The 2024 legislative session has revealed a lot about the state of politics in Wyoming.
Opinion
As with most legislative sessions, we have seen both calculated grandstanding and remarkable instances of selflessness. Our elected officials have wrestled over big issues, and by watching that process, we can see who is deserving of our support. Serving in the Legislature requires many decisions on big issues in a short period, and it is hard to hide one’s true self in that setting. Fortunately, this lets the rest of us see the true colors of our elected officials and allows us to decide who is ready to make the decisions that will set our state’s path into the future.
Perhaps the biggest thing we have learned from this legislative session is the true nature of the self-styled “Freedom Caucus.” If this session is any indication, they have already lost sight of why they were elected and have instead let their own talking points get in the way of doing what is right for Wyoming.
There are many examples of this, but two jump immediately to mind. First, in a discussion about funding to cities and towns, Rep. John Bear (R-Gillette), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, asked whether small towns in Wyoming should even exist. All of us should sit up and take note of this. The leader of a significant — albeit shrinking — group of state legislators genuinely questioned whether Wyoming should have small towns. He was so caught up in his ideology that he lost sight of reality. Our state was founded on its small towns and communities. Wyoming should have small towns. Arguing otherwise shows the degree to which the Freedom Caucus is out of touch.
The second example demonstrates both a lack of judgment and a lack of basic knowledge about how our government functions. Our state recently lost Sheridan Police Sergeant Nevada Krinkee who was shot and killed in the line of duty. That prompted the Wyoming House to take up a budget amendment seeking to increase the death benefit for a fallen officer’s family from 62.5% of the officer’s salary to 90%. While the House ultimately passed the measure, it was not without opposition, again primarily from Freedom Caucus members.
The arguments against this provision primarily focused on the cost to the state. This is dismaying on multiple levels. First, the impact on the state is about $20,000 a year. This is nothing as a portion of our state budget, but a significant amount to a family that lost a spouse and parent. The callousness with which these members approached the subject is disheartening.
To make it even worse, these members of the Freedom Caucus showed a lack of understanding about how the funding even works. They argued against the provision based on budgetary concerns, but when the House specifically removed a provision to contribute dollars from the general fund, 13 Freedom Caucus members still opposed it. Voting against this provision has no impact on the budget they pass or the taxes that they distribute. All of these death benefits come from the state’s law enforcement pension fund, which is paid into by the officers and their employers as a term of their employment. This fund has more than enough to absorb the increased cost. Those opposing this bill showed both a lack of human empathy and a lack of understanding about how our government works. They opposed this proposal without even taking the time to learn about the sources of the funds. The ideology was enough for them.
These examples are merely reflections of the underlying issue in state government right now. Wyoming has real challenges that require thoughtful responses. However, a portion of our Legislature is more committed to virtue signaling and projecting their ideological stances than supporting the people of our state. They are willing to let our small towns die and to turn away from the families of those who gave their lives protecting our state.
We need people who are willing to consider all the facts, understand the law and our government, and display wisdom and good judgment in how to address our state’s problems. If this session is any indication, the Freedom Caucus struggles to do any of the things we ask of them. They are not a serious group with serious solutions. Maybe it is time to find some better alternatives with a vision for our state, rather than empty talking points and ideological rigidity.
Let’s hope we can all make the right decision in how our state will be led when we are at the ballot box this year.
I don’t think some people realize how absurd and ridiculous us Wyomingites appear to the rest of the country. A lot of Americans think we are behind the times here, but it’s often not the typical, everyday people who perpetuate this stigma. It’s often with our leaders and the people in charge of policy within the state. The people we have elected who have a responsibility to carry us forward.
It doesn’t help the situation at all, when we have people representing us who like amateurs who don’t know what the heck they’re doing.
So, I guess this will continue on like this, with our state insulated from the rest of the world in our protective little bubble. We used to hope that the younger generation would eventually step up and lead us in a new direction. But, unfortunately, they seem to be more stubborn than their predecessors.
Cult VS Caucus
I think we may have a cult and a cult leader in Gillette. Calling themselves a caucus makes no sense, as a caucus is a meeting. Some characteristics of a Cult leader and a caucus leader: Cult leaders are bullies do not listen and believe they are on a mission to help humanity while setting their own agenda. They are dominate and DEFAME the ones that are not in agreement with them. They are arrogant and persuasive. On the other hand, caucus leaders have a high degree of integrity and self-awareness and are courageous. They are, also, knowledge seekers and respectful of others. They are NOT the agenda setters. This thing called the freedom caucus is nothing more than a cult and an obstruction.
Dale Janota
Box 2908
Gillette WY 82717
307-689-4964
The above was a letter to the editor published In the Gillette News Record on April 9th 2024
The freedom act has targeted Wyoming in hopes of taking our everything State and local governments. Do are doing commercial ads on YOU tube. There cost is between 10 to 30 cents per hit. The ad even scared the crap out of my wife who is very conservative. I assume their production cost is well over $1,000,000. It is a well done 1-2 minute religious scary propaganda BS
Dont be too hard on the legislature, theyre kinda busy passing special interest legislation for the Trues.
Again, Khale Lenhart hits the nail on the head. It should be clear to all of us by now that the Freedom Caucus isn’t there to solve real problems in Wyoming. They’re there to practice guerilla theatre in support of a national agenda that few of us Cowboy Staters care much about. I hope we all remember this debacle come election day.
There are some small towns with 50-100 residents that are able to maintain a normal government with elected mayors and councilmen/women. However, there are also some towns with as few as 4 residents that can’t provide normal services – the Sheriff department covers law enforcement, no ambulance, minimal street repairs, no fire department, etc. I read an article about the small town of Lily, south Dakota – population 4 – that formally renounced their status as a town and went back to being a cluster of buildings out in the county – they filed with the state in order to do so. When this happens, the county commissioners must step in and provide services to the new rural residents. I often wondered why Lusk needed a full compliment of law enforcement when consolidation might be a big savings – they have city police, sheriffs department, highway patrol and Game and Fish all in the same small town – however, they do cover a large expanse of land with not that many rural residents living miles apart. Right now its on a case by case basis of when the smallest of towns finally give it up.
Readin and thinking about what’s best for all of Wyoming seems to be a lost art.
Wow, a Wyoming Republican who understands real conservatism! Thank you Mr. Lenhart You’re spot-on about the Freedom Caucus, and thank you WyoFile for publishing the column.
As a UW grad, former Colorado State representative and Denver city councilman, I would like to share my appreciation for your sagacious comments on the Freedom Caucus. This is a small group of elected officials who live in rational-free zone, refusing to consider all the facts when deciding how to vote. You are speaking truth to a group that sadly, is unwilling to listen.
Mr Khale, there is an (old) adage that goes “don’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” But since you failed to clearly articulate what Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 4 addresses – Compensation and Benefits. I will push back on your article suggesting your readers verify for themselves what the Statutes say about how Wyoming respects its retired and more importantly fallen officers. I will also add that although we may highly respect our public safety and military personnel, always wanting to do right by them, government is not the complete solution nor is the typical Defined Benefits program. Many in this state, and our nation, understand the difficulties and costs associated with living and raising a family. Even during 20yrs of enlisted active duty, both my wife and I carried insurance to cover our family. Individual responsibility is a hard subject to interject in this conversation when officers around the state and nation are daily in parlous situations due to our failure as a nation to enforce consequences for actions; or for that matter inaction. You, and some of your followers, may not like those who wish to discuss other views. But as a veteran, who is disabled, I spent 20 years (as did my wife) defending the rights of those who wish to offer an opinion different from yours. What kind of people are we if we think our ideas are the ONLY correct ones. Likewise, should we not explore the layers of government necessary to actually provide efficient government? Deriding a group of individuals engaged in providing a different perspective is a little elitist isn’t it?
Sir, you just described the so-called Freedom Caucus, not Mr. Lenhart.
I can’t blame the politicians when it’s the voters who elected them. We need a more informed population. You almost wonder if they intentionally don’t want to spend money on education.
It has been clear from the start that the so-called freedom caucus was never interested in any freedom except their own freedom to control and dictate to other people. But Wyoming continues to elect more and more of these militant phonies to public office, including to the leadership of the Republican party. Wyoming has become a caricature of the state it used to be, but the fault lies squarely with Wyoming voters.
Thank you!!
I’m sitting here in somewhat of a state of personal shock thinking I might be more empathetic with Senator Bear’s questioning the need for small cities and towns than Khale Lenhart’s opposition. My hope would be this could be a catalyst for a broader discussion as to how government in Wyoming should be organized. This would include school districts as well as cities and towns. Some of the more successful cities and towns in our country do not have separate cities and counties. Indianapolis and Nashville are a couple of examples. Do we need both city police departments and sheriff’s offices, for example. Having and elected board of County Commissioners taking care of local government is all the local government we really need. Here in Sheridan County we have three school districts. One would just be fine as it is in our neighboring Johnson and Campbell Counties. Three superintendents and three business managers instead of one?
Perhaps using metra areas that don’t have more than 3 times the population of the whole state of WY (let alone any one city) would support your argument better.
To the contrary, I think the fact combined city county governments can work well with much larger populations, which, because of their size, have more and more complicated issues to deal with, should indicate they can work well with the smaller less complicated populations we have. First, it would eliminate the inevitable arguments over policy that come up between cities and counties. Second, think of all of the duplication that can be eliminated. Law enforcement, planning, utilities, etc.
Good points. When communications for counties are so quick , inexpensive, and reliable, why have duplication of functions with both city & county functions? Simplify. Simplify. Simplify.
Your article is spot on. The more I read about the so-called Freedom Caucus, the less I like them. Their name is a misnomer as they are not about freedom. Certainly not freedom as defined in the constitution.
So people are finally realizing how goofy the free dumb caucus folks really are? The proof has been out there for quite a while. Welcome to reality, but you’re a bit late.
Well said!
Thank you Khale Lenhart, that needed to be said. Jim Roscoe, Boulder, Wy.
I’d like to thank Khale Lenhart for his insightful, revealing remarks about the inaccurately named “Freedom” Caucus. Mr. Lenhart, a political conservative, is a reasonable Republican who knows of what he speaks. I wish more Republicans would speak out against the anti-democratic ideology now on full display from entities the Freedom Caucus. Whether it’s Mr. Bear and his political cronies or the “Moms for Liberty,” these groups don’t have the public welfare in mind. We all need to do more to call them to account and I applaud Mr. Lenhart for doing so and doing it so convincingly.
Their values are on display with each vote, and they certainly aren’t values of the Wyoming I grew up in. We’re the Equality State, where we respect each other’s right to pursue happiness on our own terms, not the dystopian world of Margaret Atwood that the Freedom Caucus seems to be trying to make us.