More than 100 people attended the town hall meeting in Meridian Monday, with many raising their hands to question, praise or disagree with Idaho’s senior senator. Most questions touched on either side of the federal budgeting equation —  raising or lowering taxes and whether to cut or spare programs.

“Everything has to be in the table,” Crapo said repeatedly, though he added one time that the current Congress would be unlikely to raise taxes.

He also praised the calls for spending cuts tied to raising the debt ceiling, which hadn’t happened in previous increases that garnered little attention. “If we stick with that precedent, and I think now that it is set that we will, we will balance the budget in the next 10 years,” Crapo said.

When Adrienne Evans with United Action for Idaho asked about raising taxes on wealthy Americans, Crapo responded, “If that could solve the problem, it would be done.”  He said such action would harm the economy. “If we allow the economy to collapse, like it is on the verge of doing, the damage will be far greater than some of the austerity that we have been able to propose.”

Crapo said not all cuts would be austere, saying several times that spending reductions to programs ranging from food stamps to the military could be made by getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, often calling program cuts reforms.

“I’m talking about things like energy policy reform, where we develop our own energy here,” Crapo said. “I’m talking about litigation reform. I’m talking about immigration.”

Crapo, one of the key Republicans working on federal budget reforms for more than a year, had a harsh assessment of this summer’s debate over increasing the federal debt ceiling. However, he expects the new “super commission” that came out of that plan to achieve reforms that don’t include tax increases.

“The politics were brutal and toxic,” Crapo said about the debt ceiling debate in July and August.

Crapo served on a fiscal commission created by President Barack Obama and later the Gang of Six senators, and supported both of their reform plans.  Congress didn’t adopt or formally debate either plan. Crapo said he’s not tied to any effort to reduce the multi-trillion dollar national debt.

“To do nothing would be worse than any of the plans that are on the table to deal with our debt,” Crapo said, adding that if federal debt rises unabated, it could lead to stagflation that would make the 1929 stock market crash look desirable.

Jan Flynn, a manager of health initiatives for the American Lung Association, asked Crapo about environmental regulations under the Clean Air Act, saying that polluted air can lead to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Crapo said the Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do protect Idaho’s environment, but that he pushes back against the EPA from time to time.  “Occasionally, I believe the EPA oversteps its bounds in terms of its aggressiveness and enforcement, so there’s a balance that has to be reached,” he said.

After the town hall, Flynn said she would’ve preferred if Crapo came out fully in support of the Clean Air Act.  “I was encouraged that he did say that he is concerned about clean air and natural resources in Idaho,” she told IdahoReporter.com. “I’m not entirely assured that we will get the support that we really need.”

Crapo’s event came as Congress took a break from meeting in Washington, D.C., during most of August and early September.  The official Senate calendar calls the time a state work period. It lasts until Labor Day.

“The decision represents the importance of adhering to the rule of law and working within the constitutional system of checks and balances and we are pleased that the Court agreed with our position that the individual mandate is unconstitutional,” Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said.  Wasden joined in the lawsuit after Gov. Butch Otter and legislators passed a law opposing the individual mandate to buy health insurance.

Update: Bob Cooper, Wasden’s spokesman, said it was attorney general’s sole decision to enter into the lawsuit, because he had concerns about the constitutionality of the federal reform.

“The (state) statute itself infringes upon the constitutional duties of the executive branch,” Cooper said.  “He appreciated the input of the Legislature. It was helpful to know that they had his back, but the decision to file the lawsuit was his.”  The state law, the Idaho Health Freedom Act, requires the attorney general to take legal measures to defend other parts of the act, which assert Idahoans’ right to choose or decline health care services.

Otter’s attorney, David Hensley, said the ruling joins similar decisions that call into question the reform law.  “All of them reaffirms not only the governor’s opposition to the individual mandate but his general concerns with Obamacare,”  Hensley told IdahoReporter.com.  “He has said all along that Congress overreached in requiring individuals to purchase health care.”

In a 2-1 ruling, Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull ruled Congress overstepped its power in creating the individual mandate, but ruled that the rest of the law is constitutional. The states had tried to throw out the expansion of Medicaid in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  The appeals court ruling differs from a lower court decision that overturned the entire health care reform law.

Dubina and Hull wrote that the individual mandate goes beyond the limits of Congress’ power in the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  “What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” they wrote in their decision.

Wasden, Otter and other state leaders who oppose the health care law have argued, similar to the judges ruling, that the reform plan doesn’t follow the Commerce Clause.

The ruling sets up a likely U.S. Supreme Court case, since a separate appeals court sided with the federal government, saying the individual mandate is constitutional.

“We have always anticipated that this case will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court and we expect that the federal government will appeal to the Supreme Court,” Wasden said.

“When we began this process of challenging Obamacare, we recognized that ultimately the Supreme Court was going to have to decide some of these issues like the individual mandate,” Hensley said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus dissented in the Georgia federal appeals court.  He called the views of the states and the two other judges approaching the case “wooden, formalistic, and myopic.”  Marcus wrote that Congress has long regulated health insurance and regulated parts of the system, including prescription drugs and the cost of health care through setting Medicare prices.

“The majority has ignored many years of Commerce Clause doctrine developed by the Supreme Court,” Marcus wrote.  Dissenting opinions don’t carry the force of law, though arguments in such opinions can be adopted by later courts.

The other states in the lawsuit include neighboring Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Washington, as well as Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which filed a legal brief with the appeals court. The court’s ruling did not mention IFF.

The U.S. Senate approved the plan Tuesday, with both Idaho Sens., Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, in support.   Crapo called it the first step in lowering the nation’s obligation to creditors.

The legislation would let the nation’s debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion above its current $14.3 trillion level.  It also includes close to $1 trillion in spending cuts during the next decade and creates a panel of 12 members of Congress, split between the House and Senate and Republicans and Democrats, to come up with another $1.5 trillion in reductions to the debt.  If the panel can’t agree on cuts by mid January, it would trigger comparable cuts, much of which would come from military budgets, and require Congress to take up a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

By approving a plan, Congress allows the government to continue borrowing, which thwarts a bevy of negative effects, including putting off payments to some, such as people on Social Security and a potential downgrading of its AAA credit rating.

“I think inflation would start going up, unemployment would go up, the cost of doing business would increase dramatically,” Crapo told IdahoReporter.com.  “Frankly [it’s] a dampening of the economy that’d be very harmful to the economy and very harmful to Idaho.”

Crapo called the plan that passed the House a good first step, though much of the hard work on reining in debt remains.

The House approved the plan on a 269-167 vote.  Simpson and most Republicans approved the plan, though Labrador and 65 other House GOPs voted no.

“I could have chosen any number of reasons to oppose the bill, but in the end it puts us on a path to fixing our debt crisis and boosts our economy by preventing the possibility of a default and ensuring Social Security checks, active military paychecks and veterans benefits go out on time,” Simpson said in a news release.  “It does all this without raising taxes.”

The congressional panel isn’t barred from suggesting tax increases, though Crapo also said it’s unlikely Republicans on the panel would approve straight tax hikes.  Crapo served on a similar panel formed by President Barack Obama last year, though it couldn’t agree on a debt reduction plan.

Labrador opposed the plan, saying more changes needed to be made to what he called a fiscal mess in Washington, D.C.

“While this legislation is a good first step towards that goal, it also relies on the time honored Washington tradition of delegating problems to commissions instead of solving them ourselves,” Labrador said in a statement.  “It places more confidence in its ‘super commission’ than is warranted. The legislation also lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation.”

The Senate approved the plan on a 74-26 vote.  Shortly after its passage, Obama said he’d sign it.

“We are making actual cuts to government spending, putting spending controls in place and providing for a vote on a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes,” Risch said in a statement Tuesday.  ”While it is a step in the right direction, it is only a first step in slowing the federal spending that is harming our economy.”

There are some concerns the cuts aren’t large enough to stave off a downgrade in credit ratings.  Earlier plans that couldn’t pass the Senate included trillions more in debt reduction.

Crapo said a downgrade would add to the cost of borrowing, but it wouldn’t be immediate.  “I think there may be a willingness of the world markets to wait and watch whether this committee comes up with real reforms,” he said.  “We may get a breathing space here, but we still need to far more than this immediate debt ceiling solution.”

“I will only, only vote for an increase in the debt ceiling if we have a balanced budget amendment that passes both houses of Congress,” Labrador said.  The Republican-led U.S. House passed such a plan this week, though the Senate, which has a Democratic majority, halted progress of that plan.  Labrador said that plan, called Cut, Cap and Balance, is his ideal option for raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion from its current $14.3 trillion borrowing limit.  The plan also cuts more than $100 billion in spending immediately and ties future spending levels to economic activity.

Labrador said he and other Republicans are pushing for Congress and President Barack Obama to approve a  good debt ceiling deal, not just any deal.

Debt and spending dominated the discussion at Labrador’s town hall event, with many in the crowd asking for deeper spending cuts, while others wanted to preserve some programs, including Social Security, or raise taxes on the wealthy.  Labrador shot down that last idea.

“I don’t think it’s time to raise taxes on individuals, but I do think it’s time to reform the tax code,” he said.  Labrador said reforms he favors include reducing the number of income tax brackets and rates of those brackets, and closing loopholes that allow large companies to avoid paying taxes.

Those tax code reforms are similar to a debt plan backed by Sen. Mike Crapo and five other senators in the “Gang of Six,” though Labrador said he hasn’t fully reviewed their proposal.  “I look at the ‘Gang of Six’ plan as a way to get to balance (the budget), not as a solution to the debt ceiling increase,” he told IdahoReporter.com after the event.

After the debt ceiling issue is resolved, Labrador said the debate in Congress will turn to the next federal budget, which starts in October.  One of the issues he expects will go on the backburner is one he has experience with, and one that stirred up controversy in his last election: illegal immigration.

“I just can’t imagine that we’re going to have any major legislation,” Labrador said about illegal immigration.  “There’s one bill that I may work on here soon that deals with the high-tech industry.”

Labrador’s vision for immigration reform includes tighter border security, a functioning guest worker program for non-citizens, and an increase in legal immigration for people who come to the U.S. for college.

“Right now, our immigration system is broken,” Labrador said.  He also linked illegal immigration to the nation’s economic problems.  “It is impossible for us to achieve any kind of prosperous system with the immigration system we have.”

Another area of spending Labrador said needs to decrease is in defense.  He criticized Obama’s military efforts in Libya.  “We need to get out of Libya,” he said.  “We also need to make sure we draw down what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It’s been more than six months since Labrador was sworn into Congress, and he said he’s already changed his views on one issue: term limits for members of Congress.  “I think people stay [in Congress] too long,” he said.  “They start thinking that their job is that they please special interests and many of the people working in the bureaucracy and they’re not so concerned about pleasing their constituents.”

The crowd in Meridian cheered when Labrador announced his switch on term limits.  Labrador has also started to receive more national attention.  He appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” last Sunday, and said he received requests to be on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CNN’s “State of the Nation” this Sunday, but declined.  “I needed to come home,” he said.

The House approved a plan calling for budget cuts, capping future spending based on economic activity and adding a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Almost all House Democrats opposed the plan, so it may not fare well with Democrats in charge of the Senate and White House.  Lawmakers and the president have until Aug. 2 to work out a deal on extending the federal debt ceiling, which is the amount of money the government is allowed to borrow.

“House Republicans are committed to bringing spending under control and bringing the size of the federal government back to its historic size following years of growth and bloat,” Simpson said in a news release.  Simpson has backed plans for a balanced budget amendment since he came to Congress.

Rep. Raul Labrador signed a letter last month calling on House GOP leaders to support the “cut, cap and balance” plan.  ”Our great nation did not find itself $14 trillion in debt overnight and it will take many years to correct this problem, but we must start now and we must hold future Congresses accountable regardless of party,” Labrador said in a statement.  ”A cap on spending and a balanced budget amendment will prevent future Congresses from ever returning us to the situation we find ourselves in today.”

During the House debate on the plan, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said it’d change the Constitution and stack the deck in favor of cutting Medicare and Medicaid over closing tax loopholes and raising taxes.

Idaho Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo are co-sponsors of a similar plan introduced in the Senate.  Risch spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday, saying that lawmakers in Congress aren’t doing their job by not passing balanced budgets.

Risch harkened back to his time as Idaho governor, saying that the Gem State and other states can balance their budget, even during difficult times, so the federal government should, as well.

Crapo backs the “cap, cut and balance” plan, but he also backs a $3.7 trillion debt reduction from the “Gang of Six” senators, who have been working for months on a plan to limit spending and reform the tax code.

Sen. Mike Crapo

“The ‘Gang of Six’ takes a different tack,” said Crapo’s spokesman Lindsay Nothern.  “It seeks to encourage economic growth through lowering the tax rates.  At the same time, that economic growth will then help pay down the debt.”

The “Gang of Six” plan would also close some tax loopholes and deductions.  It would set up three income tax brackets — currently there are six — with lower rates.  All the tax changes could result in $1 trillion in new tax revenue.   It would also call for an immediate $500 billion in spending cuts as well as ongoing cuts to health care programs.  It would also raise the Social Security retirement age and link Social Security and Medicare to the rate of inflation.

Shortly after hearing about the plan, the president called it a significant step.  “We’ve got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending both in domestic spending and defense; we’ve got to be serious about tackling health care spending and entitlements in a serious way; and we’ve got to have some additional revenue so that we have an approach in which there is shared sacrifice and everybody is giving up something,” Obama said.

Nothern said he wasn’t surprised by the president’s praise.  “It’s really less about the president and more about what happens in the Senate,” Nothern said.  “It’s somewhat predictable, because the president is not going to support the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ plan.  By coming out and supporting this one today, maybe he’s trying to send a message to his [party] that they should get behind this ‘Gang of Six’ plan.”

Officials in the offices of Simpson and Risch said the lawmakers had yet to look at Crapo’s debt reduction plan with the “Gang of Six.”  Labrador’s office did not respond to IdahoReporter.com‘s request for comment.

Rep. Mike Simpson raised $163,716 between April and June and had $229,011 in cash on hand at the end of last month.  That’s more than first-term Rep. Raul Labrador, who raised $93,469 and had $102,616 on hand at the end of June.

Both Simpson and Labrador raised significant sums from outside the state and from political action committees (PACs), which are campaign organizations associated with companies, trade associations or interest groups.  Close to $1 out of every $3 raised by Labrador came from an Idahoan, while only $1 out of every $20 given to Simpson came from an Idahoan.

Simpson campaign staffer Zach Hauge said that while the campaign finance report shows a lot of money coming from outside the state, it represents Idaho interests.  “Many trade organizations and businesses are headquartered outside of Idaho,” he said. “For example, we received a contribution from the REALTOR PAC, while the check is addressed from Chicago, the basis for that support lies with-in the thousands of REALTOR members that reside here in Idaho.”

“There’s like-minded people through the United States who recognize that Congressman Labrador is strong on conservative issues and they want to help out,” said Jake Ball, Labrador’s district director.

Both congressman had several notable contributors.  Each received money from Republican former Sen. Steve Symms, with Simpson also receiving money from Democratic former Rep. Larry LaRocco, who served Idaho for four years in the 1990s.  Labrador also received $5,000 from the owners of the Scentsy candle company, who live in Eagle, and $3,500 from Koch Industries, which donates to many conservative and libertarian causes and is seen as a rival to George Soros, who often donates to liberal organizations.

Rep. Raul Labrador

Several PACs that gave to Labrador has previously given to former Rep. Walt Minnick, who Labrador defeated last year.  Those groups include National Association of Realtors, Farm Credit Council and Honeywell, an aerospace company.

Labrador also received $10,500 from people living in Puerto Rico.  He visited the island where he was born in April to fundraise, meet local officials and visit family, Ball said.

Current and former candidates for the U.S. House with active campaign accounts are required to file quarterly updates with the Federal Election Commission, as well as more frequent updates during election years.  Among other reports filed were $4,030 raised by Norm Semanko, who lost to former Rep. Bill Sali in 2006 and is now the chairman of the Idaho Republican Party.

Semanko told IdahoReporter.com that he’s not building up for another congressional bid, but he’s closed the books on his 2006 race by raising funds to repay $37,500 in loans he made to his own campaign.

“The campaign has completely paid back that loan,” Semanko said.  “It’s kind of nice to put this thing to bed.”  Semanko is running this year to be mayor of Eagle, where he currently sits on the City Council.  That race isn’t subject to FEC reports.

Statewide officeholders and candidates must send campaign finance reports on their activity so far in 2011 to the Idaho secretary of state by the end of the month.  Only Secretary of State Ben Ysursa has turned in a report so far.  He reported no contributions, though he gave Gov. Butch Otter’s campaign a $1,000 gift.

Currently, 44,000 Idahoans use WIC, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which operates the program funded by the federal government.

“We don’t know how the new income eligibility will impact that,” said DHW spokeswoman Emily Simnitt. “We’ll have to wait and see how that rolls out.”

Under the new rules that start in July, a family of four earning less than $41,348 a year could qualify for WIC. That’s slightly more than the current maximum income of $40,793 a year. WIC is open to pregnant women, women who have given birth and children up to the age of 5.

The maximum income level was increased by the federal government to match a cost-of-living adjustment. There wasn’t a change to the maximum eligibility cutoff a year ago.

Funding for WIC is also being debated in Congress. Last week, House Republicans, including Idaho Reps. Mike Simpson and Raul Labrador, voted to reduce funding for WIC by 10 percent to $6 billion. That spending decision was part of an agricultural and food spending plan that trimmed $7 billion from a request from President Barack Obama. Labrador favored efforts to reduce food and farm spending further. That spending plan is currently being studied by the U.S. Senate.

A list of food that families can get with WIC vouchers is available at DHW’s website. See a chart of the old and new maximum income levels for WIC eligibility below.

Sixteen senators are backing a resolution opposing state bailouts, saying that states are sovereign entities and are responsible for getting themselves out of debt debacles. Targeted debt bailouts for states haven’t been introduced, though there’s been speculation of payments to some states.

“States that cannot live within their means should not be bailed out by taxpayers from other states,” said Risch’s spokesman Brad Hoaglun. “Idaho operates on a balanced budget, as most states do.  States that are in debt need to look at their spending and not to other taxpayers with their hand out.”

Hoaglun said that the $787 billion stimulus plan approved by Congress in 2009 served as a bailout for states, because it included funding for programs including education and road construction that’s usually paid by state governments.

Sen. Mike Crapo

The resolution is being sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., whose state is dealing with billions in debt. The Illinois state government faces more than $50 billion in unpaid bills and bond debts, as well as $140 billion in unfunded pension and health care liabilities.

Idaho, on the other hand, would likely not need a bailout for debt. “Idaho has not asked the federal government for more bailout,” said Emily Anderson in Gov. Butch Otter’s office.

The state has one of the lowest government debt-to-personal income ratios in the country. Like most states, Idaho is required to pass a balanced budget, though it does have an unfunded pension liability of more than $1 billion. The state has also borrowed more than $800 million for six road improvement projects through the Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) program, which is expected to be paid off over several decades using federal road funding.

The no-bailout resolution would need the support of Democrats, who control the Senate, but Hoaglun said that isn’t necessary for it to have an impact. “The resolution sends a signal that a bailout request will not be met with favor in Congress,” Hoaglun said. He added that it would counteract comments from investor Warren Buffett that the feds would help out a state that faces financial distress.

Labrador, Breitbart, and Idaho Freedom Foundation Executive Director Wayne Hoffman spoke to a crowd of 370 people in Nampa Thursday. Otter, Luna, Lt. Gov. Brad Little, State Treasurer Ron Crane, and many GOP lawmakers were in attendance. Sen. Monty Pearce, R-New Plymouth, and Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, also won awards from the organization for their efforts to nullify federal health care laws and pass anti-wolf legislation.

Hoffman said the IFF has had a significant impact in its short lifespan. “We have been encouraging lawmakers to reject tax increases, and they have,” he said. “We’ve encouraged lawmakers to cut waste, and they have. We suggested many of the reforms that were in Tom (Luna)’s education reform package, which were adopted.”

Labrador credited the crowd for his success in his underdog electoral victory to Congress in last year. Labrador also railed against federal spending, calling it out of control. “We need to examine every program for waste, fraud and abuse,” Labrador said.

Rep. Raul Labrador

Labrador singled out a government agency in Afghanistan that was asking for more federal spending, but couldn’t list the programs it’d started or finished. “I was outraged,” Labrador said. “They were proud that they had spent billions and billions of your dollars. I was ashamed of the work that they were doing.” Labrador said the entire federal government needs to be more fiscally responsible.

One looming debate for Congress will be to raise the national debt ceiling, which would allow the federal government to borrow more money. Proponents say raising the debt ceiling, which would likely need to happen by early August, is needed to keep the government running and prevent it from defaulting on its loans. Labrador said he wouldn’t vote for raising the debt ceiling without promises of a federal spending cap or a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Labrador also voted against a continuing resolution last month that reduced spending in the current budget by almost $40 billion, because he said House Republicans promised a $100 billion cut. “It wasn’t even close,” Labrador said, though he added that he’s glad Congress is considering cuts rather than more spending.

Breitbart told the crowd that the IFF is an example of conservatives learning about community organizing practices that have long been used only by the left. He said efforts by Tea Party groups and other conservatives that helped Labradors and other new Republicans in Congress last year should continue.

“If you liked 2010, 2012 should be more spectacular, but we have to keep up the fight,” Breitbart told the crowd.

Breitbart, an author, pundit and web entrepreneur, told the crowd that the secret to his success is being the pettiest person they’d ever meet, explaining that nothing is too small to call attention to if it is a problem. He also urged conservatives to speak out against media and cultural portrayals they disagree with, including protesting TV stations and individual journalists. “Politics is downstream from culture — culture is way more important,” he said.

The attendance at IFF’s second annual banquet was more than double last year’s banquet in Boise. 670 KBOI’s Nate Shelman was the master of ceremonies for the event. At the end of the event, Shelman thanked Luna, who had already won an award from the group. “Mr. Luna, I support you,” Shelman said. “I’ve got your back.”

The IFF gave its lifetime achievement award to former legislator Maurice Clements of Nampa. That award is named after the late Ralph Smeed. Middleton City Councilman Lenny Riccio received an award for promoting government transparency. Jack Stuart of Meridian won the Pioneer Award. Rachel Gilbert, Hubert Osbourne and Don Brandt all won a Patriot Award for their efforts supporting free markets.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa, said he’d prefer using the court system and a potential U.S. constitutional amendment to stop the health care reform rather than the legislation that would opt Idaho out of the program. He said one reason is the Idaho attorney general’s office’s opinion that states nullifying federal laws violates the U.S. and Idaho constitutions.

“I would rather stay out of that potential area and do it this way instead,” McKenzie said.

McKenzie is backing what’s called the Madison Amendment, which would let states call for a constitutional convention dealing with a single topic in the United States’ founding document.  The plan would require changing Article V of the Constitution. It’s named for James Madison, a Founding Father and president who supporters say argued in the Federalist Papers that states should be able to call such conventions.

Currently, states can call for a convention if two-thirds of states ask for it, but it wouldn’t have any topic constraints. States have never called for a constitutional convention in American history. In his Senate memorial, McKenzie said that could lead to a runaway convention when multiple parts of the Constitution could be tweaked.

“By allowing the states to call for a convention and limit it to a specific subject, it returns a little bit of that balance of power because it puts a check on the federal government,” McKenzie said. “Now they know that state legislatures can call for a convention limiting their authority to spend or to make requirements on the states.”

The text of McKenzie’s plan says that the Madison Amendment could also curb federal debt and unfunded mandates on states.

The Madison Amendment used to have a backer in an Idaho supporter in Congress. Former Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick introduced a similar plan last year in the U.S. House of Representatives. “This measure would achieve both while providing more power to citizens rather than taking power away,” Minnick said in a statement last year about the plan.

If Idaho lawmakers approve McKenzie’s plan, the Legislature would send a letter to Idaho’s current members of Congress and the leaders of the U.S. House and Senate calling for passage of the Madison Amendment. It would take the support of two-thirds of the U.S. House and Senate and three-fourths of all state legislatures to give states the power to call for a single-topic constitutional convention.