READ: Idaho’s Disabled Children Deserve Better

Political Potatoes on Substack: Guest Editorial by Bessie Yeley 2/8/2026

For seven years, I’ve fought against disability discrimination in Idaho’s Legislature—advocating for my profoundly autistic son’s constitutional right to education while watching lawmakers systematically defund services for disabled children, allow special education deficits to balloon, and funnel public money into private school vouchers. But the justifications now being offered for devastating Medicaid cuts represent a new low in legislative dishonesty.

TWO STORIES, ONE POLITICIAN

Two weeks ago, I brought my son to meet Representative Josh Tanner, Assistant Majority Leader and Co-Chair of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee. I wanted him to see the child whose services he was cutting. Tanner told me the real culprit was “able-bodied people receiving healthcare with no cap on Medicaid expansion”—it was their fault that “rightfully deserving disabled children are taking the brunt of these Medicaid cuts.” When I asked how he could say that after record tax breaks put our state in massive deficit, he assured me he “wholeheartedly” stood behind those tax cuts. Then he said he was late for his JFAC meeting and left. Days later, another parent shared Tanner’s written response to her concerns about the same cuts. His narrative had completely changed. He wrote about “unchecked expansion of entitlements,” called therapies “optional Medicaid benefits,” and dismissed her son’s documented progress as an “individual success story” that cannot be the basis for policy. No mention of Medicaid expansion recipients. No mention of tax cuts.

Representative Tanner’s story changes depending on his audience. Here’s why: his claims cannot withstand scrutiny.

THE FACTS HE WON’T ACKNOWLEDGE

**First, these services aren’t “optional.”** Idaho has mandatory federal obligations under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Federal law requires comprehensive services for all Medicaid-enrolled children under 21, including any medically necessary therapy to correct or ameliorate physical and mental conditions. These are federal mandates—not discretionary spending. **Second, Medicaid expansion saves Idaho money.** The federal government covers 90% of costs. Studies show it reduces uncompensated care and generates economic activity. Idaho voters approved it in 2018 with 61% support because it was fiscally responsible. Tanner’s claim that “able-bodied people” on expansion are responsible for cuts to disabled children’s services is a deliberate attempt to pit struggling Idahoans against each other. **Third, Tanner created this budget crisis.** Over five years (2021-2025), the Legislature cut taxes by $4 billion, with ongoing annual revenue loss of $1.3 billion. The top 1% received average cuts of $20,000; median families got $453. Tanner personally co-sponsored HB 40 in 2025, cutting another $253 million annually. Meanwhile, legislators gave themselves a 19% raise (from $19,913 to $25,000) and continued funding private school vouchers. Tanner demands disabled children’s therapies prove “measurable, net-positive savings over time.” He applied no such standard to $4 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy.

A PATTERN OF DEHUMANIZATION

These attacks aren’t new. Days ago, Rep. Steve Miller (R-Fairfield) publicly stated that children with “no future in some level of self-care” would be better served in healthcare facilities. “We are educators,” Miller said. “We are not designed for medical health or mental health care for students who do not have the future of being self-sustaining.”

This is the same logic that justified institutionalization for decades—that some children aren’t worth the investment. I’ve fought for years against a special education system chronically underfunded by the same Legislature that claims “budget constraints” while passing billions in tax cuts. I’ve watched legislators champion private school vouchers—many declaring conflicts of interest during floor debates because they stood to benefit—while calling federally mandated therapies for disabled children “unchecked entitlements” that are “eroding reserves.” These therapies advanced Idaho out of institutionalization. Decades of research proves their effectiveness. Children who receive early intervention require fewer special education services, have better employment outcomes, and are less likely to need intensive institutional care as adults. Yet Tanner dismisses this as “individual success stories.” In his constituent responses, he asks if these services “yield measurable, net-positive savings over time”—essentially demanding disabled children prove their value. He’s reducing children to cost-benefit analyses. He’s implying some aren’t worth the investment.

THE REAL BURDEN

The burden on Idaho’s system wasn’t created by disabled children needing therapies or working families with healthcare through Medicaid expansion. It was created by legislators who gave $4 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest residents, gave themselves a 19% raise, funded private school vouchers, and now claim they can’t afford federally mandated healthcare for disabled children. They created this crisis. They’re using it to harm our most vulnerable children while offering different explanations to different audiences, and perhaps maybe thought we wouldn’t comprehend the word salad of his emails or notice the contradictions between his narratives. Tanner’s remarks are dehumanizing and unbecoming of a state legislator. When he characterizes children’s progress as unsustainable “short-term gains,” when he calls federal mandates “optional entitlements,” when he blames working-class Idahoans for a crisis created by tax cuts for the wealthy—he reveals whose interests he serves. And it’s not Idaho’s disabled children.

A CHOICE, NOT A NECESSITY

I don’t know of a legislator who leaves a respectable legacy on the backs of disabled children. History judges those who justified cruelty with fiscal responsibility while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. History remembers those who claimed some children have “no future” worth investing in and then positioning themselves as some kind of fiscal hero “committing to preserve Idaho’s financial health for all residents.” Tanner and his colleagues are choosing to protect $4 billion in tax cuts while cutting federally mandated healthcare for disabled children. Choosing to fund private school vouchers while underfunding special education. Choosing raises for themselves while making multiple insinuations and comments that our children are a burden. These are choices, not fiscal necessities. Idaho’s disabled children deserve what federal law guarantees: healthcare to help them thrive. What Idaho’s constitution promises: a free and appropriate public education. What basic human decency demands: to be seen as children with potential, not line items to cut. And they deserve legislators who tell the truth about their priorities.