Not so
Fact: Marty Trillhaase once corrected my column for misquoting the opening lines of Dragnet.
On July 29,Trillhaase said of the CHIPS and Science Act, “At issue is a bipartisan plan to infuse domestic chip manufacturing with $52 billion in subsidies.”
Of Idaho’s nay votes on the act in both houses of Congress, he claimed their position was “Congress is spending too much money...”
Fact? No, neither statement is accurate.
The microchip bailout started at $76 billion.,Trillhaase left out $14 billion in tax credits.
By the time of the vote, as correctly reported in the Northwest section, the total was $280 billion.
That story also noted the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the bill will result in about $79 billion in deficit spending.
As for motivation, Sen. Jim Risch said, “The CHIPS Act would have had my vote, but Senate Democrats added $200 billion in unrelated spending that will be heaped onto the existing $30 trillion of U.S. debt.” (boisedev.com)
This letter isn’t about being pro or con bailouts, earmarks, or protectionism — nor Republicans’ lack of consistency as deficit hawks.
It’s about the reliability and trustworthiness of the Lewiston Tribune’s opinion.
The label “Opinion” doesn’t excuse misrepresentation of fact, especially not gross inaccuracy regarding the cost to taxpayers of legislation.
I first emailed Messrs. Trillhaase, Nathan Alford and Craig Clohessy directly because a reader shouldn’t have to expend a letter on editorial corrections of fact.
No answer came back and no correction has appeared as of this writing.
Too busy straining at gnats?
Thomas A. Hennigan
Asotin
Big Brother
Coming to a legislature near us — thoughtcrime. It may be 38 years later than George Orwell’s prediction in his novel, “1984,” of government control over what people can say or think, but the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing states to regulate reproduction is spawning some truly Orwellian statutes.
South Carolina is leading the Big Brother parade with S.1373, a bill that would outlaw providing information over the internet or telephone that could be deemed assistance for women to terminate their pregnancies.
The bill, handcrafted by the National Right to Life Committee, would restrict websites and internet hosts (including anyone who posts to the internet) from sharing information that might influence someone to consider an abortion.
Idaho’s radical right Legislature is sure to take notice. Over several recent sessions, it has already passed nearly word-for-word legislation crafted by the conservative, corporate-beholding American Legislative Exchange Council. Now the NRLC bill comes as a welcome addition to its ALEC-inspired docket.
It may soon become illegal, not to mention unprofitable, to speak and write what you consider the truth. Legislators are readying, “1984”-style, their online “ear trumpets” to monitor what we “Proles” are writing and saying.
Rick L. Davis
Pocatello
