I wish Idaho legislators would recognize school vouchers for the shell game it is | Opinion

Vouchers

I wish our legislators the wisdom to reconsider the current enthusiasm for school vouchers in any form, including tax rebates.

It’s a shell game. Look at Arizona, facing a massive deficit because vouchers cost about half a billion more than projected. Before vouchers, Arizona had a big surplus. Now they have a deficit they can’t cover.

The voucher system cripples public education by squeezing already tight budgets. How can rural schools maintain infrastructure when their funds are drained? Heating and other operating costs remain the same no matter how few students in attendance.

Not a single state with vouchers shows students performing better than their public school peers. Not. One. State. The argument that a voucher program would allow students to go to a better school is invalid when rural students have no other choice of school to attend.

You can’t call yourself a conservative, or someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, and also pass school vouchers. They are already shown to decimate state budgets by draining education coffers first, and then money from the general fund. It’s a scam.

Keep Idaho strong: build up public education as a cornerstone of a healthy state.

Rhoda Mack, Viola

Fulcher

In reading Scott McIntosh’s editorial on Sunday regarding U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher’s town meeting being delayed by shouting protesters, I got stuck on the second paragraph. He states he has found Rep. Fulcher to be reasoned and reasonable, then adds in parentheses: “setting aside for the moment his support for Donald Trump and his decision to not certify the 2020 presidential election results.” I think what Republicans cannot understand about Democrats is that we cannot “set aside” an act to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. That is tantamount to setting aside the democratic process because you don’t like the results. I agree totally that Rep. Fulcher’s town hall deserved respect from participants and we should be able to have civil debate; but it is hard to “set aside” feelings of betrayal to the Constitution.

Grant H. Haller, Boise

Trump

What if the indictments against President Trump are politically motivated? First, we shouldn’t assume such a thing, but have to take the statements and actions of the various prosecutors as evidence that either they are going after Trump for political reasons, or they are not. Given his behavior and rhetoric over the last several years, it would not be at all surprising if some prosecutors want to be the one to “take him down”. But our legal system is complex. No matter how much a prosecutor may hate Donald Trump, they also hate losing legal cases. Like everybody else, they want to win—especially when cases are high-profile. So it would be foolish for a Trump-hating prosecutor to bring a weak case to trial. Prosecutors have to prove their cases to either a judge or jury, who must be convinced by the evidence. So even if all the cases were brought against President Trump for purely political reasons, they will fail if the evidence isn’t there to support it. Our legal system has lots of protections for defendants, so it is unlikely that Donald Trump will be found guilty unless he is actually guilty.

John Crow, Boise

Medicaid

A proposal recently placed before the Idaho legislature is reported to reduce Idaho’s Medicaid expenditures by $163 million. It does this by excluding many people from participation in the program. Those excluded will be selected randomly without regard to need.

Of this $163 million, $146.7 million would be reimbursed by the federal government, leaving Idahoans to pay $16.3 million.

Those savings come on the backs of sick and injured Idahoans who either would have to find other sources of care in a state already facing a physician shortage, or to go without.

$16.3 million comes to about 68 cents per month from every Idahoan. That’s it. Sixty-eight cents a month. And to save that, we abandon our fellow Idahoans to suffer without medical treatment which is close at hand.

This is easily one of the most mean-spirited proposals it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

Leaving our neighbors to suffer so each of us can keep 68 cents a month.

Seriously?

David Horsman, Meridian

Maternal mortality

The United States’ 2021 maternal mortality is 32.9/100,000 live births.

Idaho’s 2021 maternal mortality is 40.1/100,000, higher than Canada’s 8.4/100,000. When our legislators saw this, they defunded Idaho’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee (MMRC). Now maternal mortality isn’t counted.

The MMRC was a board of pregnancy experts who tracked maternal mortality, investigated causes, and made recommendations to prevent further pregnancy deaths. They found simple things would save moms lives. For instance: screening for, treating postpartum depression; expanding access to affordable healthcare or Medicaid for twelve months after giving birth instead of the current 60-day limit.

How much is the life of a mom worth? To track, study, and treat our high maternal mortality, we need the MMRC. It costs $10,000 per year. It costs around $6,556 for one mom to have one year of Medicaid.

Is it worth $10,000 per year plus $6,556 per mom for Idaho moms to live? Idaho legislators say no.

Instead of taking basic steps to save Idaho moms’ lives, our legislators are trying to pass bills forcing birth onto rape and incest victims and repeal Medicaid.

This will make more Idaho moms die. Perhaps our cowardly legislators don’t want to know how many moms their laws kill?

Kama Parrish, Nampa

Extremism

I appreciated the “Law Changes would send wrong message...” article. It finally answered my question of why Idaho seems to be such a hotbed for right-wing extremists. It was hopeful to know there are still a few remaining who are proactively trying to change that.

Aryn Sampson, Eagle