Saying “no” is not easy, especially when you are the only one saying it. It can be a lonely place to stand, out on what sometimes feels like the Island of NO.

In the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC), my Democratic colleague Senator Wintrow consistently warns about what she calls a revenue crisis. While we may disagree on many solutions, I respect consistency. But the alarm I believe we should be sounding is different.

The real warning bell is not just a revenue crisis.

It is a spending crisis and a federal dependency crisis.

Sometimes serving in the Legislature feels like standing as a watchman at the gate, seeing a storm coming long before others are willing to admit it. The watchman’s duty is simple: warn the people.

Right now, the numbers tell a story we should not ignore.

Governor Little recently ordered a 3% holdback across state agencies (excluding K–12) for Fiscal Year 2026 due to missed revenue projections. Yet in the same breath, we are told how strong Idaho’s economy is.

In response, the Idaho JFAC passed two rescission bills. One adds an additional 1% holdback for FY2026, bringing the total to 4%, and another applies the Governor’s 3% holdback for FY2027 with an additional 2%, bringing that total to 5%. These measures passed the Senate by a single vote, 18–17 and now have moved to the House.

If these bills fail, JFAC will be forced to reopen and revise the maintenance budgets already approved in committee, potentially delaying the legislative session into April.

Let’s be clear: the Legislature’s number one job is to appropriate taxpayer dollars and balance the state budget.

And here is the hard truth:

Both stories cannot hold forever. Either our economy is as strong as claimed, or our spending has grown beyond what our revenues can sustain. Eventually, reality will choose for us. Numbers do not lie. They can be manipulated, delayed, or reframed, but eventually they expose reality.

And the reality is this: Idaho state spending has grown roughly 60% in just six years.

That kind of growth eventually demands a reckoning.

At the same time, 43% of Idaho’s budget now comes from the federal government, with a large portion flowing through the Department of Health and Welfare. Federal money always arrives wrapped in the promise of help, but also tied to future obligations.

Recently, the Governor and the Department of Health and Welfare applied for nearly $1 billion from the new Rural Health Fund, created at the last minute inside the federal “Big Beautiful Bill” to secure enough votes for passage.

The application was submitted quickly, and already many people have their hands out, like when someone wins the lottery. Everyone wants to decide who will create the committee, who will provide the oversight, and how the money will be spent.

Many believe it will benefit rural areas, but I have already seen bills proposing that the funds be used for medical school tuition instead.

Like the ARPA funds, this money will be gone in five years, and Idaho will have to figure out how the state will continue once this one-time funding is spent.

Programs rarely shrink once they are created.

Ironically, while some legislators push for an Article V Convention of States to require a balanced federal budget, that same body often votes to accept billions more in federal funds, funds that are borrowed against a national debt now exceeding $38 trillion.

Are We Breaking our Oath of Office?

This is a serious moment in our history, and it raises a difficult question: Are we breaking our oath of office when we vote to raise taxes and expand entitlement spending? I would argue that in many cases, the answer is yes.

We often hear the warning that if we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Yet here we are, overlooking the very lessons our Founders paid for with their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor when they fought to free this nation from oppressive government.

Through my research, one truth stands out clearly: there is no constitutional duty, under oath or otherwise, to fund broad health and welfare programs. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Idaho Constitution creates a mandatory obligation for government to provide general public assistance, healthcare entitlements, or expansive welfare systems. Our oath requires us to support and defend the Constitutions as written, respecting, the limits, not to invent spending obligations that do not exist in the text.

The U.S. Constitution’s reference to the “general welfare” appears in the Preamble as a guiding purpose and in Article I, Section 8 as a power to tax and spend for national needs. It is not a requirement to fund specific programs like Medicaid expansions or subsidizes.

The Idaho Constitution follows the same principle. While it requires the state to establish certain institutions, such as those for mental health, the blind, the deaf, and other limited facilities, and clearly mandates a system of public education, it does not create a sweeping duty to fund broad health and welfare programs or long-term entitlement systems.

Closing Thought

While serving on the Health and Welfare workgroup, reviewing enhancement and supplemental requests, I found myself troubled by a message I kept hearing, that we must continue funding entitlement programs that are constantly expanding, even for many able-bodied individuals who have learned how to qualify for them.

Finally, I said what had been weighing on me: “we are either entitled or enslaved”. It was not well received, but it reflects the reality many hardworking Idahoans see every day.

Across our state, there are people working 60-plus hours a week, receiving none of these benefits while their taxes fund them.

So I leave you with a question that every legislator, and every citizen, should wrestle with:

Is it truly the role of government to become a permanent charity, or have we lost sight of the principles that built a free and self-governing people?