However, one Democratic leader says he won’t use a decision made by GOP senators about one of their misbehaving colleagues to aid the push for ethics reforms.

House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, told IdahoReporter.com Wednesday that Democrats won’t utilize the recent mishaps by Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell, to their advantage as they work to create an independent ethics commission and pursue other reforms.

But not everyone in Rusche’s party is on the same page. Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, says he thinks McGee’s incident and the Senate GOP’s vote of confidence in the beleaguered senator will help the reform push. “Certainly, if you look at the broad scope of issues, the more things go unaddressed, the more the public loses confidence in the system,” Bock said.

The Senate GOP caucus decided Wednesday that McGee, who admitted guilt to driving under the influence after a June 2011 incident in which he spent the night drinking and then stole an SUV before jackknifing it in a driveway, will keep his post as majority caucus chair.

Instead of going after McGee or any other specific lawmaker, Rusche says Democrats will make the issue bigger than one individual or incident. “We’ll talk about the confidence in the institution of government,” Rusche said.

In the past few days, Rusche has accused GOP lawmakers of actions he calls arrogant, but he’s stopped short of pointing fingers because he needs Republican help to pass ethics reforms. In his office Wednesday, he said the plans he wants are greater than politics.

“Ethics is not conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican,” he explained. “Ethics is doing the right thing.”

Even if the ethics commission Democrats want to implement had been in place when McGee’s drunken driving incident took place, Rusche isn’t so sure the senator would have ended up before the panel. “In my mind, what John did is a personal matter,” Rusche explained.

Bock agrees with Rusche that McGee’s mishap probably wouldn’t have landed him in front of the proposed ethics panel. “We’re really talking about one incident,” Bock explained. “I’m assured it’s one incident that won’t be repeated.”

But Bock says that if McGee – or any other senator – makes a habit of gathering drunken driving arrests, ethics complaints would likely be brought against the offender.

It looks as if members of the Legislative Council, the group of lawmakers that oversees the operations of the Idaho Capitol, are split on the idea of press members paying for the space they use.

The news agencies are members of the Capitol Correspondents Association (CCA), the official credentialing entity for the Idaho Statehouse.  Members of the CCA receive free, private office space, as well as special access to the House and Senate floors.  While they are not asked to pay rent, members are asked to pay $10 each year for supplies, such as copier paper.

House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, says he has mixed feelings on the topic, but concluded that news agencies should be forced to pay rent for the space.  “There is a public interest that they serve,” Denney explained, “but I don’t always see that they are always working in the public interest with their reporting or what they choose to report.”

Denney also pointed to the CCA’s exclusion of IdahoReporter.com and the Idaho Farm Bureau from its ranks as another reason that the group should pay rent.

But another member of the council, Sen. Les Bock, D-Garden City, told IdahoReporter.com Tuesday that the press should receive free space in the Capitol because they relay information about government to the masses.  “I think it’s in the public interest to have the press there,” said Bock. “I’m inclined to say that it is fair for them to receive the space so the public can receive the information.”

Is there a difference between lobbyists – who pay for their space in the Capitol – and journalists who work for private, for-profit news agencies? Bock thinks so.  “I think there is a definite distinction between lobbyists and journalists,” he explained, adding that lobbyists only represent a small portion of any population of people.

Another lawmaker close to Denney, House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, R-Star, agrees that news agencies should pay.  “Quite frankly, they (newspapers) are all for-profit organizations,” Moyle said. “They are for-profit in the same way the lobbyists are.”

Democratic Rep. Bill Killen, D-Boise, opted not to take a stance on the issue.  “I would like to hear what others have to say about it and decide when I have to,” Killen told IdahoRepoter.com.

Killen and the other council members might have the ability to decide on June 3, the date of the next meeting.  Denney said that issue might come up, though he hasn’t seen an official agenda yet.

Lobbyists pay rent for the space they use in the Capitol, while the CCA does not.  According to the Division of Public Works, rent on the space the CCA uses would be about $620 per month.

CCA President Betsy Russell, a reporter for the Spokesman-Review, has defended the CCA’s use of the space in the Capitol. “The Legislature long has done this as a matter of public interest,” Russell explained.  “It’s in the public’s interest that the business of the legislative session gets reported to the public.”

She also made a differentiation between lobbyists and members of the press.  “Lobbyists, who are here to represent their own interests and clients, rent a room in the Capitol and pay for it,” Russell wrote in an e-mail message.

But a 35-year veteran of the news industry and member of the Idaho Legislature, Rep. Steve Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, countered that line, noting again that newspapers are business entities.  “The press is an important function of government, but it is not government,” he said.  “When I ran my newspaper, I ran it at a profit.”

Note: IdahoReporter.com is not a member of the CCA, though it has applied for entry into the group in each of the past two years.  The CCA has turned down the requests.  Read the about the credentialing spat in Russell’s own words here.  You can also read Idaho Freedom Foundation director Wayne Hoffman’s take on the CCA here.

Democrats held a press conference Wednesday to reiterate their concerns about the state budget and other controversial legislation approved by the Legislature.

Senate Minority Leader Edgar Malepeai, D-Pocatello, said that while Republicans received the most votes last November, they have silenced the majority in passing changes to public schools and cuts to Medicaid. He blamed it on a conservative offshoot of the GOP, which has dominated legislative action this session, including on the budget.

Malepeai called the session physically and emotionally draining. When asked, he said he couldn’t think of much good that had been accomplished.

Assistant Minority Leader Les Bock, D-Boise, said conservatives have radicalized state government.

Bock said matters could get worse if Republicans close their primary elections, which legislation working through the Legislature could allow parties to do. Bock said Democrats should have stronger campaigns in 2012, due to some of the actions taken by Republicans this year.

Malepeai and other Democrats say they’d invite GOP senators to join them in working on legislation next year.

After hearing about the Democrats’ comments, Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho, said he didn’t think it was the worst session in memory. “I would describe it as a difficult session among some of the worst economic times in memory,” Davis said on the Senate floor. “I encourage all of us, myself included, to steer clear of ad hominem attacks or political hyperbole. That is the Washington, D.C., model. It is broken. It doesn’t work.”

Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell, the GOP’s caucus chair, said he thinks Republicans have done the job they were elected to do. “We’re doing what our Idaho constituents are asking us to do, and that is to have a very fiscally conservative approach to governing the state.”

McGee also said that if Republicans had listened to Democrats for the past few years, they’d have huge deficits and spent down their reserves too early, which would lead to draconian cuts and tax increases. “While other states are increasing taxes, like the Democrats wanted us to do, we held the line,” he said.

Davis and other senators are expecting the Senate to adjourn Thursday. Republicans could hold their post-session news conference as early as Friday.

The claim made its way into debate in House and Senate committee and floor debate, a press release, and a minority report filed in opposition to the measure.

It’s a claim that looks, for the most part, like it’s based solely on a mathematical formula and not solid analytical data.

House Bill 260 is a measure that would essentially reduce Medicaid spending by the state and federal governments by $100 million next year. Of course removing that amount of money from the state’s economy will have some effect, but how deep an impact they might have, it seems, is anyone’s guess.

State Medicaid spending is reduced by $34.6 million by House Bill 260, though federal matching dollars for the program mean a total reduction of $100 million.

House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, initially made the claim in debate in the House Health and Welfare Committee and then again on the House floor.  Shortly after the House passed the bill, Democrats leadership fired off a press release condemning the measure as “job-killing” and “destructive.” Democrats doubled down on the claim, saying that “it will eliminate over 1,000 jobs in Idaho, possibly forcing the state’s unemployment rate above 10 percent.”

When the measure made its way to the Senate, Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, made the same claim during committee and floor debate.  He and Sen. Dan Schmidt, D-Moscow, filed a minority report with the figure included for the official record of the Idaho Senate.

Lisa Young, a staff assistant with the minority party, told IdahoReporter.com that the figure comes from a simple math formula.  “They took the financial value of the budget cuts and divided it by the salary of a healthcare worker (between $50,000-$100,000) and came up with a range between  of 1100-1800 jobs being lost via the cuts,” said Young in an email message.

The problem with the math is that not all provisions of the bill will translate into hard cuts for service providers, though there are some that surely will.

Bob Fick, spokesman for the Idaho Department of Labor, says that due to the complexity of the medical sector, it would be incredibly difficult to anticipate and project what effect House Bill 260 might have.  “The problem with doing any of this is how the money is allocated because the multiplier is different for spending in hospitals compared to spending in doctors’ offices compared to spending on drugs, compared to spending on therapy or dentists or any other specific service,” said Fick.

The Department of Labor did conduct a study a few years ago about the effect Medicaid cuts would have on hospitals, but since House Bill 260 spans the entire health care sector and not just medical care facilities, Fick says that the study would likely not compare well.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, told IdahoReporter.com Friday that she hasn’t read any data indicating massive job loss in Idaho next year.  “I have not seen evidence to support this claim,” she said.

The bill included price freezes for certain services and products, including in-home care and prescription drugs.  McGeachin said that the freezes were used to reduce many programs rather than eliminate a few.  That, she claims, is a job-saving move.  “Slight, broad-based reductions in services don’t necessarily mean reduced positions, but rather might require providers of care to change their business model,” said McGeachin.  “This is no different than what small businesses have been doing in this economic downturn.”

She also called the Democrats’ claims “unfounded.”

Tom Shanahan is the spokesman for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the state agency that administers Medicaid.  Shanahan says that House Bill 260 will definitely affect the state’s economy, but says, like Fick, that a true job-loss projection doesn’t exist.  “We think everyone would have to agree that taking $97 million from the health care economy is going to have a negative impact, including employment, but it would be very difficult to try and pinpoint what that would be,” said Shanahan.

He, like McGeachin, says that because the bill uses freezes and not full-scale elimination of programs, some jobs may more likely be spared. “If you look at some of the reductions, we are not certain if they will cause layoffs,” Shanahan explained.

For example, he said, one part of the bill mandates $4 co-payments for doctor visits for some Medicaid recipients, a provision he says will also not negatively affect the medical employment in the state.

There are still questions about the effect price reduction will have on the economy.  “The question is: will any of these lower provider reimbursements cause any providers to have layoffs?” Shanahan asked.

One stakeholder, Jim Baugh, executive director at Disability Rights Idaho, told IdahoReporter.com that the bill will not only affect medical sector, but reducing economic activity by $100 million will hurt other parts of the economy as well.  He said that due to the loss of federal matching dollars brought on by cuts, as many as 3,000 jobs could be lost.

Baugh pointed IdahoReporter.com to a January 2009 study produced by the Kaiser Foundation on the economics of Medicaid.  The report said that direct Medicaid cuts hurt the medical sector, but the private sector and state and local governments suffer due to the multiplier effect. “Money injected into a state from outside the state is critical to generating economic activity,” says the report.

Baugh also sent IdahoReporter.com a stat sheet showing the effects of possible cuts.  The report, produced for the Idaho Association of Developmental Disabilities Agencies, says – using a figure projected earlier this year for possible Medicaid cuts – that $50 million in state Medicaid funding cuts means a total loss of $208 million economic activity. That, the report says, would also mean the loss of 4,000 jobs and between $30 million and $50 million in state tax revenue.

The Senate approved changes to the state’s right to farm law that would limit legal actions that could be taken against farms that are looking to expand. It also limits any nuisance complaints against farming operations. The vote on the plan was 32-2.

Sen. Tim Corder, R-Mountain Home, said conflicts between farmers and residents have grown as more people have built homes in rural areas and had to deal with irritations like the smell of pesticides or sound of crop dusting airplanes.

“Things have changed, but what has remained unchanged is our need to maintain our farm ground,” Corder said.

The legislation, which heads to the governor’s desk, would limit people’s abilities to claim nuisance on agricultural operations including noise, applying pesticide, and animal waste. Corder said current state law doesn’t specify those farming activities but they would be included, and that the new legislation makes the law less vague.

Sen. Steve Bair, R-Blackfoot, said the right to farm isn’t a right to pollute, and that the change wouldn’t affect existing environmental regulations.

Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, said she was against the legislation, and had fought for years with a neighbor who had a dump on their property.

The Senate also approved a plan to let the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) regulate large facilities for chickens and other poultry, called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Currently, the Department of Environmental Quality could regulate poultry CAFOS, but none in Idaho are large enough to trigger such oversight.

At a Senate hearing on March 24, Sen. Monty Pearce, R-New Plymouth, called the switch a positive move. “The regulations and requirements we’re putting on here are very strict,” Pearce said. “I think the Department of Ag are the specialists.” The change was also backed by the Idaho Farm Bureau and Central Coast Farms, a California poultry company that is looking at Idaho as a new base of operations.

“The chickens are coming,” Corder said Thursday.

Under the plan, poultry operations would also be charged an annual fee based on the size of their facility. The ISDA would be in charge of monitoring the CAFO’s nutrient management plans and environmental impact.

The switch is opposed by Alma Hasse, the founder of Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), which opposes CAFOs. She told lawmakers that the Department of Agriculture can’t adequately regulate poultry CAFOs since it’s also in charge of promoting Idaho food products.

The Senate approved that plan unanimously.

On Thursday, the Senate also approved a plan that would classify part of dairy farms’ reporting to the the ISDA; specifically, its nutrient management plans. Those plans include how dairies deal with animal waste.

Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise said he’s concerned about the added confidentiality, though Idaho’s dairy industry has been acting with greater transparency. “If for some reason these confidentiality provisions prove to be problematic, then I for one would want to revisit them,” Bock said.

Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, said the plan was a little too much cow pucky, and opposed the plan.

The Senate also approved legislation requiring the ISDA to make sure all of its rules follow the best available science, including studies on public health or environmental impacts.

All the legislation affecting agriculture now heads to Gov. Butch Otter for his consideration.

Photo courtesy of FreeFoto.com.

The legislation passed the Senate 27-8.  Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, was the only Republican to join with all seven Senate Democrats in voting against the bill.

The measure, formally House Bill 260, is one piece of legislation that is critical to finalizing budgets and closing shop in Boise. The measure, already passed by the Idaho House, now heads to Gov. Butch Otter for consideration.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Patti Anne Lodge, R-Huston, is the trimmed-down result of an earlier measure considered in the House.  An older version of the bill would have cut about $39 million in spending.

Due to the federal matching funds for Medicaid, overall spending for the health program will be reduced by about $100 million.

Lodge told senators that the changes in the bill will help move Idaho from a fee-for-service structure to more of a managed-care plan.  Her bill would mandate that the Idaho Department of Welfare study managed care options and see what Idaho could do to move even further in that direction.

Some of the savings will come by freezing automatic payment rate increases to some health service providers.  Other funds will be saved by cutting some non-emergency Medicaid dental funds, reducing allowable chiropractic visits each year from 24 to six, altering payment rates for prescription drugs, and eliminating audiology benefits altogether.

Lodge told colleagues that instead of slashing a few programs, bill crafters decided to tweak benefit levels of many programs to blunt the impact of cuts.  “No individual receiving Medicaid benefits will lose eligibility under House Bill 260,” she explained. “Most will experience small adjustments in the amount of benefits received.”

There are no changes to services for children because the state is limited in that area by federal regulations. “Children’s programs will not be impacted by this legislation,” said Lodge.

One of the most controversial pieces of the old plan was the so-called “retirement” of those with disabilities from psychosocial rehabilitative services at the age of 45, when they would have been moved to a less-costly care program. Those testifying on the plan said that the loss of services for disabled citizens would land them in more costly intensive-care facilities, ultimately costing Idaho more money.

By removing that provision from the legislation, lawmakers reduced cuts by about $2.6 million.

The other measure axed from the original plan also dealt with cutting off services for some of the more capable – yet still disabled – citizens in Idaho.  The services are for those who are independent and can live on their own, but might still need some skill-building help from service providers.

The original plan would have completely cut the services to the more-capable citizens.  The new plan will leave the funding as is, which means about $1.8 million less in savings.

Some of the debate against the bill by Senate Democrats centered on the impact the cuts will have on Idaho’s economy.  Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, said that the measure could cost as at least 1,000 private sector jobs. Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, said that Medicaid spending and the federal money involved helps sustain Idaho’s economy.

Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell, said that Medicaid’s mission is not to ward off unemployment.  “Providing jobs is not the role of Medicaid in Idaho,” said McGee.

Bock also said that cutting some maintenance health services will mean more visits to costly emergency rooms for some.  “Why do we choose to shoot ourselves in the foot when we don’t have to?” said Bock.

Sen. Steve Vick, R-Dalton Gardens, said that slumping tax revenues from the poor economy forced legislators’ hands.  “Changes must be made,” said Vick.  “We are on an unsustainable path with the direction Medicaid is going. I wish that we could do more, but this is a step in the right direction.”

Sen. Dan Schmidt, D-Moscow, disputed Vick’s assertion, saying that the plan is nothing new.  “It is truly just more of the same,” said Schmidt, who added that the bill will lead to less care for the most vulnerable of Idaho’s citizens.  “We have choices. I cannot support this choice.”

When Idahoans file their taxes, they receive $50 for the grocery tax credit, though low-income filers receive $70 and people over 65 receive an extra $20 on top of those numbers.  The expansion of the tax credit is scheduled to increase each amount by $10, but a resolution approved by lawmakers would delay that for a year. All amounts will stay flat when Idahoans file their income taxes next year.

The Senate approved the plan on a 29-5 vote, which asks for Gov. Butch Otter to sign an executive order to delay the increase in the credit. The delay was recommended by the governor in his budget.

“This is not a tax increase, this is simply a one-year delay in the implementation of the credit,” said Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian.

Two of Boise’s Democratic senaors, Les Bock and Elliot Werk, spoke out against the measure. “We all know we need more revenue and we have other choices,” Bock said. “This is simply not the way to do it— raising revenue on the backs of the people that are most vulnerable.”

Werk said he doesn’t think there should be a tax on food and that lawmakers should look elsewhere for revenue, including getting rid of some sales tax exemptions.

Another Boise Democrat, Sen. Nicole LeFavour, supported delaying the tax credit. “I feel this is an appropriate place to raise revenue this year,” she said, adding that the $15 million could go to the budgets for Medicaid and public schools. LeFavour has called for rolling back the entire grocery tax credit, which would shift $27 million from taxpayers to the state general fund.

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved a bill Tuesday that would cut state Medicaid spending by $34.6 million in fiscal year 2012.  Senate leadership has indicated that clearing of the bill is needed to help lawmakers end their work by April 1.

The measured passed on a 7-2 vote, with Republicans supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it.

The  proposal, sponsored by Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, is the second attempt to pass such a bill. An earlier measure that aimed to save $39 million was scrapped after House members decided to remove some cost reduction methods from the bill.

The legislation, formally House Bill 260, would reduce total Medicaid spending by $107 million because of the cost-sharing agreement between the federal government and the state.

McGeachin told senators that the changes in the bill will help move Idaho from a fee-for-service structure to more of a managed-care plan.  Her bill would mandate that the Idaho Department of Welfare study managed care options and see what Idaho could do to move even further in that direction.

Some of the savings will come by freezing automatic payment rate increases to some health service providers.  Other funds will be saved by cutting some non-emergency Medicaid dental funds, reducing allowable chiropractic visits each year from 24 to six, altering payment rates for prescription drugs, and eliminating audiology benefits altogether.

There are few – if any – changes to services for children because the state is limited in that area by federal regulations.

One of the most controversial pieces of the old plan was the so-called “retirement” of those with disabilities from psychosocial rehabilitative services at the age of 45, when they would have been moved to a less-costly care program. Those testifying on the plan said that the loss of services for disabled citizens would land them in more costly intensive-care facilities, ultimately costing Idaho more money.

By removing that provision from the legislation, lawmakers reduced cuts by about $2.6 million.

The other measure axed from the original plan also dealt with cutting off services for some of the more capable – yet still disabled – citizens in Idaho.  The services are for those who are independent and can live on their own, but might still need some skill-building help from service providers.

The original plan would have completely cut the services to the more-capable citizens.  The new plan will leave the funding as is, which means about $1.8 million less in savings.

Before the final vote, there were kind words for stakeholders and legislators who worked on the issue.  Sen. Joyce Broadsword, R-Sagle, said that she appreciated how narrowly cuts were made.  “A meat cleaver could have been used, but it wasn’t in this case,” Broadsword said.

Sen. Lee Heider, R-Twin Falls, said that he was impressed with how legislators listened to the public and removed provisions too toxic and detrimental to public good.  “It’s an example of how government should work and I am proud to be a part of it,” said Heider.

Even Sen. Dan Schmidt, D-Moscow, who opposed the plan, said it was “impressive” to watch the plan come together.  Schmidt, however, warned that the bill may not save as much money as projected.

Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, said that disabled citizens who lose services because of the plan “will resurface in another part of the system.”  Bock explained that counties would likely shoulder much of the burden because there will be more use of the catastrophic health fund.  Though he didn’t expound, Bock said the Legislature wasn’t forced to reduce spending and services.  “I think don’t we have to make these cuts,” he said.

Committee chair Sen. Patti Anne Lodge, R-Huston, countered Bock’s comments, saying that other options included tax increases.  “They wanted to tax somebody else,” said Lodge of those arguing for tax hikes.  “They wanted a luxury tax.  They wanted a cigarette tax.”

Lodge said lawmakers did what they could with what they had.  “I want you know we did the best we possibly could,” she said.

The measure now heads to the Senate floor for a vote.

The gang suppression law was first passed in 2006 and has been used just four times to add time to gang members’ prison terms, but prosecutors say the specter of a longer sentence is a useful tool. It allows for stiffer penalties when prosecutors can prove offenders are gang members and committed their crime as part of gang activity.

Legislation approved without dissent by the Idaho House and set for a full Senate vote would add 11 more crimes to the list of potential criminal activity and raise the maximum added sentence for being convicted of those gang-related crimes from two years to five years. That sentence would be on top of the regular sentence for the offender’s crimes.

“It’s a lot of work to use the enhancement,” said Canyon County Deputy Prosecutor Ellie Somoza, who told a panel of Idaho senators that she’s prosecuted dozens of gang-related crimes, including drive-by shootings. “It should be difficult. There should be a high burden that we would have to prove that someone is a gang member of they committed a crime in furtherance of a gang.”

Sen. Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, said the extra sentence could be a hammer for prosecutors when dealing with arrested gang members. Somoza said she’s used it as a tool when creating plea bargains with alleged gang members facing criminal charges.

Canyon County Detective Kieran Donahue told senators that many of the crimes that would be added to the list are common among gangs. He said many of the gang orders in the Treasure Valley come from leaders inside prisons. He also said some sex crimes should be added because they’re becoming part of gang recruitment efforts.

“We’re seeing a lot more of this gang activity where the initiation is sexual acts,” Donahue said.

Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, supported the legislation but raised questions during the debate about whether prosecutors could abuse the enhanced penalty. After the hearing, Bock told IdahoReporter.com he wanted to make sure the plan had sufficient safeguards to prevent those abuses.

The legislation is backed by Gov. Butch Otter’s Idaho Criminal Justice Commission.

Crimes that would be considered gang activity under the legislation

• Sexual abuse of a child under the age of 16
• Sexual exploitation of a childb
• Lewd conduct with minor child under 16
• Sexual battery of a minor child 16 or 17
• Human trafficking
• Escape or rescue of prisoners
• Riot
• Injuring jails
• Disturbing the peace
• Malicious injury to property
• Injury by graffiti

The legislation would let Idahoans without a job receive federal unemployment benefits that can last up to 99 weeks. Congress approved the legislation at the end of 2010, when it also renewed the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. The federal government would keep paying for the extended unemployment benefits until the end of this year.

Sen. Dean Cameron, R-Rupert, laid out the numbers of the plan, saying 74,000 Idahoans are unemployed, with 8,300 people receiving the extended federal benefits. If lawmakers didn’t pass the legislation, 2,000 of those people would lose their benefits, followed by 600 people a month.

Sen. Monty Pearce, R-New Plymouth, voted against the plan, saying he’s critical of the federal government’s spending that’s driving up deficits. “I guess this is our chance to say we don’t agree,” Pearce said. “Somewhere we’ve got to draw a line.” Pearce also questioned whether the jobless benefits could encourage people to stay home rather than go back to work.

“This is not the mechanism to tell Congress that they’re wrong and that their spending is wrong,” Cameron said. He said a no vote on the plan would just tell citizens that they won’t get the federal benefits and tell Idaho employers that they would have to pay for jobless benefits. “This isn’t a message to Congress. It’s a message to your district.”

Sen. Les Bock, D-Boise, said that there could be people who ‘game the system’ to receive money every week, but that the same could be said for other government payments, including subsidies for farmers and Medicaid payments for doctors. “I think we need to have compassion for those people that are unemployed,” Bock said, supporting the extension. “We’ve got families that are suffering. We’ve got people that are losing their houses.”

The Senate also approved a plan to let the state borrow more than $200 million to pay off the debt on its state unemployment insurance fund. The state fund went into debt in 2009, and the state had borrowed money interest-free from the federal government, under one of the provisions of the federal stimulus package in 2009.

The state will pay slightly less than 3 percent interest on a bond, which is more than a percentage point less than what the federal government would charge. The unemployment tax on employers wouldn’t go up under the plan, but the current maximum rates would stay in place until at least 2016.