Health & Welfare
Trigger the repeal of Medicaid Expansion (H138 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill would trigger the full repeal of Medicaid expansion in Idaho if any one of 11 requested waivers are not granted by the federal government. If any of the waivers are denied, the bill triggers the repeal Medicaid Expansion in its entirety.
Supports argue that Medicaid Expansion costs have exceeded initial estimates (this is true) and it will bankrupt the state (this is false). Medicaid Expansion costs in Idaho are about $1.3 billion. However, Idaho only pays 10% of the cost (about $130 million). This is obviously affordable, since the House recently passed a $240 million income tax cut bill.
What is most devious about this bill is its trigger clause. Courts have already ruled that at least one of the waivers is not valid, which will trigger a full repeal. Several other problems were also raised during debate on the House floor:
- Rural hospitals would suffer. Many predominantly serve Medicaid customers. A repeal could put some of them out of business.
- Idaho already has an acute doctor shortage. Turning away over $1 billion in federal funding for medical care will make the situation worse.
- Idaho’s ability to provide mental health services is woefully inadequate. Medicaid Expansion covers mental health care. That goes away with a repeal.
- The financial analysis that accompanies this bill only looks a cost savings. It fails to address the additional costs to taxpayers if Medicaid Expansion is repealed.
- Before Medicaid Expansion was enacted, many people were one accident away from bankruptcy. This bill will put many people – and their loved ones – back on very thin ice.
There’s an over-arching reason I voted AGAINST this bill: it betrays the will of the people. Idahoans overwhelmingly voted to enact Medicaid Expansion in 2018. This bill says the legislature doesn’t care what voters think. (CLICK HERE to see my debate against this bill).
Medical Ethics Defense Act (H59 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill allows any medical provider to refuse to provide non-emergency care to anyone if they felt doing so would “violate their sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs.” This bill is really about denying services specifically to transgendered individuals but hides that purpose behind a broader right to deny medical care. Things get dangerous and ugly when doctors and nurses can pick and choose who does or doesn’t get medical care. I voted AGAINST this bill, which is part of an ongoing effort to legislate transgendered individuals out of existence.
Revenue & Taxation
Increase the food tax credit (H231 – passed the House, in the Senate). The current grocery tax credit is $120 per person ($140 for individuals 65 and older). This bill increases grocery tax credit for all individuals to $155. It also provides the option to receive a refund up to $250/person by itemizing grocery expenses. However, this $250 refund is practically impossible for most people to obtain. To receive it, you have to:
- Collect and store a year’s worth of grocery receipts.
- Own a printer with a scanner function.
- Know how to use the scanner and save the images in computer files.
- Know which items on the receipts don’t apply due to legal definitions of “candy” and “soda.”
- Know how to electronically attach and transmit scanned copies of a year’s worth of receipts with your tax return.
I support a complete repeal of the grocery tax. Unfortunately, this bill doesn’t do that. However, I VOTED FOR this bill because it is a top issue for many of my constituents and it’s the only form of grocery tax relief the legislature will allow us to vote on.
Exempt certain small sellers from sales and use taxes (H144 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill eliminates the requirement to get a permit for sellers that have sales less than $5,000 per year. During 2023, the Idaho Tax Commission issued 10,701 permits for individuals who had annual sales less than $5,000 and only collected $1.2 million dollars. I VOTED FOR this bill. I usually oppose tax exemptions, but I can support them if they make business sense. In this case, the lost revenue is balanced by the volume of work necessary to facilitate it. My only concern with this bill is that setting an arbitrary cutoff would seem unfair to the seller making just over $5,000/year. Should this become law, it may need to be revisited in the future.
Maintenance budgets (H247, H248, H249, H251 – passed the House, in the Senate). These are the bare-bone maintenance budgets for the legislature, natural resources, the constitutional officers (Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, State Controller, Secretary of State and State Treasurer), and public school educational support programs. I voted AGAINST all these inadequate “maintenance” budget bills – and I will continue voting against them for two reasons:
- If these budgets pass, the legislature has technically met its constitutional obligation to set a budget and it doesn’t have to provide any more funding for these activities.
- This two-step budgeting process allows a handful of majority party leaders to exert leverage to manipulate outcomes that may not be in the best interests of the people (see my previous newsletter for more on this).
This contrivance of splitting budgets between a “maintenance” budget and a “supplemental” budget is a recent perversion of the budget-setting process. I am not refusing to fund state government, and I will vote for the supplemental budgets if they are reasonable. My “no” vote for these “maintenance” budget bills is the only way I can lodge my protest against the new way budgets are being set.
Education
Eliminate requirement for “compulsory attendance at school” from Idaho’s constitution (HJR1 – failed on the House floor by one vote). This proposed constitutional amendment would replace the current requirement for compulsory attendance with this language: “The right of the people to educate their children without government regulation outside of the public schools of the state shall not be infringed.” This amendment was billed as simply a clarification that changed nothing. Well, if that was the case, it wouldn’t be necessary.
Idaho provides parents with perhaps the broadest range of school choices in the nation. The problem with this amendment is the words “shall not be infringed.” That removes the legislature’s role over education and could put it in the hands of any group of extremists eager to “educate” young, impressionable minds. I voted AGAINST this proposed amendment which would plant a poison pill in the state constitution to be leveraged by future legislation.
Place restrictions on teachers unions (H98 – passed the House, in the Senate). The sole purpose of this bill is to hurt the teachers union and create an adversarial relationship between school administration and teachers. I voted AGAINST this bill that solves a problem that doesn’t exist and seems to serve the sole purpose of helping some legislators burnish their anti-union credentials.
Increase the amount of money a school bond can request (H147 – failed on the House floor). This bill would have allowed school bonding capacity to increase from 5% to 8% of the market value, due to inflation. This does not increase property taxes in and of itself. It simply allows voters to decide if they want to invest more than the current limit when considering a new school bond. It would still require two-thirds of voters to pass the bond. I VOTED FOR this very reasonable bill, especially in these inflationary times. The legislature should not prevent people from deciding for themselves if they want to invest more in their local public schools.
State Affairs
Turn aliens in Idaho into criminals (H83 – passed the House, in the Senate). This legislation prohibits the illegal presence in Idaho by anyone who is an alien. I support people coming to America through proper channels. I also support a guest worker program that enables non-citizens to work in Idaho. However this bill can create more problems than it purports to solve. It can hurt Idaho businesses. Many of them depend on immigrant labor to fill jobs that Idahoans do not or will not do. Immigration is fundamentally a federal issue; Idaho law won’t fix it. No data was presented to show if this is even a problem. I voted AGAINST this bill which appears to be more about fear than fact.
Allow voluntary non-compliance with evacuation orders (H97 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill allows individuals to refuse evacuation orders but requires them to accept all risks and reimburse rescue costs if needed. At first blush, this bill looks reasonable: exercise your individual rights but be responsible for your actions. The problem is that when a community needs to be evacuated, individual actions can have a negative impact others. Professionals dealing with disasters often want people to leave the area in advance in order to avoid congestion created by last minute evacuees. This also puts minors in jeopardy who are forced to suffer the consequences of parents who want to roll the dice and take their chances. I voted AGAINST this bill which fails to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and what is right for the community.
Other
Prohibit local governments from requiring parking spaces be enabled for electric vehicle charging (H86 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill prevents cities from enacting ordnances requiring that conduit be installed in parking lots that can facilitate the installation of EV charging stations in the future. This decision is best left to local governments, especially where electric vehicles are popular and growing in number. I voted AGAINST this bill. Once again, Idaho’s majority party claims that government is best when it is closest to the people . . . unless a local government does something they don’t like.
Release of adoption information (H47 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill requires birth records be made available to adoptees who were adopted prior to July 1, 2022 once they reach 18 years of age. We heard some heart wrenching stories in favor of this bill, but also stories about families who were torn apart. I voted AGAINST this bill because it could result in unnecessary abortions. There are expectant mothers who will not put their newborn up for adoption unless they know their anonymity will forever remain a secret. Without that commitment, they may chose more desperate measures to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. The strongest argument in favor of this bill was the importance of an adopted child to know their birth family’s medical history. I would support a bill that required this medical history to be captured when a child is put up for adoption and then allow the agency to release it upon request of the adoptee after they reach 18 years of age.
Eliminate the requirement to publish public notices in newspapers (H166 – passed the House, in the Senate). This bill would allow government entities to only post public notices on websites and stop posting them in newspapers. I’ve met many constituents while knocking on doors who only take the newspaper and who either don’t have a computer or are not computer literate. For them, the paper is far more convenient and doesn’t require them to find a website and figure out how to navigate it. I voted AGAINST this bill which effectively denies a portion of the public access to public notices. (CLICK HERE to see my debate against this bill).
|
|
