Whenever I plan a trip, I always say it is better to wish you could stay longer than to wish you were going home. It is possible to overstay your welcome, and the legislative session should have ended well over a week ago. Bad things happen when our sessions go too long, and we overstay our welcome.

I am often asked whether the Idaho Legislature has the same problems as Washington, D.C.: corruption, dysfunction, self-serving politicians, and bureaucratic swamp creatures. My answer is usually no. Most people in the Legislature truly want to do good for their constituents and for the state as a whole. People work together to solve problems with the goal of moving Idaho forward.

Unfortunately, however, Boise politics can look all too similar to D.C. I am afraid, in some ways, we let the swamp creep into our budgeting process and some end-of-session gamesmanship.

For many years, Idaho’s budgeting process has been something other states admired. Decades ago, Idaho combined its appropriations and finance committees into the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, or JFAC. Traditionally, JFAC would begin by agreeing on a revenue target and then build the budget around that number, much like a family deciding what it can afford to spend based on its income.

Last year, that did not happen. JFAC began approving spending and tax cuts before there was agreement on how much revenue the state would actually have. Weeks passed before a final revenue target was adopted, but by then, major spending decisions had already been made, so JFAC simply gave itself a revenue number that would fit the spending they had already done.

That approach felt far too much like Washington, D.C. Instead of deciding what we can afford and budgeting accordingly, we made decisions first and figured out the math later. That is not the way Idaho has traditionally governed, and I was disappointed to see us move in that direction.

The second example happened this week with something called “radiator capping.”

Radiator capping is when a bill that has already gone through committee, public testimony, and debate is sent to General Orders so it can be amended. Usually, those amendments are small, friendly changes worked out with the sponsor to improve the bill.

But sometimes an amendment is not a small change. Sometimes it becomes an entirely new bill. The original bill is effectively erased, and the amendment takes its place.

The rules allow for that process, but it is typically done with the support of the sponsor in a friendly manner. However, in the last week of the session, a bill was taken, amended into something completely different, and moved forward despite the objections of the legislator who brought it forward in the first place. A hostile takeover.

That kind of hostile amendment may be allowed under the rules, but it is not how Idaho should operate. Committee hearings exist for a reason. They allow the public to weigh in, legislators to ask questions, and ideas to be fully vetted before they move forward.

When major policy changes happen late in the process in an unfriendly and hostile manner, people lose confidence in the system. It begins to look less like Idaho, and more like the kind of political gamesmanship people expect from Washington, D.C.

The only real currency you have in the legislature is your integrity. The day people stop trusting you is the day you begin to lose your effectiveness.

There are good people in our Legislature and state government trying to do the right thing every day. We have done good work. We have solved real problems, helped constituents, balanced budgets, updated laws, and closed loopholes that will make Idaho a better place.

But politics can get in the way. Sometimes the desire to win becomes more important than the way you win.

It is my hope that Idaho does not continue down the path of corruption, that voters will elect people who value integrity more than victory. I hope we can return to the kind of Idaho values that have made this state such a wonderful place to live and raise a family.