the Republican primary you will need to be a registered Republican. Some idiot Federal Judge decided the Idaho Republican Party’s right of free association trumped the Idaho Constitution.

Yeah. If you want to vote in the Republican primary, you have to register. That’s a public record.

Wait a minute.

The Idaho Constitution says, Article 6, Section 1:

SECRET BALLOT GUARANTEED. 

All elections by the people must be by ballot. An absolutely secret ballot is hereby guaranteed, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to enact such laws as shall carry this section into effect.

How is it an absolutely secret ballot when my registering as a Republican is public record?

Oh, well. I won’t be registering Republican for this May’s primary.

Maybe I should. Then I would get kicked off the H&W Board and I’d have standing to sue the state for not following their own constitution.

Aw heck, I like where I am. I don’t want to be no immigrant.

 

Leroy and Haley

Leroy and Haley

February 28, 2024

Dave Leroy, a former Idaho lieutenant governor and attorney general, is a co-chair of Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign in Idaho. He says the former U.N. ambassador and former South Carolina governor has the credentials and “prescription” for a successful presidency.

But as Leroy sees it, Haley’s value to the Republican Party goes beyond racking up primary victories (she just lost in her home state of South Carolina), or even securing the party’s nomination.

“And you don’t have to attack Donald Trump to support her,” Leroy says. “Success for Nikki Haley is contained within three goals. She’s the nominee in waiting if Trump, for whatever reason, is unable to be on the ballot in November and she is the leading candidate for president in 2028, with a strong vision for both the nation and the party.”

A third, and the one that probably would cause the candidate to cringe, is that she would be a heck of a candidate for vice president – with Trump heading the ticket.

A vice presidential bid could be a tough one. She has described the former president as too old, “unhinged” and a certain election loser in November. It would be difficult for Haley to walk back on those comments. But in the last Democratic primary campaign, Kamala Harris talked about Joe Biden’s ties to segregationists … and look where they are. A Trump-Haley ticket wouldn’t be the first time that the seemingly improbable became possible.

“Politics make strange bedfellows,” Leroy said, chuckling. “There are two things that are almost never true in politics. One is when somebody says, ‘I’m in it to win it.’ Well, nine Republican candidates have dropped out, so that’s not true. Another is, ‘I will never pick (fill in the blank) as my running mate.’”

Leroy well remembers Ronald Reagan picking George Bush as his vice president, after Bush dismissed Reagan’s fiscal plan as “voodoo economics.” Reagan was not chummy with Bush at the time, but correctly figured that Bush gave the Republican ticket the strongest chance of winning.

According to Leroy, Haley adds strength to the party – and he hopes she stays in regardless of what happens in the Idaho Republican caucus, or Super Tuesday states.

“Nikki Haley outlasted nine competitors to be the next to last ‘man’ standing in this race, so there’s nothing wrong with continuing to the convention,” Leroy said. “If she can accumulate a sufficient number of delegates, even if it’s a minority, she can have a voice at the convention. She can have a platform and make the case for a broad-based, viable and inclusive GOP that will have a bright future. And I think she can bring the party and the country with her.”

Leroy – as a former attorney general and prosecutor -- has mixed feelings about Trump’s legal woes. “Many of these lawsuits are political prosecutions, but unfortunately, many of them also have some basis with his actions or inactions. I’m not going to predict the outcome of any of these cases, but none of these cases will be finally decided prior to the time that the votes are cast (in November).”

So far, the legal proceedings have worked in Trump’s favor. But momentum in politics can change rapidly and Republicans could look at poll numbers that show Haley beating Biden convincingly.

“Polls have consistently shown her beating Biden by 15-17 percentage points. It seems like a good bet would be on the fastest horse in the race,” he says. Polls also show that roughly 70 percent of voters do not want to see a Biden-Trump rematch. Haley, at the moment, is the only one standing in the way of that dreadful sequel.

Leroy is hoping for party unity, if that is at all possible in this political climate.

“If it’s Trump’s victory, then hooray for us. If it’s Haley’s victory, then hooray for us,” Leroy said. “We need a broad-based, viable and inclusive GOP, and she represents that, and her continued campaign gives her a role in achieving that.”

Obviously, Leroy comes from the old school of politics – where concepts such as “winning” or “unity” came into play. But for Republicans, there’s wisdom to much of what he says.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Un-representative

Un-representative

February 27, 2024

REPRESENTATIVE:  "a: Standing or acting for another through delegated authority;" "b: ...(c)onstituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen...by election"

It's no secret some members of the U.S. Congress are "un-representative;" they don't give two hoots in Hell about what the constituency thinks or expects from their Potomac residency.  Despite what the good folks at Merriam-Webster have to say.

That comes as no surprise.  But, never has it been so brazenly and gutlessly demonstrated as it has in the last few years.

Even the most unbiased observer would have to admit the more egregious examples of un-representative votes come from Republicans far more than Democrats.  In overwhelming numbers, folks at home - voters who elected those "un-representatives" - told them how they felt on one issue after another.  But, with a consistency rarely found in politics, the "un-representatives" - Republicans mostly - ignored them.

It's widely accepted, when considering a new President's appointees, a lot of latitude is given to the Chief Executive to have the crew he wants.  Often, this means swallowing hard because of a nominee's tenuous talents to serve in a particular post.   But this batch!  Front to back - top to bottom - monied fools whose "leadership" abilities stopped far short of the vaguest qualifications.  One, in fact, didn't know for two days after confirmation what his new job would be - believing it was to travel the world to promoting this country's oil and gas industries.  A reporter had to "'splain it" to the energy secretary.

"Un-representative" members of the Senate bellied up to the bar to approve nearly everyone that reached the Senate floor.

Idaho had to look no further than Sens. Risch and Crapo to find what voters wanted them to do didn't matter.  Neither would meet with constituents - wouldn't talk to them at district offices - wouldn't come to the phone or return emails.  In fact, neither would even make public what the public said about the list of unqualified nominees.  Finally, one clerk in Crapo's employ let slip that opposition to the Dept. Of Education chief was over 95%!  Still, you know who ol' Mike confirmed.  Yep, he went with the 5%.

In state after state - district after district - across the nation, members of Congress "holed up."  Wouldn't meet - wouldn't talk - wouldn't be interviewed - wouldn't answer mail or phones.  Some locked office doors - doors voters paid for in federal buildings we own.  It was in your face.  Our face.  Locked doors and unanswered phones.

One flat out lie came from un-Rep. Cathy McMorriss Rogers, the highest ranking woman in the GOP in the House, whose home office is in Spokane.  She told voters she'd meet but only two at a time since "the fire marshal had written her that was the most people that could be in her office at once." "Safety," you know.  Except he didn't write.  In fact, he said her office could "safely" handle 30 people.

Two reasons for this chicken-heartedness, I think.  First, lobbyists with pockets full of money.  Oil and gas people turned on all the money spigots for the EPA chief, for example.  Big bucks flooded in to D.C..  Textbook publishers and private charter school companies trucked in loads of greenbacks for the most unqualified billionaire ever to buy the Secretary of Education's job.  And so it went.  Voices of greed outweighed voices of voters and filthy lucre supplanted "the right thing to do."

Second, our un-representatives - mostly Republican - are scared to death of Trump.  Terrified of retribution - of having a primary opponent at home - of having continued employment ended.  They lack guts to do their jobs for fear they'll be violently ripped from the public trough in an act of Trump pique.

It's doubtful the dollars will stop rolling in.  So, there'll likely be that obstacle between voters and members of Congress until that Citizens United decision is eventually overturned.  But, the fear factor may soon strike the Senate.  If six or eight Republican members - enough to sway the balance of voting - decide to do what's right, Trump will cease to be an employment or career threat.  Then we may begin to see some semblance of independence.

However all that may turn out, there's a lesson here we voters must not forget.  While November is a ways off - and some members won't be up for re-election even then - we must remember who the "un-representatives" are.  We need to clearly recall, when we needed them to do the job we gave them, they didn't show up.  When we, in large numbers, needed to talk to them about what we wanted, they locked their doors and took their phones off the hook.

When we were paying them to do their jobs, others were paying them not to.

 

Tough recruitment

Tough recruitment

February 26, 2024

Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors–low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session.

For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components.

Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation.

Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary.  Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges.

To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions.

Appellate positions–the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals–still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently.

Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006.

Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts–the workload.  District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy duty felonies, like the Maybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours–nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job?

Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary.

 

An open letter

An open letter

February 25, 2024

An open letter to Idaho's U.S. senators, from Charles Graham of Moscow, Idaho.

Dear Senators Risch and Crapo,

You are respected lawyers and leaders in the U.S. Senate. As a former lawyer, I ask you to break your silence and speak out publicly against the ever-intensifying attacks on the integrity of our courts, judges, Department of Justice, and judicial system as a whole.

As lawyers, you know better than anyone else the vital role courts play in preserving the rule of law under the Constitution. You are in the best position to condemn the increasingly vitriolic attacks by former president Trump and others. Your silence is dangerous. It tacitly condones and legitimizes indefensible conduct, leads to unacceptable normalization of the more and more frequent physical threats to judges and prosecutors, and makes even more likely the “bedlam” Trump warns of if the courts rule against him. These attacks and threats are a danger to the nation. You should call them what they are, and call out those, including Trump, who propagate them.

You are also among those most able to speak with authority about the vital necessity of keeping the Department of Justice independent, and about the essential role of its attorneys general and special prosecutors in determining whether to seek indictments, and then of grand juries, comprised of ordinary citizens, to decide based on the evidence whether the facts justify an indictment.

There is no longer any doubt that a vindictive Mr. Trump would do his best to subvert an historically independent Justice Department and convert it to an instrument of retribution against those he thinks have wronged him and might stand in his way, including his perceived political enemies, judges, prosecutors, civil servants, and the media. These are the tools of authoritarianism. Trump openly says he will use them if he regains the presidency. You know the dangers for our democracy and the rule of law.

You may say that under our electoral process it is for the voters to repudiate Trump, to reject his efforts to appropriate for himself powers the founders would never have entrusted to the office of President. But it is you, as lawyers and lawmakers, who best understand the dangers. It is time for you to speak out with moral clarity, to denounce these attacks on the institutions of our democracy, and to place the future of this country above whatever political expediency you may think justifies your silence.

 

 

Bully

Bully

February 23, 2024

In a single vote, the governing majority demonstrated its complete lack of concern for two things that likely do interest a wide range of Idahoans:

First, bullying of and by students.

And second, parental involvement and notification of issues in their children’s lives.

House Bill 539 is another in the long line of measures imposing a requirement on how local school districts deal with children, and this one operates in a familiar way: Most significantly, through parental notification. The legislative summary said it would “require school principals to notify parents and guardians of a student’s involvement in harassment, intimidation, bullying, violence, or self-harm and to provide empowering materials and requires school districts to report incidents and confirm the distribution of the materials to the State Department of Education.”

The statement of purpose added, “While it is important to know how much bullying is taking place, there is not much state policymakers can do with this simple quantification. Given the relationship between those who are bullied and harm to self and others, this bill aims to better address the needs of those who are bullied in addition to responding to those who do the bullying.”

Okay: On one level, this would seem to be right up the legislature’s alley. Parental notification is big with Idaho legislators when it comes to a variety of topics like abortion, library materials, gender, curriculum content and testing standards, sex education, vaccinations (and related medical measures) and much more.

And the problem of bullying is not a small matter. Aside from the many reports from schools, there’s been a spike in teen suicides around Idaho (and beyond). Idaho has one of the nation’s worst records for teen suicide (46th best among the states). The Boise School District last fall reported a group of four student suicides in the space of just two months. (That’s the same number of student deaths, but self-inflicted, as the multiple murder of University of Idaho students in Moscow the year before; guess which got the international attention.)

Representative Chris Mathias, D-Boise, the bill’s origins sponsor, remarked that, "For each incident, it would bring us confidence that the districts were providing important pieces of information to all the parties involved: the bully, the bully's parents, the bullied, the bullied's parents. And specifically that they would be receiving, to quote from the bill, 'parental empowerment materials, including suicide prevention resources and information on methods to limit students access to means of harm to self and others.'"

Given all this, you might think the anti-bullying bill - which really wasn’t exactly a powerhouse, requiring not much more than notification - would be a slam dunk.

But it failed on the House floor, 32-38; most of the House Republican leadership voted against it. You can see the vote breakdown at https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/H0539/.) Getting at “why” leads to a better and more subtle understanding of what motivates the Idaho Legislature’s majority.

It certainly has nothing to do with the supposed concerns of Representative Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, who talked about, “The poor principal [who] is going to get this 'Oh one more thing I have to report’.” This is beyond ridiculous: This is a legislature that has poured on the culture war requirements, year after year, decade after decade, when it comes to public schools.

They’re happy to have the parents weigh in on subjects - like those a few paragraphs back - where they suspect the parents (or at least the squeaky-wheel parents) will side with the legislative majority’s viewpoint.

And what is the legislature’s opinion on bullying?

You can’t indict all 105 of them. In the House, 32 (Republicans among them) voted in favor of the bullying notification bill, and there are surely more ayes in the Senate.

But for the operating majority, bullying is one of the facts of student life they’re not interested in discouraging.

Ponder for a moment what that says about the people who run the Idaho Legislature. Then think it over again.

 

Numbers

Numbers

February 22, 2024

Nobody roused a crowd talking about numbers. Images stir us. Just look at TikTok. But the numbers tell the truth. Maybe we just don’t want to know the truth.

The brouhaha about how Idaho’s budget committee (Joint Finance and Appropriations =JFAC) is deciding to spend taxpayers’ dollars needs a specific example for you to understand the folly.

It’s about numbers, not dead fetuses, or freedom, so you might not care. But that’s how this country has become the swamp it is. Us common folk don’t often pay attention to the numbers. Rich folk do. And so, they are rich. We all should do better.

Let’s drill down on the Medicaid “maintenance budget” that JFAC has just passed. I encourage you all to read the bill. You’ll have to get to page six to read the Medicaid budget. This bill has passed both the Idaho House and the Idaho Senate. All Republicans voted for it. All Democrats voted against. It awaits the governor’s signature.

Here’s the catch. That’s last years budget. They have not made any allowances for how Idaho or our relationship with the federal government has changed in the last twelve months. Theoretically, that bill with all the changes is to follow. That’s where our majority Republicans want to nitpick.

Then, the rubber will meet the road.

Last year’s regular Medicaid budget had a federal matching rate (FMAP) for regular Medicaid at 69.72%. This year’s will be at 67.59%.

I warned you about the numbers. They are going to get big.

That small change came about because Idaho became less poor. Idaho led the nation in median household income growth.

Medicaid is a partnership with the federal government to get people health insurance who don’t get it through their workplace. If the state is poor, the federal government forks up. If our incomes improve, the state is expected to pay more. Many states are at a 50/50 rate. We have been as high as 80/20. But our household incomes have risen in the last few years. So, we will need to fork over more if we want to keep this health insurance for our citizens.

Maybe we do, maybe we don’t.

Because when the next JFAC Medicaid bill comes to both houses it will include this FMAP change.

I’m sorry, but you must pay attention to the numbers, and the definitions.

I am NOT talking about the Medicaid Expansion population. That small group of Medicaid expense will never be more than a 10% match for the state. That’s why it was such a good deal.

But the regular Medicaid folks, the severely disabled and the children, and the pregnant women are the ones under regular Medicaid. They are the ones who will become more expensive. $68M more expensive.

Legislators are still butt hurt about Medicaid expansion. They throw numbers around with brazen ignorance and it can alarm you. I have seen my elected representative do this at town halls. But he is doing this to build an image. His numbers aren’t real. They aren’t the truth.

But when the real budget bill comes up for a vote on the floor of the Idaho House and Senate, will they know the numbers? Will they know the truth? I deeply regret to say, they will not. They do not understand the details of the budget. And few of us do.

But here’s the punchline in this numbers game. If the Idaho Republican legislative majority doesn’t approve the next Medicaid budget, with it’s $68M dollar bump for the regular Medicaid folks, Idaho will not be following our agreed upon partnership with the federal government. We will be in default.

Every year I was in the Idaho Senate, and on JFAC, and crafted the Health and Welfare budgets, I would watch the votes for the appropriations bills as they worked through. Medicaid might pass the House with a couple votes to spare. In the Senate it wasn’t as close.

This year, the “maintenance” budget has passed. The next budget bill with its bump will stick in their craw. And they will be voting us out of Medicaid.

And they can lie to you that they voted for it.

 

Moon and the senators

Moon and the senators

February 21, 2024

Give a big welcome to the two new members of the Idaho RINO club – Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch.

It’s not an exclusive club. Gov. Brad Little, Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke and Senate Pro Tem Chuck Winder are charter members. The depth chart also includes Congressman Mike Simpson, anyone who is involved with Take Back Idaho and a slew of GOP legislators – errrr, RINOs – who are accused of supporting big government and otherwise going against the Republican Party platform.

Crapo and Risch are on the list because they are big spenders who lack knowledge in national and international security. Well … they know about those things, but not to the extent of State Party Chair Dorothy Moon. Her resume includes three terms in the Idaho House of Representatives and a primary election loss in her bid to become secretary of state.

Risch’s background evidentially pales by comparison. He’s just the ranking member, and former chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During his time as chairman, he was at the table with then-President Trump in high-level foreign policy discussions. Risch receives generous accolades from both sides of the aisle for his knowledge of foreign policy and understanding of national security.

See? He doesn’t know anything.

As for Crapo, he’s the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, but surrounds himself with those who understand why the U.S. gives aid to places like Ukraine and Israel. As Moon apparently sees it, Crapo should be spending more time with Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“The phones at the state party headquarters have been ringing off the hook after news broke that 22 Republican senators worked feverishly through the night with Democrats to pass a bill to spend nearly $100 billion, most of which goes to fund the seemingly endless war in Ukraine.”

Moon pays heed to Paul’s warning about the aid package serving as an “impeachment trap” if the next president (Trump) decides to pull funding for Ukraine.

Granted, Risch and Trump appear to be on opposite sides of aid to Ukraine, but it’s a stretch to suggest that the Idaho senator would be leading an impeachment parade. Risch, who has endorsed Trump in this year’s presidential race, would never compromise his access to a President Trump.

Moon offers more: “Americans are not interested in funding more foreign wars. Every taxpayer dollar that we send to fund the war in Ukraine prolongs a conflict that has the potential to spin out of control, even leading to a third World War.”

Risch also sees a threat of a world war, but only if Putin is allowed to take over Ukraine and move on to other nations. As Risch has said, the cost of a world war would be many times more than the $100 billion aid package.

The senators are not commenting on Moon’s rant, but they have issued a joint statement outlining the reasons for their votes.

“Our first and primary responsibility as senators is the safety and security of Idaho and the United States of America. It is critically important we help defend Israel … stop the advancement of China, and halt Russia from once again expanding its adversarial empire.

“The United States cannot be the policemen of the world, nor can we engage in every conflict, which is why we must support allies who will stand with us in what is a very dangerous time globally. Although this legislation is not what we would have drafted, it is a strong bill that makes Idaho and America safer.”

In the end, Moon’s side of the argument probably will prevail. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said that Republicans will not accept an aid package that does not include border control. And, with Trump’s blessing, no bipartisan agreement will come until after the presidential election – and only if Trump wins.

As for the state Republican Party, forget about the GOP serving as a cheerleader for Republican incumbents. Under Moon’s leadership, it has turned into a lobbying organization, much like the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Established leaders such as Crapo, Risch, Simpson and Little don’t have much to worry about. They can dismiss Moon’s lobbying efforts and survive without the backing of the state party.

There’s no good reason why they would want that support.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com