This could potentially open the door for states to allow online gambling within their borders. But, in Idaho, there may not be a chance for online gambling, no matter how open the door is, according to two state legislators and the director of the Idaho lottery.

While the ruling may be meaningless in Idaho, it is full speed ahead in other areas. Nevada and Washington, D.C., are expected to start online gambling, mostly in the form of poker. In Illinois, the hope is to create more revenue from online ticket sales, and in Kentucky the governor has begun the push to expand gambling to generate more revenue.

According to Jeff Anderson, executive director of the Idaho State Lottery, there are no plans to even suggest looking into the issue in the Gem State.

Anderson said that if such plans were to be considered, other facets of the state lottery system would need to be taken care of. “It depends on how it would be structured. We want to make sure that we’re sensitive to the brick and mortar retail network for the basic scratch games. And, we would need legislative and the governor’s approval and we have not suggested that we go down that path in Idaho. But, we do support states’ rights for those that wish to do so.”

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, believes that with the current “environment” in Idaho, the likelihood of something such as online gambling happening is slim, at least for the near future. “I don’t think it is possible in Idaho, at least not in the present (political) environment. I would look at it closely to see if it would be something that I would support. But I don’t see, at least for this coming session, that popping up. It seems to me there are too many other issues right now that have got the Legislature pretty much involved and I don’t think that online gambling is going to be something that will come up this session.”

However, Barbieri didn’t completely rule out the issue being considered at some point, saying, “The thing that militates for doing that (online gambling) is the state’s desperation for funds, and their ability to tax those winnings. So, it could be that the issue would have to come up as the state continues to look for new resources to fund bureaucracies. It’s not something that you would definitely want to write off in the future, but I would say it won’t happen in the present environment.”

Indeed, revenues from online gambling are estimated to $12 billion a year for states and their respective lotteries, according to Rick Bronson, chairman of U.S. Digital Gaming. Though, some estimates place the dollar amount closer to $5 billion.

Regardless of the estimates, Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, believes that Idaho should not head in that direction for additional revenues, but should instead focus on other areas. In an email to IdahoReporter.com, Hagedorn said, “I think that the other states’ ‘rush’ to get that business will result in few dollars for them as that market is already pretty much saturated with private companies already offering the same services (many outside the U.S. borders that have never had to worry about U.S. laws over the Internet).”

Hagedorn sees opportunities for added revenue for the state without resorting to some form of online gambling. “Idaho needs to have a revenue source that is not a ‘me too’ type of business,” says the lawmaker. “We have the potential for natural gas production royalties that could substantially add to our state revenue helping offset income and sales taxes in the future. We need to think outside the box and not follow the crowd in how we look for revenue needed to provide for constitutional state services.”

The challenge in Washington is a state tax burden ranked eighth in the nation for debt per capita population and seventh among the 50 states for debt as a percent of personal income. For the coming fiscal year, the state faces billions of dollars in cuts to balance its budget, which follows two years of similar problems.

The state has already approved legislation to privatize liquor sales to save money and raise revenue and is now looking into proposed legislation for the state’s lottery with the same goals in mind – more revenue, less state expenditure.

Could this ever happen in Idaho even though the state has balanced its budget, but with the rationale that the state’s lottery management could be privatized as a philosophical statement and, as in Washington, with the idea that more revenue might be generated coupled with a drop in state expenditures if Idaho is not administering the state’s lottery.

The short answer, according to the executive director of the Idaho lottery, Jeff Anderson, is probably not.

Anderson said that the idea of privatizing the Idaho lottery has not been discussed, and isn’t a good idea for the state. “Our focus is very heavy on the security and integrity of the games, and responsible play. The only way it can work, to quote unquote ‘privatize it,’ which is really more deregulating it, you would have to expand gaming to make it worth anyone’s while. I mean we already are largely privatized. We have 45 state employees operating a $150 million enterprise. But, our products are purchased from private industry, retailed from private industry, shipped from private industry. It’s really more of a deregulation question than a privatization one.”

The Tax Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., and active in federal and state tax measures since 1937, is not a particular fan of lotteries in general as an element in a state’s revenue. It describes lotteries as “poor tax policy because they are regressive, not transparent to taxpayers, and aren’t neutral and therefore distort economic behavior.”

The Washington Legislature has already voted and approved turning state liquor sales over to the private sector, and Gregoire believes that the lottery issue should at least be looked at by having private vendors submit proposals. “This would allow the private sector to show us if they can do a better job,” she said. A number of states including Oklahoma, Colorado and Ohio have also looked into privatizing management of their state lotteries.

Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, believes that the there is no need to look at measures taken by the state of Washington as an example for Idaho. According to him, the two states do not compare when it comes to budget issues, which are a factor in Washington’s recent changes.

In an email to IdahoReporter.com, Hagedorn said, “Washington state has not made the hard budget decisions that Idaho has made and they are now very upside down in their budget process. Like many other states in the same shape, they are looking at some very drastic cuts in spending and tax increases to keep their ships from capsizing.”

The representative believes that the current systems in Idaho are working just fine. “In Idaho, we have two ‘profit centers’ that bring voluntary revenue in for dedicated services, the lottery and the division of liquor sales. Right now, both of those divisions are working very well and providing voluntary income for schools, government building maintenance and repair and the general fund.”

Idaho is one of 43 states that has instituted a lottery system. There were no state lotteries until 1964 when New Hampshire became the first state to implement one.

Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, introduced House Bill 222 during the 2011 session. The measure would have restricted colleges and universities from prohibiting firearms on campus. It passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

During testimony, much was made of the fact that Utah and Colorado allow concealed weapons on campus, with no reported incidents. Public colleges and universities in those states must allow concealed weapons carriers.

In fact, last year the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled, much like Oregon, that the University of Colorado’s gun ban violated the Concealed Carry Act of 2003. The judges concluded that the Concealed Carry Act applies to universities.

In 2004, Utah made amendments to its concealed carry law. The amendments included colleges and universities as places where concealed carry is allowed. The law stated that only the state could impose individual restrictions on the use of firearms. In 2006, the Utah Supreme Court rejected the University of Utah’s campus ban on firearms, citing the state constitution.

Simpson believes that proponents have proof that allowing concealed weapon permit holders to carry on colleges and universities will not be a problem in Idaho given the lack of incidents in Utah and Colorado.

“During the debate (legislative session) we heard all of these horrific stories of what could happen. Well, we have case studies from Utah and Colorado and the doom and gloom scenarios have never played out in those states that actually allow it. So, why do we think that Idaho is somehow different than Colorado or Utah?” said Simpson.

Public officials from University of Idaho, Boise State University, the Boise Police Department, and others have testified that there is no reason for concealed carry to be allowed because crime rates are already low.

Simpson doesn’t believe that’s a good argument. “Well, apply that to a community or city, and that’s what’s happening at the universities. They’re just basically making this policy decision based on a gut instinct. But this really is centered around banning firearms for law-abiding citizens. And I think it’s not a good precedent. Again, look at the comments of those who are opposed to it and then apply them to a low crime area, like Idaho Falls, for example. I don’t think you would see a law enforcement official in Idaho Falls proposing to ban firearms because we have a low crime rate.”

Another argument during the last session from opponents was that professionals, such as police and campus security, are trained and equipped to handle situations better than the public. But Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, testified that until law enforcement or campus security get to those in need, citizens need to be able to look out for themselves. “If something happens and it takes campus security or police four minutes, which is the average response time, to get to me, those four minutes are our responsibility to protect ourselves,” said Simpson.

Matt Dagoli, a National Rifle Association representative for Arizona, Wyoming and Idaho, also agreed during testimony saying, “When seconds count, police are only minutes away.”

Simpson believes officials and universities want to put people’s safety in their hands and have the public not worry about it. “They’re (university officials) basically saying, ‘Hey everybody, put your security in the hands of professionals and don’t worry about it.’ Well, I don’t think that’s good consolation for people who are victims of violent crimes on universities.”

Even with the pros and cons of weapons on campus, Simpson, among others, believes this issue simply comes down to a question of constitutionality. The Second Amendment expressly permits the right to carry and bear arms. Does that right end at the entrance to a public university?

“If you look at this just as a constitutional matter, as I did, it’s a no-brainer. It should be allowed. The problem is, is that people’s personal feelings get in the way of this and criticize me for bringing the bill or whatever. I’m just trying to fix, what I see, is a constitutional issue,” said Simpson.

Dr. Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, a think tank dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace, believes it boils down to the government has the burden to make the case that people should not have the right to bear arms.

Says Levy, a lawyer and constitutional law expert: “My own view is, there’s been no demonstration that allowing guns on campuses poses further risks on campuses. The burden is on government to make that case. Because the Second Amendment secures a Constitution of individual rights, it’s the burden of the federal government to demonstrate when it wants to compromise that right, that there’s a compelling reason to do so, and that what it proposes to do is going to be effective. And I don’t think government has made that burden. And until government does, I don’t see any reason why we should not have guns carried on campus. It’s not up to folks who want to carry guns to demonstrate that they need them, it’s up to the folks that want to stop people from carrying guns to demonstrate that that’s necessary for public safety. They haven’t made that demonstration.”

Photo courtesy of oregoncommentator.com

During the last legislative session House Bill 222 was introduced by Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls. The bill was a lightning rod for advocates and opponents alike. The measure would have restricted colleges and universities from prohibiting firearms on campus. It passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

Simpson has not decided whether he will bring the bill back this coming legislative session, but believes the ruling in Oregon supports his position. “To me the Oregon Court of Appeals is a precursor to what’s going to happen in Idaho. It’ll be a lower circuit court, or ultimately it’ll be the Idaho Supreme Court that will issue a decision that is going to be entirely consistent with what the Oregon Court of Appeals issued last week. The reason I say that is because there is nothing in our state constitution, nor in Idaho Code, that allows publicly funded colleges and universities to ban firearms.”

Simpson believes “Oregon’s decision reaffirms what I’ve been saying about Idaho since I first brought the bill. And that is, it’s the Legislature’s responsibility to pass the laws as they relate to concealed weapons and where concealed weapons permit holders can carry. And in no way can university policy trump state law and our Idaho Constitution.”

Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, co-sponsored House Bill 222 and agrees with Simpson regarding the Idaho Constitution. In an email to IdahoReporter.com  Hagedorn said, “The Idaho Constitution clearly states that only the Legislature can manage concealed laws of our state and that everything else is ‘open carry’ and cannot be impinged in public areas, colleges and universities as well. There is currently a lawsuit between a law student and the U of I now where they did impinge on his rights while on campus and that is before the courts. I suspect that we will wait until that suit is completed. I predict the university will lose and we taxpayers will pay the young man for their unconstitutional regulations. I also suspect that we will have to see some changes in thought on the Senate side before we try it again … but it’s coming.”

Several public officials, including representatives from Boise State University, the University of Idaho, the College of Southern Idaho, and the Idaho State Board of Education testified against HB 222 when it was considered during the 2011 session. A representative from the Boise Police Department testified in opposition as well. Many argued that the bill would lead to unsafe conditions on campus as well as less local control.

One such opponent, Boise State executive director of campus security Jon Uda, a former FBI agent, voiced his concern about allowing guns on college campuses. “This bill is a solution to a non-existent problem with significant negative impacts. Boise State is committed to maintaining a safe and secure environment that is free of violence. This obligation includes eliminating recognized hazards from the campus community that contribute to violence and serious harm. Adding a weapon to a university environment will serve as an accelerant for conflict, not a deterrent.”

Whether or not the bill will be re-introduced, Rep. Simpson encourages Idahoans to read and research Article 1, Section 11 of the Idaho Constitution, which reads, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.”

Simpson points to a vote by Idahoans in 1978 as validating citizen opinion on firearm rights in the state. “That article and section was reaffirmed by the voters in 1978 through a citizen sponsored initiative and voters overwhelmingly approved the right to keep and bear arms in the state of Idaho. And, if you look at the history of citizen sponsored initiatives in the state of Idaho, those who voted in favor of Article 1, Section 11, it was the third highest percentage of support of any measure in state history. So, I don’t believe the universities should chip away at, to me, a key part of our state constitution and attempt to minimize people’s right to keep and bear arms and defend themselves by means of policy.”

That initiative passed with 82.5 percent in favor, 17.5 percent against.

Simpson, while not stating that he plans to introduce an HB 22-type bill in the 2012 session, nonetheless feels that the Oregon ruling and Idaho precedents are on his side. “I fully and wholeheartedly believe I have the state constitution on my side and I have Idaho Code on my side. And, I think the Oregon Court of Appeals ruling is a big shot in the arm for me and House Bill 222.”

The move comes with little surprise since the governor first hinted at his intentions to push for the money at a health care task force meeting Aug. 22.  He warned panel lawmakers that if the Gem State didn’t reach for the money, the federal government would impose an exchange on Idaho and use national insurance carriers – not local agencies – to do so.

In his announcement Tuesday, Otter showed some hesitation with the choice, but said the state should control its fate and take the funds. “It’s a difficult choice, but one I find far preferable to submitting to a federally established insurance exchange, with all the loss of control over our own destiny that entails,” Otter wrote in the prepared statement.

The spending of the money isn’t a slam dunk for the governor’s office, however. Earlier this year, the Department of Insurance attempted to include $2.5 million in federal exchange research money with its fiscal year 2012 budget, but the money was eventually taken out because the budget’s floor sponsor feared the House would vote it down.

The federal money was taken out of the budget by the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) and replaced with $500,000 in state funds.

One of the leaders in the movement to remove the federal money from the budget was Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens.  Barbieri told IdahoReporter.com Tuesday that there may be difficulty in approving spending authority for the funds if they are included in future agency budgets.  “I will be in opposition of a state exchange,” Barbieri warned, adding that he will begin talking to other House members to see if there is support to stop the money.

Meridian Republican Rep. Marv Hagedorn, a member of JFAC, wouldn’t speculate whether there would be move by House legislators to remove the money from budget, but did say he is “puzzled” by the governor’s move.

“I will not stand with one hand out asking for money from the same bill as we decided as a state to sue over,” said Hagedorn, pointing at the 2010 Idaho Health Freedom Act, which enabled the state to challenge the constitutionality of federal health reforms.  “It puzzles me why we continue to go back to the trough that we decided shouldn’t have been passed in the first place.”

Otter, signer of the Idaho Health Freedom Act, has already approved $30 million in federal health reform grants for state agencies.

The governor has until Sept. 30 to apply for the money, but Hagedorn says that date is artificial considering the state’s stance on federal health reforms.  “Why are we knee-jerking to deadlines in a bill that we are suing over?” he asked

Otter noted at the end of his announcement that the state can remove itself from exchange development at any time after receiving the funds, but he wants to have the option of having the money for the program.

That sentiment isn’t enough for Barbieri.   “It is very disappointing the governor is going to take the money,” he concluded. “The bureaucracy (of the exchange) has some serious flaws.”

Note: State agencies aren’t the only ones getting money from federal reforms; see which private businesses and local governments are getting funds here.

The appropriation cleared the House on a 53-17 vote, with a few Republicans joining all House Democrats in opposition to the plan. It now heads to the desk of Gov. Butch Otter for his consideration.

The budget features an overall reduction in funding of about $47 million, with fewer one-time stimulus dollars included in the appropriation.  State spending for public schools increased by less than 1 percent.

The state funds about $1.2 billion of the total budget, which will equal about half of the state’s total spending in fiscal year 2012.

The plan will increase starting salary for teachers by about $400, but will result in a 1.87 percent pay cut for educators and other classified staff.  The budget also appropriates $13 million money for technology upgrades for Idaho schools.

The money just wasn’t enough for some lawmakers, including Republicans and Democrats.  Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, delivered harsh criticism for legislators purporting to “hold the line” on tax increases at the state level.  He said that local communities would now bear the burden of paying for schools through levies and bonds.  “We are raising taxes,” said Lake.  “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

But House Education Committee Chairmen Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Post Falls, said that’s not a problem.  “It’s the community people that should be stepping up and supporting those bonds and those levies,” said Nonini.  He also said that legislators should be grateful that cuts weren’t deeper, given that many were projecting much deeper budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2012.  “This is a much better picture than when we arrived here in January,” said Nonini.

Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, chided her colleagues for not investing more money into Idaho schools.  “I believe it’s not enough money to support public education in Idaho,” she said, noting that legislators didn’t consider any options to raise taxes or reform the state’s taxing agency to provide more taxpayer dollars for programs.

But fiscal responsibility was the note that seemed to win the day in the House.  One member of the budget-setting committee said that lawmakers balanced the budget as mandated by the Idaho Constitution.  “We’re funding education based on what our individuals can afford right now,” said
Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian. “We have the revenue that we have and we have to make that work.”

Freshman Rep. Linden Bateman, R-Idaho Falls, offered the same sentiment.  “We have to consider the bleak conditions we have,” he cautioned.  “This is the best we can do.”

Note: Photo provided by flaivoka.

With only a few days remaining in the 2011 legislation session, the measure is dead for the year.

Interestingly enough, had the measure had time to receive a House committee hearing and passed, it may have won support on the House floor.  The bill has 38 House co-sponsors, two more than needed to win a majority vote.

The bill, which received Gov. Butch Otter’s blessing during his 2011 State of the State address, seeks to cut tax rates to 5 percent.  If the proposal had passed and was signed by Otter, it would give Idaho the 10^th-lowest income tax rate in the nation.

The proposal would reduce taxes rates incrementally in a 10-year period and new tax surpluses would cover amounts lost due to lowering of the rates.  Idaho’s top personal tax sits at 7.8 percent, while the highest corporate income tax is 7.6 percent.   If economic recovery is slower than expected, the state could delay the downward march toward a lower tax rate in order to stabilize budget numbers.

Cutting the tax rate would mean a loss of about $42 million in tax revenue annually.

Hagedorn told IdahoReporter.com following the hearing the measure will not receive further hearings this year.  He says he brought the bill only to enter it into discussions of tax policy in the Gem State’s future.

The idea may not have gained adequate support when schools were cut by $47 million and Medicaid by $35 million, but Hagedorn says discussion about revenue and appropriate funding of government really  misses the mark.  “This is not about state revenue,” he explained.  “Our main focus should be reducing our unemployment rate and stimulating the economy.”  He hopes the plan would entice corporations to relocate to the state because of a lower cost of doing business.

He thinks the tax cut idea will resonate with Idahoans who are concerned about the state’s 9 percent unemployment rate.  “My neighbor is less concerned about funding the commission on the arts than he is with putting food in the mouths of their children,” Hagedorn said.

With the legislative session winding down for the year and no chance to get the bill through lengthy hearings it would likely require, where does the plan go from here? Hagedorn says he plans to spend the months until the 2012 legislation session refining the measure and pitching it to local chambers of commerce and other groups.  The bill will be back in 2012, he says, “with rocket engines on it.”

Hagedorn’s 2010 version of the bill received a formal committee hearing on the final day of last year’s session, but never moved past that point.

Several state lawmakers said the upgrade shows that their budgeting decisions are getting a favorable reception from potential lenders and others in the financial sector. “It says a lot to businesses or even individuals that are considering relocating to the area,” said Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise.

“This impacts not only the way we manage our cash flow, but when we sell bonds we will get better rates than other states … this is good stuff for Idaho,” Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, wrote on Twitter.

A credit rating for a business or government entity is similar to an individual’s credit score — the higher the rating, the lower the rate of interest lenders are likely to offer on a loan.

The improved credit rating doesn’t have a direct impact on the state’s finances. Idaho’s credit rating means that the state government has a very strong capacity to pay off any long-term bonds, though the state government currently doesn’t have any such bonds and is limited by the constitution in how much it can go into debt to borrow.

Shawn Nydegger, an investment officer in the state treasurer’s office, called the rating a “shadow rating,” since the state doesn’t have any long-term debt. The state does issue yearly tax anticipation notes for cash flow purposes, though Nydegger said the state already has the highest possible rating for those loans.

S&P issued a news release explaining the ratings increase. “The rating action reflects our view that the state has demonstrated a commitment to structurally balanced operations during the current low point in the revenue cycle and that it has effectively managed its pension and other post-employment benefit liabilities,” said S&P credit analyst Chris Morgan.

Neighboring Utah does issue some long-term bonds, many of which have a AAA rating, which is S&P’s highest possible rating. S&P has recently rated bonds from Washington state as AA+, on par with Idaho’s rating. California, which has had more state budget woes, has an A- from S&P.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, is the result of several months of work with stakeholder groups, including insurance companies, the Idaho Sheriff’s Association, and prosecutors across the state.

Members of the House voted 21-48 to kill the measure due to concerns that language might not be concise enough to prevent texting behind thewheel.

The bill would have prevented drivers from using cell phones to send text messages, update Facebook or Twitter, or do anything else that would prevent them from exercising “due care” behind the wheel.  Officers would have been able to stop someone they suspect of texting while driving and issue a $75 fine if they believe the law had been violated.

The measure said that if distracted driving caused by use a hand-held mobile device contributed to an accident, the penalty would have been hiked to up to $300 and 90 days in jail.

It could have been possible, however, that drivers could still text or use mobile devices behind the wheel, as long as they were not exercising unsafe driving habits.

The measure wouldn’t have been exclusive to cell phones.  It’s possible that a driver could have been cited for using an electronic toothbrush if there has been distracted driving.  “It’s not about the device, it’s about the change in the behavior of the driver,” said Hagedorn. “Texting never killed anybody.  Their behavior killed somebody. Distracted driving kills people.”

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, said that the language of the bill might not be adequate.  “It’s not comprehensive enough yet,” she said of the plan.  “I don’t think this bill does enough.”

Idaho has two laws to prevent bad driving on Idaho roadways – reckless driving and inattentive driving – but those are both misdemeanors and Hagedorn said prosecution of those could be difficult in court.

Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, a former law enforcement official, says police officers would be capable of finding and stopping distracted drivers.  “What’s happening with the driving pattern?” he asked.  “That’s what the officer would look at.”

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, said that the focus on texting is too narrow.  “If we wanted a true distraction infraction, then we should just call it that,” argued Luker, who said he would like to see a bill that includes distracted driving caused by hamburgers, makeup, or changing stations on the radio.

Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, said that bill is too ambiguous and that anyone talking on a cell phone could be subject to a $75 fine. “I’m totally opposed to texting while driving, but that isn’t what the bill says,” said Raybould, who argued that those talking on cell phones are less distracted than those who are texting.  “Because of the ambiguity in this, I’ve going to have to vote ‘no’ on this.”

This is the third anti-texting bill killed by the House in the past two years.  House members voted down one measure last year because they felt it couldn’t be enforced and another died because lawmakers felt it went too far with penalties.

The money and the exchanges come from the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Three members of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC), Rep. Maxine Bell, R-Jerome, Rep. Fred Wood, R-Burley, and Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, have confirmed that the appropriation will head back to the panel for additional consideration and likely removal of the federal money.

Bell, co-chair of JFAC, said she’ll pull back the agency’s budget Friday.  ”I simply don’t have the votes,” Bell said, adding that she didn’t want a budget bill to be voted down on the House floor.  Bell said she supported spending the federal money on the exchanges.  ”It was putting up a firewall for the state,” she said.

The House sponsor of the bill, Wood, also confirmed that the measure would head back to JFAC Friday.  “There’s not the votes to take the Obamacare money,” said Wood, using a common term for the PPACA. “It’s as simple as that.”

Once the bill is back in JFAC, Wood explained, it will take a two-thirds vote of panel members to re-open the budget, which might prove to be a difficult process.  “That may be problematic, it may not,” said Wood.  “We’ll have to wait and see.” If the budget is successfully re-opened, the federal money will be removed and the measure will be sent back to the House floor.

If the budget cannot be re-opened or the attempt to remove the federal money fails, Wood says there would need to be negotiations between JFAC and other House members to figure out a final solution.  “I think there would be some reasonable people brought in for consultation,” said Wood, who feels that the federal money will not be a part of the agency’s appropriation when the bill comes out of committee.

Hagedorn attempted to gut the appropriation of the federal money during its original hearing in JFAC, a move that failed.  The appropriation faced a fight on the Senate floor, passing there 20-15.  Hagedorn says the same fight would have occurred in the House, with different results.  “I think because the House is more conservative than the Senate, it was very likely the bill would have died in the House,” said Hagedorn.

Another member of JFAC, Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, supports the use of the federal money and will oppose the move to remove it from the budget.  Jaquet told IdahoReporter.com that the move could lead to the federal government creating a health exchange for Idaho, instead of working with the state to develop one.  “Why would we want to let the federal government set these up for us?” asked Jaquet. “Don’t we want an Idaho solution?”

Gov. Butch Otter has supported efforts to block implementation of the PPACA, but supports use of the federal money to create an Idaho exchange for the reason laid out by Jaquet.  “Unless the law is changed, currently as it’s written, if we don’t go ahead and do this, the feds can go ahead and do it for us,” Jon Hanian, the governor’s spokesman, told IdahoReporter.com Thursday.

Otter signed the Idaho Health Freedom Act last year, a law that authorized the state’s attorney general to sue over a part of the PPACA that requires citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government.  Idaho and the 20 other participants in the case won the first round in court, with a federal judge ruling that the PPACA is wholly unconstitutional, but the administration of President Barack Obama has plans to appeal the judgment.

Jaquet says Idaho should use the funds to move forward with exchange implementation while the court battle is sorted out.  “We can’t walk away from this and think that it will go away while we litigate,” said Jaquet.  “Litigation takes time.”