As expected, the state budget was the most contentious issue during the 2026 legislative session. Conservative fiscal hawks worked to reduce state spending, while Democrats argued that people were already dying due to budget cuts. Members of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) debated whether an across-the-board haircut with targeted enhancements was the best approach, or whether certain programs should receive more scrutiny.
According to the sine die budget packet prepared by the Legislative Services Office (LSO), the final General Fund budget is $5,621,691,000—slightly more than $10 million less than Gov. Brad Little’s proposal. JFAC projected that the state will bring in $5,851,704,700 in revenue from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027. If those projections hold, roughly $230 million will remain at the bottom line.
Rep. Josh Tanner, co-chair of JFAC, issued a press release this week highlighting what he described as a conservative budget:
Through a series of targeted actions, lawmakers advanced one of the most conservative budget frameworks in recent state history, cutting spending, resetting agency baselines, and rejecting unsustainable growth.
“This year, we made it clear: Idaho will not budget on hope,” said Representative Josh Tanner. “Idaho families balance their budgets every day, and state government must do the same.”
Fred Birnbaum, senior policy analyst at the Idaho Freedom Foundation, noted that despite these cuts, the overall state budget—including dedicated funds, federal money, and off-book spending, combined with the General Fund—actually increased this year:
If you were paying attention to the budget debates on both the House and Senate floors during the legislative session, you might think the Legislature made significant cuts to the Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget. Unfortunately, based on preliminary numbers, total appropriations are a 2.5% increase, with FY27’s $14.453 billion outpacing the FY26 original appropriation of $14.102 billion. So, despite what you may be hearing, Idaho’s budget was not cut this session.
The reason is simple: the massive welfare budget increases eclipsed the cuts in other programs!
Birnbaum noted that if the Health and Human Services (HHS) budget is excluded, there was an overall reduction across the rest of state agencies. However, increases in HHS—largely driven by Medicaid—more than offset those cuts.
Rep. Tanner agreed, joining Matt Edwards of Citizens Alliance of Idaho on the Idaho Signal recap show this week:
Medicaid—especially Medicaid Expansion—remains the elephant in the room. Many components of the state budget are negotiable. JFAC can trim here, adjust there, and find ways to save money. But Medicaid consists of obligations that must be paid. Once individuals are enrolled in the program, Idaho has limited flexibility. While Gov. Brad Little reduced provider reimbursement rates by 4% last year, increases in enrollment, drug costs, or other factors require the state to simply pay more.
The DOGE Task Force recommended repealing Medicaid Expansion last year, but the Legislature appeared reluctant to take up the issue. Rep. Jordan Redman introduced a bill to carry out that recommendation, but it did not receive a full hearing. Instead of repealing Expansion—which provides subsidized healthcare for able-bodied, working-age adults—Gov. Little and JFAC trimmed around the edges of other programs, including reductions affecting disabled individuals, the mentally ill, and other vulnerable populations.
Unless legislators find the will to address the issue directly, Medicaid will continue to consume a growing share of the budget. A range of special interests stand in the way. Those who benefit from the status quo will fight to preserve it, including organizations such as Full Circle Health, which sued Idaho to maintain funding used to treat HIV-positive illegal aliens.
More than two years ago, I asked whether society had reached a point of no return—whether a critical mass of citizens had become too dependent on government welfare for there to be the political will to scale it back:
Americans have a mistaken view of the purpose of insurance. Your car insurance policy doesn’t usually cover filling your gas tank or changing your oil, and your home insurance policy doesn’t usually cover replacing your light bulbs. But we expect health insurance to pay for everything, and that desire has led to government involvement in an already broken industry. Rather than making things easier and cheaper, Obamacare only made things worse, and now at least half the country believes its within the purview of government to pay for the medical bills of every American (and even illegal aliens in some places).
Today’s hearing demonstrated that there is little political courage to tackle these out-of-control entitlement programs. We’re going to keep dumping money into them until the whole system collapses, at which point we will wish we had figured out an alternative free market solution when we had the chance.
Have we reached that point of no return, or is there still time to regain control of the budget?
Feature image created with Microsoft Copilot. It’s not meant to resemble anyone specific.
About Brian Almon
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
