It’s interesting how Mr. Luna left out the 7 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires during Trump’s first term and the additional 4.5 trillion Trump just added by making those cuts permanent. What say you, JD Vance? *crickets*
And where exactly is that money that trump took from selling Venezuela’s oil that he stashed somewhere in an acct in Qatar we were told? It wouldn’t happen to be in any trump organization account, would it? Where is the transparency?
Mr. Luna while you constantly reference our constitution, it seems actually following it has become selective. Additionally, if we would simply tax the uber wealthy our issue would be far less than today.
Gregory Graf - why did you lend this column to push such total nonsense? It's chum to churn up the MAGAs, not meaningful economic or even political information. Previous commenters covered most of the bases already, but I'll point out that the US govt doesn't need a balanced budget, it needs a strong economy. What needs better balancing is the distribution of income and wealth. And we don't need a constitutional convention, just a return to the rule of law to balance the branches of government.
Keep this ignorant dog whistling outta my mailbox or I'll unsubscribe.
It's interesting that according to Investordia.com, Reagan holds the 3rd highest place of all presidents in increasing the national debt thanks to his tax cuts mostly benefiting the wealthy and supply side economics. Republicans hold 5 of the top 10 spots due to tax cuts and wars while Democrats' increases were due mostly due to pulling us out of recessions and programs that help people. Trump has increased the dept 2.25 trillion in one year. Where's all the money DOGE supposedly saved? Tariffs are taxes on consumers. He has lavish parties and builds ballrooms while people struggle to pay their bills. There's very little evidence that these Republican theories work. The money trickles down to stockholders, not to working people. The top 10% of the people hold 75% of the US assets while the bottom 50% hold 1-2%. This is not conservative policy, it's smoke and mirrors.
During the conversations leading up to the passage of the 2017 tax cut and jobs act, I remember Gary Cohn, talking with CEOs of major corporations and asking them what they would do with those tax cuts. He was sure that they would roll those dollars back into their companies as capital improvements, but most of them said no, they would just buy back shares of stock from the stockholders. They were telling him the truth!
How can you include trump and this regime for a balanced budget when twice they have passed tax relief for the billionaires! Since trump was president the national debt has increased by 7.8 trillion dollars, all for the billionaires for Pete's sake! Not to mention the bilking of our treasury by Doge and reckless personal spending of our tax dollars by unqualified officials! Of course dont mention the fact that we had a balanced budget under President Clinton!
Now I’m not saying that a balanced budget amendment (BBA) would NECESSARILY be a bad idea, just that Mr. Luna is arguing from demonstrably and commonly known to be false premise. Now there are two possibilities here:
1. He knows this premise to be false and is, therefore, a liar.
2. He doesn’t know this premise to be false and is, therefore, woefully uninformed to point of being willfully ignorant.
In either case, one has good reason to suspect that any position he holds is, itself, suspect.
And the possible negative unintended consequences of a poorly crafted BBA are self-evident.
I agree with you Mr. Luna, Government at all levels, federal, state and local have spending problems!! I agree with you that something needs to be done. An article V Convention of States is NOT the way to go.
The history you have left out of the discussion. Prior to the constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. When the states got together for the convention, they came out with a whole new way of government and our new Constitution. What make you think that an Article V convention today would not render the same outcome? Where are the guidelines that say only Balanced budget would be the only topic? There are none! There is no guarantee that other ideas would not creep in, like getting rid of the 2nd, removing free speech, or any and all of the Bill of Rights we currently enjoy.
Next, just who will represent Idaho or any other state? Who will elect those to represent Idaho? The Governor? The legislature? The People? Will conservatives represent Idaho? Or will it be all the democrats hiding in the Republican Party? More than likely it will be the democrats hiding in the party.
These are just a couple of the issues that you left out of the discussion. With all your "fist bumping" at the House State Affairs hearing, you didn't address any of these issues. I wonder how many weak kneed legislators received campaign donations from pro Article V groups?
After the house voted to affirm the resolution for a "balance Budget" They quickly started working on some of the budgets. Low and behold those same legislators that wanted more federal monies. Hypocritical at best, want a balanced budget at the federal level but give Idaho more federal $$$$ at the same time.
Lead by example, if you want a balanced budget amendment, STOP TAKING FEDERAL DOLLARS!!
Steve, your response raises concerns about government spending that many people share, but several of your arguments rely on assumptions, incomplete history, or logical leaps that weaken the argument you’re trying to make. A clearer distinction between what is factually established and what is speculative would strengthen your position and help move the discussion forward.
Your historical comparison between an Article V convention today and the 1787 Constitutional Convention is interesting but not directly applicable. The 1787 gathering was not an Article V convention...Article V didn’t exist yet...and the delegates were operating without the constitutional framework, judicial precedents, and state‑level statutory structures that exist today. While it is true that the 1787 convention exceeded its original mandate, it is not accurate to claim that a modern Article V convention “would” or “must” do the same. At best, that is a prediction, not a historical fact. Scholars disagree on whether states can legally limit a convention’s scope, and many states have already passed laws binding their delegates to specific topics. Presenting one side of that debate as settled truth oversimplifies a complex constitutional question.
Your warning that a convention could eliminate the Second Amendment, free speech, or the entire Bill of Rights also moves from possibility into a slippery‑slope argument. Article V does not explicitly forbid delegates from proposing unrelated amendments, but any proposal—no matter how extreme—would still require ratification by 38 states. There is no evidence that three‑quarters of the states would support abolishing core constitutional rights. Raising the most extreme hypothetical outcomes without acknowledging the ratification barrier frames the issue in terms of FEAR (a typical tactic used by today's GOP, by the way) rather than likelihood.
Your concerns about who would represent Idaho are understandable, but the conclusion that delegates would “more than likely” be “Democrats hiding in the Republican Party” is ridiculous, and quite frankly...sounds like something some of our current extremist far-right Legislators would say (Are you just parroting something you hear in all those committee meetings you attend?). Idaho’s current political landscape—supermajority Republican legislature, Republican governor, and a long‑standing conservative electorate—makes that prediction inconsistent with observable reality. Without evidence, this becomes a form of poisoning the well: discrediting hypothetical delegates by labeling them as deceptive before any selection process has even been proposed.
Your suggestion that legislators supported the resolution because they received donations from pro‑Article V groups is also unsubstantiated. Campaign contributions are public record, yet you cited no specific examples as evidence of your claim. Without evidence, this line of argument becomes an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy—attacking motives rather than addressing the merits of the policy debate. If there are concrete examples, citing them would make your point far more credible.
Your accusation of hypocrisy regarding federal dollars rests on a misunderstanding of how federal budgeting works. States cannot prevent the federal government from taxing their residents, nor can they redirect those funds by refusing federal appropriations. Supporting a future federal balanced budget amendment does not logically require a state to reject currently available federal funds. Treating these as equivalent positions creates a false comparison that does not reflect how intergovernmental finance actually functions.
Finally, the tone of your response...phrases like “weak kneed legislators” and “Democrats hiding in the Republican Party”...relies heavily on loaded language and personal insinuation. These rhetorical choices may energize supporters, but they do not strengthen the factual or logical foundation of your argument. They also leave several important issues unaddressed, such as how delegate‑limitation laws work, what constitutional scholars across the spectrum say about convention scope, or what alternative mechanisms you believe would effectively address federal spending.
A more persuasive argument would separate verifiable facts from predictions, avoid assuming motives without evidence, and engage directly with the constitutional and procedural questions at the heart of the Article V debate.
What funds are in the 39T federal debt? Do they include funding of the states? By not taking federal funding proves that Idaho does not contribute to the federal debt any more. Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes!
Since in your mind you are the all knowing oracle of knowledge, I was asking pretty simple questions. If the country is in debt to the tune of 39T, how much of that debt is payments to the states for federal programs? If a state decided not to take federal funds, would that help reduce the debt? Is it not hypocritical that on one hand you want to have a constitutional amendment to have a balanced federal budget and on the other to have your hand out for as much federal dollars to balance your budget as one could receive?
Steve, you’re asking fair questions, but the way you’re framing the issue assumes a relationship between state budgets and the federal debt that simply doesn’t exist. The claim of “hypocrisy” only works if taking federal dollars increases the national debt or if refusing them would reduce it. Neither of those things is true, and that’s where the misunderstanding begins.
The federal government does not go into debt because states accept federal funds. Congress appropriates money first, through federal law, and the debt is created at that moment, long before any state decides whether to participate in a program. States cannot change or cancel those federal appropriations. If Idaho refused every federal dollar tomorrow, the federal government would not reduce spending by a single penny. Idaho taxpayers would still pay the same federal taxes, and the federal government would still spend the same amount nationally. The only difference is that Idaho would be voluntarily forfeiting money its residents already paid into the system.
This is why rejecting federal funds does not reduce the national debt. The debt is driven by federal spending decisions made by Congress and the President—not by whether states participate in programs that have already been funded. States are not the cause of the debt, and they cannot unilaterally fix it by opting out of programs. The idea sounds intuitive, but it doesn’t match how federal budgeting actually works.
It’s also not hypocritical for a state to support a federal balanced budget amendment while still accepting federal funds under current law. States operate under the system that exists today, not the system they hope to see in the future. Idaho cannot rewrite federal tax law, cannot stop the federal government from taxing Idahoans, and cannot redirect those federal dollars to reduce the debt. Expecting Idaho to refuse funds that its own taxpayers already paid for is not fiscal discipline...it’s self‑inflicted harm with zero impact on the federal balance sheet.
The real debate is about federal fiscal policy, not state participation in federal programs. If the goal is to reduce the national debt, the only actors who can do that are Congress and the President. States don’t create federal deficits, and they don’t have the power to eliminate them. That’s why the “hypocrisy” argument doesn’t hold up: it’s based on a misunderstanding of who controls federal spending and how the debt is actually generated.
If you want to keep the conversation productive, it's best to focus on the federal mechanisms that truly drive debt...appropriations, tax policy, entitlement structures, and congressional budgeting...not on state participation in programs they didn’t create and cannot change.
Were Government programs like ARPA funded before they were needed? How much debt did that cause the deficit. Idaho could have refused the money. Lead by example. If the legislators were as admit about balanced budget at the federal level, they should be refusing federal dollars to balance Idaho's budget.
I find your comment about “Democrats hiding amongst the Republicans” a bit offensive since it was the Idaho GOP who closed the primaries to all Idaho voters.
It is well know in Idaho that if you want to run for office and a democrat, you need to change your affiliation to Republican n order to be elected. They claim conservative Republican ideals, but when it comes time to prove it their democrat comes out. Democrats also encourage democrats to crossover and vote in a manner that screws up with what true conservative Republicans want. There are more than one Republican legislator in both houses that act like democrats. In fact some of the democrats that vote better than the so called Republicans.
The democrats hiding in the party are the ones that are "Califoicating" Idaho!
Steve… this whole “Democrats hiding in the Republican Party” claim only works if you pretend the Republican Party hasn’t changed. But it has — DRAMATICALLY. What you’re calling “Democrats” are, in fact, the more traditional, moderate, business‑minded, pragmatic Republicans who used to be the backbone of the Idaho GOP before the party shifted toward a far‑right ideological purity test.
When the party moves the goalposts, the people standing where the party used to be don’t magically become Democrats. They’re just moderates in a party that has redefined “conservative” to mean “agree with the most extreme faction or get labeled a traitor.”
And the idea that Democrats are “hiding” in the GOP to sabotage elections is a convenient myth that ignores the actual dynamics of Idaho politics. Let's look at the facts here: Idaho is a one‑party state. If you want to serve your community, the only viable path is through the Republican primary. That’s not infiltration, that’s just reality. And moderate Republicans aren’t Democrats. They’re just Republicans who don’t believe governance should be a purity contest. Voting differently from the Brent Regans and Brian Lenneys of the party doesn’t make someone a Democrat. It just means they don’t agree with the most extreme right-wing of the party. Have you ever heard "you become who you listen to" Steve? If you're listening to idiots like Regan and Lenney, then I'm going to assume you're an idiot as well.
Your “Californicating Idaho” line is also shortsighted and childish. The people coming from California are CONSERVATIVES! They're relocating to Idaho to ESCAPE the Democratic policies of California. Brian Lenney himself is a California transplant! How do you not get that??? Truly unbelievable and idiotic thinking on your part Steve. STOP LISTENING TO THE FAR-RIGHT IDIOTS of the Idaho GOP. They are the people responsible for hijacking a once respectable and principled party and has taken it so far‑right that anyone who isn’t fully aligned with this most extreme faction gets branded a Democrat, a RINO, or an infiltrator.
That doesn't signify "Democrats hiding in the Republican Party."
That’s a sign of intolerance for internal diversity.
And when a party can’t tolerate moderates — its own longtime members — it’s not being “protected.” It’s being hollowed out and replaced by Naziism.
When a Senator from District 8 stood on the capitol steps and said "All you have to do is put an R behind your name to get elected" insinuating anyone, democrat, independent or Green needs to put a R behind their name to get elected. There was a Youtube video. When Republican legislators vote worse, scored by various scorecards, than registered democrats, those legislators have democrat principles and are cowards due to not being truthful with themselves or their constituents. They campaign as a conservative Republican and then turned. RINO = Republican in name only. There not moderates, there democrats.
It's also well known that the democrat party is encourages their voters to reregister as Republicans to interfere in the primaries.
And yet 70% of registered voters are Republicans in the State of Idaho. If there was any truth or validity to your claim Steve, Idaho would have turned purple long ago. I would counter that the more problematic issue is Nazis masquerading as Republicans in the GOP, and that’s not limited to just Idaho. It’s a nationwide problem now. The way in which you continue to robotically parrot these GOP deceptive tactics tells me you have been successfully brainwashed and manipulated to believe these falsehoods. You are EXACTLY the type of person the Nazis masquerading as Republicans like to target and do so deliberately. Congratulations…your brainwashing is complete.
You said it, "registered". That doesn't mean they are Republican, hold Republican Values. All you have to do is look at the legislation that has been propose or passed in one house only to be held in the drawer in the other house. Idaho is purple, whether you think so or not. Eyes wide open and the nazi party is the democrats, no matter how much they try to push it on Republicans. Sal Alinsky would be proud of you for you persistence to the deflection.
For the record, the only time in the last 50 years the US has had a balanced budget has been under 2 Democratic presidents!! So give me a break there is NO SUCH THING as a fiscally responsible republican.
After these past two fiscal years, Little and Bedke are not heroes. We find ourselves in a huge deficit directly caused by the school voucher program which raised a huge “disapproval” from Idaho citizens but the legislature passed it and Little signed it. Large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were the work of Bedke. Yet we have somewhere around 1.3 B in a “rainy day” fund but they would rather make cuts to programs across the board which usually entails the people at the bottom of the food chain. They’ve already cut a large portion of the ACT program and the Idaho Mental Health Court that has been disastrous to the outpatient mental illness community. So Governor Little, the rainy day fund? It’s raining buckets now. Just shows what happens when our legislators don’t listen to the people who elected them.
How about you lay those trillions of dollars out by the beginning of each of the last 45 years of presidential administrations? I’m betting that the 2017 tax cut and jobs act in the Trump‘s first administration may have jacked that up a bit as did the big beautiful bill in the summer of 2025. I am proposing, but cannot provide evidence, Idaho US delegation is likely responsible for giving trillions of those dollars to billionaires. They should never be reelected.
Also, why the hell did you include Huckabee? I think that speaks volumes of delusion.
It’s interesting how Mr. Luna left out the 7 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires during Trump’s first term and the additional 4.5 trillion Trump just added by making those cuts permanent. What say you, JD Vance? *crickets*
And where exactly is that money that trump took from selling Venezuela’s oil that he stashed somewhere in an acct in Qatar we were told? It wouldn’t happen to be in any trump organization account, would it? Where is the transparency?
Mr. Luna while you constantly reference our constitution, it seems actually following it has become selective. Additionally, if we would simply tax the uber wealthy our issue would be far less than today.
Gregory Graf - why did you lend this column to push such total nonsense? It's chum to churn up the MAGAs, not meaningful economic or even political information. Previous commenters covered most of the bases already, but I'll point out that the US govt doesn't need a balanced budget, it needs a strong economy. What needs better balancing is the distribution of income and wealth. And we don't need a constitutional convention, just a return to the rule of law to balance the branches of government.
Keep this ignorant dog whistling outta my mailbox or I'll unsubscribe.
Bravo on “what need better balancing is the distribution of income and wealth”!!
It's interesting that according to Investordia.com, Reagan holds the 3rd highest place of all presidents in increasing the national debt thanks to his tax cuts mostly benefiting the wealthy and supply side economics. Republicans hold 5 of the top 10 spots due to tax cuts and wars while Democrats' increases were due mostly due to pulling us out of recessions and programs that help people. Trump has increased the dept 2.25 trillion in one year. Where's all the money DOGE supposedly saved? Tariffs are taxes on consumers. He has lavish parties and builds ballrooms while people struggle to pay their bills. There's very little evidence that these Republican theories work. The money trickles down to stockholders, not to working people. The top 10% of the people hold 75% of the US assets while the bottom 50% hold 1-2%. This is not conservative policy, it's smoke and mirrors.
During the conversations leading up to the passage of the 2017 tax cut and jobs act, I remember Gary Cohn, talking with CEOs of major corporations and asking them what they would do with those tax cuts. He was sure that they would roll those dollars back into their companies as capital improvements, but most of them said no, they would just buy back shares of stock from the stockholders. They were telling him the truth!
How can you include trump and this regime for a balanced budget when twice they have passed tax relief for the billionaires! Since trump was president the national debt has increased by 7.8 trillion dollars, all for the billionaires for Pete's sake! Not to mention the bilking of our treasury by Doge and reckless personal spending of our tax dollars by unqualified officials! Of course dont mention the fact that we had a balanced budget under President Clinton!
I think he suffers from selective hearing.
Or perhaps “selective knowing”??
Yours is more accurate.
“And it hasn’t mattered who’s in control, Republican or Democrat. Deficits grow. Debt soars.”
Of course, this is patently false. From https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2025/08/05/media-news-daily-top-stories-for-08-05-2025/ the deficit has INCREASED under Republican Presidents since and including Reagan, and DECREASED under Democratic Presidents:
Change in federal deficit:
Ronald Reagan +$74B
George Bush Sr. +$102B
Bill Clinton (-$383B)
George Bush Jr. +$1.5T
Barack Obama (-$825B)
Donald Trump +$2T
Joe Biden (-$942B)
Donald Trump +$4T and counting
Now I’m not saying that a balanced budget amendment (BBA) would NECESSARILY be a bad idea, just that Mr. Luna is arguing from demonstrably and commonly known to be false premise. Now there are two possibilities here:
1. He knows this premise to be false and is, therefore, a liar.
2. He doesn’t know this premise to be false and is, therefore, woefully uninformed to point of being willfully ignorant.
In either case, one has good reason to suspect that any position he holds is, itself, suspect.
And the possible negative unintended consequences of a poorly crafted BBA are self-evident.
So…
Government debt is a republican issue unless they are in charge.
I agree with you Mr. Luna, Government at all levels, federal, state and local have spending problems!! I agree with you that something needs to be done. An article V Convention of States is NOT the way to go.
The history you have left out of the discussion. Prior to the constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. When the states got together for the convention, they came out with a whole new way of government and our new Constitution. What make you think that an Article V convention today would not render the same outcome? Where are the guidelines that say only Balanced budget would be the only topic? There are none! There is no guarantee that other ideas would not creep in, like getting rid of the 2nd, removing free speech, or any and all of the Bill of Rights we currently enjoy.
Next, just who will represent Idaho or any other state? Who will elect those to represent Idaho? The Governor? The legislature? The People? Will conservatives represent Idaho? Or will it be all the democrats hiding in the Republican Party? More than likely it will be the democrats hiding in the party.
These are just a couple of the issues that you left out of the discussion. With all your "fist bumping" at the House State Affairs hearing, you didn't address any of these issues. I wonder how many weak kneed legislators received campaign donations from pro Article V groups?
After the house voted to affirm the resolution for a "balance Budget" They quickly started working on some of the budgets. Low and behold those same legislators that wanted more federal monies. Hypocritical at best, want a balanced budget at the federal level but give Idaho more federal $$$$ at the same time.
Lead by example, if you want a balanced budget amendment, STOP TAKING FEDERAL DOLLARS!!
You’re not telling me anything new here Steve. You’re just repeating your same argument. Do better.
Steve, your response raises concerns about government spending that many people share, but several of your arguments rely on assumptions, incomplete history, or logical leaps that weaken the argument you’re trying to make. A clearer distinction between what is factually established and what is speculative would strengthen your position and help move the discussion forward.
Your historical comparison between an Article V convention today and the 1787 Constitutional Convention is interesting but not directly applicable. The 1787 gathering was not an Article V convention...Article V didn’t exist yet...and the delegates were operating without the constitutional framework, judicial precedents, and state‑level statutory structures that exist today. While it is true that the 1787 convention exceeded its original mandate, it is not accurate to claim that a modern Article V convention “would” or “must” do the same. At best, that is a prediction, not a historical fact. Scholars disagree on whether states can legally limit a convention’s scope, and many states have already passed laws binding their delegates to specific topics. Presenting one side of that debate as settled truth oversimplifies a complex constitutional question.
Your warning that a convention could eliminate the Second Amendment, free speech, or the entire Bill of Rights also moves from possibility into a slippery‑slope argument. Article V does not explicitly forbid delegates from proposing unrelated amendments, but any proposal—no matter how extreme—would still require ratification by 38 states. There is no evidence that three‑quarters of the states would support abolishing core constitutional rights. Raising the most extreme hypothetical outcomes without acknowledging the ratification barrier frames the issue in terms of FEAR (a typical tactic used by today's GOP, by the way) rather than likelihood.
Your concerns about who would represent Idaho are understandable, but the conclusion that delegates would “more than likely” be “Democrats hiding in the Republican Party” is ridiculous, and quite frankly...sounds like something some of our current extremist far-right Legislators would say (Are you just parroting something you hear in all those committee meetings you attend?). Idaho’s current political landscape—supermajority Republican legislature, Republican governor, and a long‑standing conservative electorate—makes that prediction inconsistent with observable reality. Without evidence, this becomes a form of poisoning the well: discrediting hypothetical delegates by labeling them as deceptive before any selection process has even been proposed.
Your suggestion that legislators supported the resolution because they received donations from pro‑Article V groups is also unsubstantiated. Campaign contributions are public record, yet you cited no specific examples as evidence of your claim. Without evidence, this line of argument becomes an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy—attacking motives rather than addressing the merits of the policy debate. If there are concrete examples, citing them would make your point far more credible.
Your accusation of hypocrisy regarding federal dollars rests on a misunderstanding of how federal budgeting works. States cannot prevent the federal government from taxing their residents, nor can they redirect those funds by refusing federal appropriations. Supporting a future federal balanced budget amendment does not logically require a state to reject currently available federal funds. Treating these as equivalent positions creates a false comparison that does not reflect how intergovernmental finance actually functions.
Finally, the tone of your response...phrases like “weak kneed legislators” and “Democrats hiding in the Republican Party”...relies heavily on loaded language and personal insinuation. These rhetorical choices may energize supporters, but they do not strengthen the factual or logical foundation of your argument. They also leave several important issues unaddressed, such as how delegate‑limitation laws work, what constitutional scholars across the spectrum say about convention scope, or what alternative mechanisms you believe would effectively address federal spending.
A more persuasive argument would separate verifiable facts from predictions, avoid assuming motives without evidence, and engage directly with the constitutional and procedural questions at the heart of the Article V debate.
What funds are in the 39T federal debt? Do they include funding of the states? By not taking federal funding proves that Idaho does not contribute to the federal debt any more. Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes!
Are you REALLY sure you want to challenge me Steve??? Your rebuttal doesn’t make sense. Do better.
Since in your mind you are the all knowing oracle of knowledge, I was asking pretty simple questions. If the country is in debt to the tune of 39T, how much of that debt is payments to the states for federal programs? If a state decided not to take federal funds, would that help reduce the debt? Is it not hypocritical that on one hand you want to have a constitutional amendment to have a balanced federal budget and on the other to have your hand out for as much federal dollars to balance your budget as one could receive?
Challenge accepted.
Steve, you’re asking fair questions, but the way you’re framing the issue assumes a relationship between state budgets and the federal debt that simply doesn’t exist. The claim of “hypocrisy” only works if taking federal dollars increases the national debt or if refusing them would reduce it. Neither of those things is true, and that’s where the misunderstanding begins.
The federal government does not go into debt because states accept federal funds. Congress appropriates money first, through federal law, and the debt is created at that moment, long before any state decides whether to participate in a program. States cannot change or cancel those federal appropriations. If Idaho refused every federal dollar tomorrow, the federal government would not reduce spending by a single penny. Idaho taxpayers would still pay the same federal taxes, and the federal government would still spend the same amount nationally. The only difference is that Idaho would be voluntarily forfeiting money its residents already paid into the system.
This is why rejecting federal funds does not reduce the national debt. The debt is driven by federal spending decisions made by Congress and the President—not by whether states participate in programs that have already been funded. States are not the cause of the debt, and they cannot unilaterally fix it by opting out of programs. The idea sounds intuitive, but it doesn’t match how federal budgeting actually works.
It’s also not hypocritical for a state to support a federal balanced budget amendment while still accepting federal funds under current law. States operate under the system that exists today, not the system they hope to see in the future. Idaho cannot rewrite federal tax law, cannot stop the federal government from taxing Idahoans, and cannot redirect those federal dollars to reduce the debt. Expecting Idaho to refuse funds that its own taxpayers already paid for is not fiscal discipline...it’s self‑inflicted harm with zero impact on the federal balance sheet.
The real debate is about federal fiscal policy, not state participation in federal programs. If the goal is to reduce the national debt, the only actors who can do that are Congress and the President. States don’t create federal deficits, and they don’t have the power to eliminate them. That’s why the “hypocrisy” argument doesn’t hold up: it’s based on a misunderstanding of who controls federal spending and how the debt is actually generated.
If you want to keep the conversation productive, it's best to focus on the federal mechanisms that truly drive debt...appropriations, tax policy, entitlement structures, and congressional budgeting...not on state participation in programs they didn’t create and cannot change.
Were Government programs like ARPA funded before they were needed? How much debt did that cause the deficit. Idaho could have refused the money. Lead by example. If the legislators were as admit about balanced budget at the federal level, they should be refusing federal dollars to balance Idaho's budget.
I find your comment about “Democrats hiding amongst the Republicans” a bit offensive since it was the Idaho GOP who closed the primaries to all Idaho voters.
It is well know in Idaho that if you want to run for office and a democrat, you need to change your affiliation to Republican n order to be elected. They claim conservative Republican ideals, but when it comes time to prove it their democrat comes out. Democrats also encourage democrats to crossover and vote in a manner that screws up with what true conservative Republicans want. There are more than one Republican legislator in both houses that act like democrats. In fact some of the democrats that vote better than the so called Republicans.
The democrats hiding in the party are the ones that are "Califoicating" Idaho!
Steve… this whole “Democrats hiding in the Republican Party” claim only works if you pretend the Republican Party hasn’t changed. But it has — DRAMATICALLY. What you’re calling “Democrats” are, in fact, the more traditional, moderate, business‑minded, pragmatic Republicans who used to be the backbone of the Idaho GOP before the party shifted toward a far‑right ideological purity test.
When the party moves the goalposts, the people standing where the party used to be don’t magically become Democrats. They’re just moderates in a party that has redefined “conservative” to mean “agree with the most extreme faction or get labeled a traitor.”
And the idea that Democrats are “hiding” in the GOP to sabotage elections is a convenient myth that ignores the actual dynamics of Idaho politics. Let's look at the facts here: Idaho is a one‑party state. If you want to serve your community, the only viable path is through the Republican primary. That’s not infiltration, that’s just reality. And moderate Republicans aren’t Democrats. They’re just Republicans who don’t believe governance should be a purity contest. Voting differently from the Brent Regans and Brian Lenneys of the party doesn’t make someone a Democrat. It just means they don’t agree with the most extreme right-wing of the party. Have you ever heard "you become who you listen to" Steve? If you're listening to idiots like Regan and Lenney, then I'm going to assume you're an idiot as well.
Your “Californicating Idaho” line is also shortsighted and childish. The people coming from California are CONSERVATIVES! They're relocating to Idaho to ESCAPE the Democratic policies of California. Brian Lenney himself is a California transplant! How do you not get that??? Truly unbelievable and idiotic thinking on your part Steve. STOP LISTENING TO THE FAR-RIGHT IDIOTS of the Idaho GOP. They are the people responsible for hijacking a once respectable and principled party and has taken it so far‑right that anyone who isn’t fully aligned with this most extreme faction gets branded a Democrat, a RINO, or an infiltrator.
That doesn't signify "Democrats hiding in the Republican Party."
That’s a sign of intolerance for internal diversity.
And when a party can’t tolerate moderates — its own longtime members — it’s not being “protected.” It’s being hollowed out and replaced by Naziism.
When a Senator from District 8 stood on the capitol steps and said "All you have to do is put an R behind your name to get elected" insinuating anyone, democrat, independent or Green needs to put a R behind their name to get elected. There was a Youtube video. When Republican legislators vote worse, scored by various scorecards, than registered democrats, those legislators have democrat principles and are cowards due to not being truthful with themselves or their constituents. They campaign as a conservative Republican and then turned. RINO = Republican in name only. There not moderates, there democrats.
It's also well known that the democrat party is encourages their voters to reregister as Republicans to interfere in the primaries.
And yet 70% of registered voters are Republicans in the State of Idaho. If there was any truth or validity to your claim Steve, Idaho would have turned purple long ago. I would counter that the more problematic issue is Nazis masquerading as Republicans in the GOP, and that’s not limited to just Idaho. It’s a nationwide problem now. The way in which you continue to robotically parrot these GOP deceptive tactics tells me you have been successfully brainwashed and manipulated to believe these falsehoods. You are EXACTLY the type of person the Nazis masquerading as Republicans like to target and do so deliberately. Congratulations…your brainwashing is complete.
You said it, "registered". That doesn't mean they are Republican, hold Republican Values. All you have to do is look at the legislation that has been propose or passed in one house only to be held in the drawer in the other house. Idaho is purple, whether you think so or not. Eyes wide open and the nazi party is the democrats, no matter how much they try to push it on Republicans. Sal Alinsky would be proud of you for you persistence to the deflection.
Brad Little isn’t about a balanced budget. Spending taxpayers dollars in high on his agenda.
For every complex problem there is a simpleton’s solution.
For the record, the only time in the last 50 years the US has had a balanced budget has been under 2 Democratic presidents!! So give me a break there is NO SUCH THING as a fiscally responsible republican.
After these past two fiscal years, Little and Bedke are not heroes. We find ourselves in a huge deficit directly caused by the school voucher program which raised a huge “disapproval” from Idaho citizens but the legislature passed it and Little signed it. Large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were the work of Bedke. Yet we have somewhere around 1.3 B in a “rainy day” fund but they would rather make cuts to programs across the board which usually entails the people at the bottom of the food chain. They’ve already cut a large portion of the ACT program and the Idaho Mental Health Court that has been disastrous to the outpatient mental illness community. So Governor Little, the rainy day fund? It’s raining buckets now. Just shows what happens when our legislators don’t listen to the people who elected them.
Way to go Tom.
How about you lay those trillions of dollars out by the beginning of each of the last 45 years of presidential administrations? I’m betting that the 2017 tax cut and jobs act in the Trump‘s first administration may have jacked that up a bit as did the big beautiful bill in the summer of 2025. I am proposing, but cannot provide evidence, Idaho US delegation is likely responsible for giving trillions of those dollars to billionaires. They should never be reelected.
Also, why the hell did you include Huckabee? I think that speaks volumes of delusion.
How do tax cuts lower the deficit or the debt? Are we really concerned about our future?