Idaho's HR18: DOGE Legislation We Can All Agree On

Who wouldn't love a proposed legislative rule to cut spending, eliminate inefficiencies, and add transparency?

Back when the Trump administration floated the idea of a new agency called the Department of Government Efficiency—or DOGE—it sounded almost too good to be true. A tongue-in-cheek jab at the bloated bureaucracy, sure. But also a serious proposal rooted in a radical idea: that government should be smaller, faster, cheaper, and more transparent.

Not more regulations. Not more mandates. Just the opposite—less.

And now, in the Idaho House of Representatives, someone finally seems to be listening.

Thankfully, we now have House Resolution 18, sponsored by Rep. Ben Fuhriman (R-Blackfoot). No fanfare, no social media theater. Just a solid, serious proposal to cap the number of bills a lawmaker can introduce per session.

Twelve. That’s the number.

Not thirty. Not solution in search of a problem bills meant to give a legislator something to post on social media for a few likes. Just twelve bills per lawmaker—excluding appropriations and agency-sponsored legislation.

This is what government efficiency looks like. It doesn’t virtue signal. It doesn’t gaslight. It quietly saves taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and cuts legislative waste at the root.

Because here's the uncomfortable truth: the sheer number of bills introduced in each session—often more than 500—creates not just chaos, but cost. Every one of those bills has to be drafted, reviewed, analyzed, debated. That costs money. Staff time. Committee hours. And most of them? They die without a hearing. Many weren’t even expected to pass.

According to the official fiscal note, each bill costs somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 in legislative resources. Cut 50 unnecessary bills? That’s $150,000 to $250,000 saved in a single year. Cut 100, and we’re talking about half a million dollars—real savings that could be redirected to core services like roads, schools, or rural health care.

And yet, that’s just the start.

HR18 also forces lawmakers to disclose when a bill was actually written by someone else—a lobbyist, a political group, or a state agency. No more ghostwritten bills crafted by out of state bill mills where the state name and few localized details are added. If it didn’t come from the legislator or a constituent, the statement of purpose has to say so.

This kind of sunlight is rare. It’s also long overdue.

And it’s exactly what every self-described conservative should be demanding: fewer bills, better efficiency, and more transparency!

HR18 even bars lawmakers from reintroducing a bill that failed in a previous session—unless it’s been substantively changed. That means no more reheated legislation, wasting time and money re-litigating political narratives session after session.

In other words, this bill doesn’t just talk about shrinking government. It actually does it!

So the question isn’t whether HR18 is a good idea. The question is why anyone who calls themselves a conservative wouldn’t support it.

What excuse could possibly justify opposing a bill that limits government, cuts waste, reduces costs, and shrinks government?

There isn’t one.

This is what the DOGE model looks like in practice: restraint, accountability, and cost-conscious leadership. It’s not flashy. It’s not performative. It’s just the kind of governance Idahoans have been asking for.

So if your lawmaker supports HR18, thank them.

And if they don’t—ask them why they need more than twelve bills to do their job.

---

About the Author
Gregory Graf is the creator of Political Potatoes and a lifelong conservative Republican. His articles often criticize the hypocrisy committed by far-right grifters who’ve taken control of the GOP. Graf is the CEO of Snake River Strategies, a strategic communications and political consulting firm based in Eagle, Idaho. You can follow Graf’s work on X, Threads, or Facebook.

Disclaimer
The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.

Don’t forget to share this article with your friends on Facebook, Nextdoor, Reddit, and email! Be sure to share this article on Substack as a note to support this ongoing work.

Do you want to help support Political Potatoes?
Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or leave a tip 😊
Your support keeps this work going and is appreciated.