The Wyoming Education Association’s (WEA) lawsuit  against school-choice legislation reveals its hostility to children, families and education freedom. The timing of it is particularly egregious, coming two weeks before money from the expanded Education Savings Account (ESA) program was to be distributed by the state to parents and used for tuition, homeschooling, curriculum and other expenses for the upcoming school year. Schools, in particular, will be hit hard by the suit. Those that are expecting payments from parents receiving the $7,000 ESA now won’t have money to hire teachers and prepare classrooms at a pivotal time. As Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder told Cowboy State Daily recently , “ Left wing lawfare is what they do… But what deeply troubles me is the timing. The Education Savings Account program became law last year, with some changes made this year. To wait until two weeks before the funds are to begin distribution to ask for an injunction is devastating to the nearly 4,000 Wyoming families that have signed up for the program and the many service providers that are counting on those families. This is reckless and our Wyoming children are the collateral damage." Thankfully, there is a vast body of legal precedent that supports an ultimate victory for the ESA legislation and the nearly 4,000 families seeking to help their children reach their highest potential outside of traditional public schools. The WEA claims the legislation violates the Wyoming Constitution’s requirement to provide a “complete and uniform education,” and argues that it means the state should only fund public schools and nothing else. But as research  from Mountain States Policy Center shows, “Uniformity Clauses, however, were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity. Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor.” Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue. For example, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris  that governments may fund any school, including religious ones, as long as it was on a voluntary basis. In 2021, it ruled in Carson v Makin  that Maine couldn’t stop religious schools from receiving tuition assistance as it violated parents’ right to Free Exercise under the First Amendment. State court decisions across the country have also bolstered school choice programs. In 2022, in a similar case dealing with ESAs in West Virginia, that state’s Supreme Court found, “the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of those things.” Like the WEA, opponents of ESAs in West Virginia argued that public schools would be hurt by students exiting to private schools and homeschooling. But as evidence in Arizona shows, the academic success of public school students improved even as thousands left public school systems for other options. The state has even saved  money in the process. In providing ESAs, Wyoming is not funding religious schools. It is instead allowing parents to use the money already set aside for their child or children’s education to choose how to best allocate it. In essence, ESAs place parents on the same footing as the WEA as arbiters of what constitutes a good education. They do not create a new system. Instead, they simply redistribute power from the union alone to parents throughout the state. Interest in the case is so strong that on June 20, the Partnership for Educational Choice , a collaboration between nonprofits EdChoice and the Institute for Justice, filed a motion to intervene  in the WEA’s case against the state. It represents two Wyoming families, one in Casper and one in Cody, that have applied for the ESA program and want to be included as defendants in the case, given how essential they find the funding to the educational success of their children.  Realizing the individual needs and different learning styles of children, including those with special needs, learning disabilities and other issues, it is not only unfair of the WEA to sue, but cruel. Just as other judges have done across the country, the court should quickly decide in favor of the thousands of families eager to pursue an education option that best suits their children.

With the stroke of a pen, the future of the Snake River dams is looking better. President Trump issued an Executive Order on June 12 repealing a secretly negotiated memorandum signed by President Biden that was attempting to set the path for the possible breaching of the Snake River dams. It is damn good to see the current President take a strong position to protect the vital clean energy and other important economic benefits provided by these dams. One of our top priorities at Mountain States Policy Center is for policymakers to oppose any breaching of the Snake River dams  or efforts to reduce operational effectiveness. According to President Trump's EO: " Among other things, the actions that the Biden Administration contemplated in furtherance of the policy stated in the Presidential Memorandum of September 27, 2023, included breaching four dams on the Lower Snake River, eliminating over 3,000 megawatts of secure, reliable, and affordable hydroelectric generating capacity. The negative impacts from these reckless acts, if completed, would be devastating for the region, and there would be no viable approach to replace the low-cost, baseload energy supplied; the critical shipping channels lost; the vital water supply for local farmers reduced; or the recreational opportunities that would no longer be possible as a result of these acts. To prevent these harmful impacts, I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of September 27, 2023." The President's actions drew strong praise from dam supporters. The American Public Power Association said : " As the voice of not-for-profit, community-owned utilities across the United States and five U.S. territories that serve over 55 million people, maintaining affordable and reliable hydropower is critical to APPA’s mission. Physical or operational breach of the four LSRD would run counter to these objectives by undermining essential, emissions-free, hydropower resources. Making full use of the Pacific Northwest’s hydropower resources is key to ensuring that its grid remains reliable and resilient and that utilities can respond to rising electricity demand and extreme weather events alike. " Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, explained : “President Trump’s announcement smartly helps preserve affordable, reliable electricity for families and businesses across the Pacific Northwest. Hydroelectric power is the reason the lights stay on in the region. And as demand for electricity surges across the nation, preserving access to always-available energy resources like hydropower is absolutely crucial.” Todd Myers, Vice President of the Washington Policy Center, noted : " Dam opponents have consistently claimed that Snake River salmon are on the verge of extinction. They have been wrong consistently. Most recently, in 2021 dam opponents claimed that wild Spring Chinook on the Snake River would be 'functionally extinct' this year. In fact, returns this year are slightly above the 10-year average. Early estimates are that returns will be even higher next year." In an era of moving towards more electrification and increasing power demand, it makes no sense to remove a clean, renewable power source. Hydropower is an important provider of reliable and clean energy for everyone in the Northwest. Many dams also provide important baseload power reliability to help a stressed energy grid during periods of extreme heat or cold. The Snake River dams are critical to the infrastructure of our region, providing not only reliable power but also many other economic benefits. Removing these dams would have many negative impacts on our region. The multi-year scientific and public review process in 2020 conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration , which was undertaken by both a Democrat and Republican administration, made one thing abundantly clear: dam breaching on the lower Snake River is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. In addition, Congress authorized these dams, and only Congress has the power to remove them. Thankfully, many of the congressional members elected to the areas surrounding the Snake River dams are working to protect the economic and environmental benefits they provide. The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation noted in a 2021 statement : “The lower four dams on the Snake River produce a significant amount of cheap and environmentally friendly hydroelectric power to the region and are a critical part of a system on the Columbia and Snake rivers that allows wheat farmers, as well as producers of many other commodities, to export their product to the world.” Idaho Governor Brad Little proclaimed in a July 2022 press release : “I have been clear in my opposition to dam breaching because it is not a silver bullet for salmon recovery. Idaho has shown leadership and commitment to bringing together diverse interests to ensure abundant, sustainable populations of salmon and steelhead for present and future generations.”   Protecting the Snake River dams and other federal water infrastructure is pivotal to the Northwest. It is good to see the President among the many supporters  who understand we must remain dam strong for the benefit of our region.

Washington state lawmakers this year imposed a new tax that has already sent tremors through the state’s tech titans and small business owners.  Senate Bill 5814  significantly broadened the state’s retail sales tax to include an extensive array of digital services. Starting on Oct. 1, 2025, services that include digital advertising, website design, IT support, software development, SEO, and even network training will be subject to the state’s steep sales tax, already as much as 10.6 percent in parts of the state. What’s not taxed? Old-school media services such as newspaper ads, TV spots, billboards, and radio. This carveout isn’t just unfair, it follows the poor practice of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. For small businesses already straining with razor-thin profit margins, this tax is more than just a nuisance; it’s a direct threat. Local businesses are cautioning that projects may be canceled or moved out of the state to escape this new onerous tax. As reported by GeekWire, Curtis Costner, who runs a digital marketing firm in Tacoma, said : “It’s just more difficult for businesses to do business with other businesses in their locality.” Others share similar concerns. Scott Foreman, partner at the Seattle-based agency Copacino + Fujikado, remarked : “They think they can milk this cow forever, but cows eventually always move to the greener pastures.” The warnings are clear that clients will simply take their business to more tax-friendly states. Others worry about the broader ramifications. Washington’s never-ending focus on chasing after new tax revenue could be driving innovation, and the jobs that come with it, to other states. By singling out digital services while sparing the traditional forms of advertising from similar tax obligations, the state legislature has constructed a tax code that punishes the modern economy. According to the Tax Foundation, this disparate application almost assures a court challenge based on the Internet Tax Freedom Act, a federal law that bars discriminatory taxes on digital commerce . That law specifically prohibits taxing digital services differently from physical ones. Washington’s new tax appears to do exactly that, with digital ad services subject to a sizable burden as print, broadcast, and billboard advertising are exempt. A comparable digital ad tax in Maryland was recently invalidated by a Maryland circuit court judge who found it violated both ITFA and the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by trying to regulate out-of-state commerce. Washington is now diving headfirst into the very same legal quagmire. Lawmakers attempt to justify this new tax as part of a general “modernization” of Washington’s tax system. They argue that an economy dominated by services should be paying more to support government programs. But there is a fine line between modernization and government overreach. Picking winners and losers is not equitable tax policy. This new tax fails to meet the principles of sound tax policy . It creates additional red tape for small digital agencies, adds constitutional uncertainty, and risks pushing away the very entrepreneurs that are building the future economy needed in the state. Rather than shoring up budget holes caused by overspending with short-term patches that stifle creativity, lawmakers need to stop creating new and constitutionally suspect ways to tax businesses that harm economic growth.

Is the liberty of American health under threat? Are Americans still free to make their health choices? The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement would have you believe the threat is dire, with Big Food and Big Pharma’s crony capitalism pervasively controlling all aspects of American health. But a quick trip around the grocery store combats this myth – apples or Cheetos anyone?   The food and medicine options in developed countries are more in line with choice overload versus the narrative of corporate capture . Americans have more opportunities than ever before to adjust to dietary preferences. Any student of history should recall that dietary restrictions were often pervasive, dependent on successful harvests, political endangerment, and civil unrest.   The American public would do well to remember that they should not entrust their health to the government. The food pyramid , for example, was a government creation that promoted carbohydrates as the base of all healthy diets and limited protein and fats. This type of government-advocated diet promotes obesity and many of the metabolic issues (like diabetes) facing our nation.   Instead of relying on the government’s bad track record to fix American health, the American consumer needs to trust in their own power. The food, health, and pharmaceutical industry do not force the purchase of their products – they meet the demands of consumers. If consumers stop buying products with unwanted ingredients, the food industry will remove the ingredients. If the patients start adopting new healthy lifestyle choices, the medical industry won’t be marketing weight loss and metabolic drugs to patients. Consumers have power in their choice.   Indeed, the American public supports improving access to healthy foods (especially in school lunch) and addressing food ingredient concerns while increasing transparency between bureaucrats and industry. But the public’s concern for improving health doesn’t mean they want the government to “make” them do anything.   The government has a limited role in public health to engage on issues that prevent harm  from extending to others, as in combating contagious diseases. The government’s mission creep into the role of personal health leads to politically biased opinions becoming unofficial mandates on health.   We can effectively engage on issues important to American health by empowering public choice. By offering health education through existing federal programs like school lunch, SNAP, and WIC, we can increase transparency between bureaucracy and industry to reduce existing crony capitalism. The government’s role should be a facilitator of information and an enabler of consumer choice.   For example, one issue of great importance to Americans is improving access to fruit and vegetables in school lunch programs. Leveraging the existing federal school lunch program, we can improve nutritional and health outcomes through education, without limiting choices for adult consumers. The U.S. would benefit from following Japan’s school lunch program, which is a vital tool in combating obesity . Japan requires strict nutritional standards in schools without offering unhealthy alternatives, hires dedicated food and nutrition teachers who engage students in hands-on learning, and adopts policies that bridge the income disparities among students for nutritional access.   The concerns about the government’s new health report should come as no surprise. When a 73-page health report is created by 14 mostly non-medical commissioners (only 2 have medical experience) in less than 100 days, successful conclusions are unlikely. But what the American public should take from this experience is that their health should not be left up to the government’s intervention – it is slow, frequently inaccurate, and often politically biased. Americans still have a choice and should empower themselves to make better nutritional and lifestyle decisions, instead of waiting for the government to save them from the industries that already cater to the desires of the consumers, not the whims of government.

In many places, it is the best of times. In others, it is the worst.   If you need further proof, simply look at the latest moving data from organizations like U-Haul, North American Van Line services, and now PODS. The clear message is Americans are voting with their feet.   PODS watches moving data closely.  And, like other moving companies, it has first-hand experience – after all, it sees the data every day in where customers are requesting units, and where they are ending up.   Among cities, Boise has the 7th highest number of move-ins. In fact, it is the only city outside of the South that ranks in the top 10. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Idaho's quality of life, low tax burden and booming economy make it incredibly attractive. When it comes to public policy, citizens vote with their feet.   Cities With the Highest Number of Move-Ins Ranked 1.    Myrtle Beach, SC/Wilmington, NC (1st in 2024) 2.    Ocala, FL (2nd in 2024) 3.    Raleigh, NC (6th in 2024) 4.    Greenville-Spartanburg, SC (4th in 2024) 5.    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (Not ranked in 2024) 6.    Charlotte, NC (5th in 2024) 7.    Boise, ID (11th in 2024) 8.    Knoxville, TN (8th in 2024) 9.    Nashville, TN (13th in 2024) 10.  Jacksonville, FL (9th in 2024)   Meantime, the number of Move-Outs also includes a Northwest city. Seattle, not previously ranked, shot up to 12th nationally. High living costs, crime, homeless encampments and more have made the Emerald City one of the least desirable places to live.   Cities With the Highest Number of Move-Outs Ranked 1.             Los Angeles, CA (1st in 2024) 2.             Northern California (San Francisco area) (2nd in 2024) 3.             South Florida (Miami area) (3rd in 2024) 4.             Long Island, NY (Serving parts of NYC) (4th in 2024) 5.             San Diego, CA (8th in 2024) 6.             Central Jersey, NJ (6th in 2024) 7.             Chicago, IL (7th in 2024) 8.             Boston, MA (13th in 2024) 9.             Hudson Valley, NY (10th in 2024) 10.         Denver, CO (12th in 2024) 11.         Santa Barbara, CA (11th in 2024) 12.         Seattle, WA (Not ranked in 2024)   Customers of U-Haul get daily lessons in the price of bad policy as well. We tried to book a U-Haul truck from Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland and other cities to Boise, and then from Boise to the other cities.   ·      Seattle to Boise (July 1st) - $752 ·      Los Angeles to Boise (July 1st) - $3,474 ·      San Francisco to Boise (July 1st) - $2,698   ·      Boise to Seattle (July 1st) - $532 ·      Boise to Los Angeles (July 1st) - $842 ·      Boise to San Francisco (July 1st) - $609

When Fremont County voters in Wyoming were asked to pass an initiative in 2020 to dedicate ½ percent of the sales tax collected in the county to economic development, they were told it was essential to job, revenue and tax growth. They were advised  that every dollar invested would return $3.91; 1,059 new jobs would be created by 2028; $30.5 million would be generated in labor income; and $4 million in state and local tax revenue collected. That’s a big deal in this small hamlet of about 40,000 people.  A majority of voters agreed that year, and starting March 1, 2021, Fremont County businesses and organizations became eligible for grants to expand or start initiatives aimed at the above goals. Citizen boards were tasked in Lander, Riverton, and at the county level to review applications and select the ones they deemed most likely to succeed. The respective city councils in Lander and Riverton and County Commissioners made final approvals, which amounted to almost $4.5 million  at the county level from the program’s inception to its close in April, following voters’ rejection of continuing the program at the ballot box in November. Mia Harris, Administrative Services Director for Riverton, said the city had made grants totaling $3.3 million to 27 businesses and organizations. Lander distributed $1.2 million to 43 businesses from 2021-2024. Based on how the money was spent, voters made the right decision in not reauthorizing the tax. So, what happened to the county money? Did businesses follow through on their plans? Did they hire the employees promised in their applications or generate the revenue they anticipated? No one knows. Why? Brett Berg, Chairman of MOVE, the volunteer citizen group tasked with recommending which businesses should have received awards and with monitoring their progress at the county level, told County Commissioners that he doesn’t have the time. He said during a Feb. 4 County Commission meeting  that he had done a few on-site visits, but “I can’t commit five or six hours three days a week to doing this.” He added, “I am doing this as a volunteer and the rest of the committee as well.” He suggested that the County Commissioners consider hiring a paid auditor so that someone could verify what businesses were reporting. He added, “I just have concerns that the grants awarded have been utilized the way they said they would be.” Becky Enos, the administrative secretary for County Commissioners, said they have not hired an auditor to review the grants. A review of the 53 grants totaling $4.5 million awarded at the county level shows many have not fulfilled their contract to use grant money within a year, used it for projects in their applications, documented that they still have money if not disbursed, and followed through on required reporting and other regulations. Pushroot Brewing  Co. in Lander, for example, received $125,000 from MOVE in 2023 after already receiving $75,000 from Lander’s ½ percent program in 2022. MOVE rules state that businesses that have received ½  percent funding “from any source, are ineligible to apply for future funding.” Lander LLC also double-dipped. Its motel and brewery projects received a total of $255,000 from the county on June 7, 2022, and June 20, 2023, as well as a $67,500 grant from Lander LIFT  on June 13, 2023. And then there are those who used the money and then folded. Some of the most egregious losses include $325,000 given to the Lander Housing Authority on April 23, 2024, for the proposed Table Mountain Living Community. Grants were not supposed to be used to pay  back debt, but the money was used as a “reimbursement of design costs already expended.” The bigger issue is that the Housing Authority had “ no legal authority ” to launch the project, now defunct, in the first place. Where was the oversight? And then there is the $125,000 awarded on February 13, 2024, to Warm Valley Lodge Assisted Living Center in Dubois. It closed permanently in September 2024. It asked the county to expedite funding because of payroll concerns. Did that not raise a red flag with County Commissioners? Did no one look at its financials? The county has thus far tried to claw back money—a provision allowed in the law – from only one business: SDT Property Management, owned by Doug and Sophal Thompson, for fraud and breach of contract. Given the late reporting and lack of payment receipts (as required) of multiple businesses, it was surprising to see only one singled out for legal action. A review of program documents shows many businesses didn’t follow through in the required timeline, changed how they wanted to use grants and haven’t fulfilled employment promises. Still, other grants might raise eyebrows for the type of product funded and the fact that the businesses could have easily obtained bank loans, which would have spurred economic growth in the county. Benessere Clinic in Lander and Riverton was awarded a total of $56,000 in 2022 and 2023 for wellness technology. According to its application, $20,000 would be used to buy an Alma Duo , an “in-office treatment that uses gold standard shock wave technology to stimulate blood flow and restore natural sexual performance for men and women… Also, the Alma Duo is a cutting edge machine to address male and female sexual health and it currently would be one of two in the state of Wyoming.”  It expected many clients to travel for a package of six treatments from around the state, meaning the main beneficiaries of enhanced sexual wellness would likely not be in Fremont County. A visit to Benessere’s website  does not show Alma Duo treatments available. Did County Commissioners even review the grant application? Lander Medical Clinic and Western Family Care, which have been doing business in the community for over 70 years, received $100,000 from county taxpayers for aesthetics technology. Those same taxpayers each pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, annually for care through their offices. Did County Commissioners ask them what percentage of county residents could afford their proposed treatments and why they couldn’t finance the purchase entirely through a loan? As Chris Rodkey of Wind River Glass in Dubois testified at the February 4th County Commissioner meeting, the awards “smack of unfair advantage.” He added, “We’re funding new product development. It struck me as odd, to be kind, that taxpayers didn’t get a royalty back on every one of those items developed. If I invest in something, I want to get a piece of the action.” He’s right. Picking winners and losers should not be the realm of the government, in addition to the fact that profit maximization for taxpayers was not part of the law. Given that Fremont County government had no idea if it was picking a winner or a loser because virtually no one paid attention to the financials of particular businesses or followed up to verify whether their reporting was accurate, makes the program especially egregious. So does the fact that County Commissioners were aware of the problems with the program and did not hire an auditor. The other issue with the program is the total lack of transparency. None of the grant applications or follow-up reporting is available online or searchable. Reviewing the material required a Public Records Act request – one more reason for state legislators to strengthen the state’s law and make more documents available online. In a situation like this particular one, citizen supervision is even more imperative given the lack of oversight. State Auditor Kristi Racines should step in to review how funds were used. Alternatively, state legislators could require special taxing districts to prepare a yearly report on how the funds were used and the outcome for them. Residents rightly voted to end the program during last November’s elections. But it is outrageous that the County Commissioners and those tasked with overseeing the programs cared so little about millions of taxpayer dollars at a time of economic uncertainty and when all county agencies have been asked to submit budgets with significant cuts. May Fremont County’s mistakes be a lesson to counties throughout the rest of Wyoming to quash campaigns to raise economic development funds in the same manner. For the sake of fairness and ultimately, economic success, governments should create tax and regulatory environments that allow businesses to thrive and compete on an even playing field.

Parental rights are not something the government gives, and any free society should never permit it to be so. This week, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the landmark decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters . In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "the child is not the mere creature of the State." The ruling was monumental because it affirmed parents' rights to direct their own child's education, protected private and religious schools, and led to the movement of education choice that is helping so many children today. In 1922, Oregon passed a law requiring students to attend public schools and only public schools. In other words - private or religious schooling was outlawed. The law was supported by anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic views, eerily similar to advocacy for the controversial Blaine Amendment , which is still supported today by some extremists. The court stepped in and affirmed parental rights, ruling unanimously that the government had no right to compel students to attend government schooling. The law was a violation of the 14th Amendment. "Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only." -Majority opinion, Pierce v. Society of Sisters The impact of the case is still evident today. It is parents, rather than the government, who are best suited to decide their child's educational needs and school choice. Had the court decided differently, we might not have charter schools, magnet schools, specialty schools, and religious institutions that provide education to millions of students who may not thrive in the public school system. We certainly wouldn't see the advancement of choice options in more than half the states, including Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The court is likely to reaffirm parental rights this session in Mahmoud v. Taylor , when it decides whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out. More broadly, as this discussion from the American Enterprise Institute highlights, the court may need to weigh in on how to apply parental rights to new contexts.

Students aren’t the only ones getting graded this time of year. States are starting to receive their credit ratings to help bondholders weigh whether they are a good investment. Based on the most recent news from Fitch, Idaho is a notch above its neighbors in creditworthiness. Idaho continued to secure the top AAA credit rating (tied with Utah), while Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington came in just below that with an AA+ rating. There currently isn’t a comparable Fitch rating for Wyoming. Here is how Fitch describes its top two credit ratings: “AAA' ratings denote the lowest expectation of default risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.” "AA' ratings denote expectations of very low default risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.” Responding to the announcement by Fitch, Idaho Governor Little said : “Thanks to our diligent and unrelenting focus on maintaining a structurally balanced budget and saving healthy amounts for rainy days, Idaho has maintained the AAA rating from Fitch for five straight years, and I am very proud. The rating means we’ll save Idaho taxpayers millions of dollars on future projects. This is what good government is all about. I appreciate my partners in the Legislature for sharing my passion for maintaining a lean state budget and stable rainy-day funds. Our partners in the private sector, too, have done a tremendous job propelling Idaho’s economy forward.” Fitch shared these details about its credit ratings for Idaho, Montana and Washington. Idaho credit rating: AAA / Outlook stable   (2025) “Fitch believes the state is well positioned to absorb multiple rounds of recent tax cuts and dedicated spending allocations from the general fund, given Idaho's prudently managed budget with significant one-time spending that rolls off to create fiscal capacity.” “Idaho's economy has seen strong growth in recent years. The state's population increased by about 27.7% from 2010 to 2024, far exceeding the comparable national rate (about 10.2%). The state's economy has been diversifying beyond traditional strengths in agriculture and mining, with growth in transportation and warehousing, professional and business services, retail, construction, and healthcare. Personal income gains have accelerated with population growth and diversification, although state wealth remains below average as measured by per capita personal income.” Montana credit rating: AA+ / Outlook stable   (2024) “Historically, periods of strong revenue gains tied to natural resource activity have ended with cyclical downturns followed by periods of weaker revenue expansion. The state's consistently conservative approach to fiscal management has nevertheless enabled it to maintain stable operating performance while addressing spending priorities for education, health care and infrastructure, as well as enhancing its formal reserves. These strengths leave the state well positioned to manage through both the current and future economic cycles.” “Montana's revenues are diverse but economically sensitive given the relatively large share of state-source revenues derived from income tax and natural resource levies. Fitch expects solid revenue growth trends over the medium term in line with historical rates as recent decreases to personal income tax rates reset the baseline for future growth.” Washington credit rating: AA+ / Outlook stable   (2025) “The 'AA+' ratings incorporate the state's very strong financial resilience, which is supported by a statutory requirement for a balanced four-year budget and formulaic funding of the budget stabilization account (BSA); the latter has led to the accumulation of solid fiscal reserves. Education funding poses continued long-term spending pressure for the state given steady population growth and the state's role as the primary funding source for K-12 public schools.” “Washington's spending growth, absent policy actions, will likely be marginally above its pace of revenue growth, requiring regular budget management actions to ensure ongoing structural balance.” Idaho’s continued AAA credit rating from Fitch shows that prudent fiscal management, combined with a pro-growth regulatory framework, is not only a good deal for citizens and businesses but also a good investment for bondholders.

Who knew there were this many things that had to be fixed? The legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington are over. Depending on your political perspective, the benefits - or damages - will be felt for years to come. One thing that isn’t in dispute? Lawmakers couldn't help but introduce a record number of bills in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Washington may also be added to that list, depending on what happens in the second part of its biennium. In Idaho, lawmakers introduced nearly 800 pieces of legislation - the highest mark going back at least 16 years. Less than 50% of the legislation actually made it across the finish line. Higher numbers are expected in Idaho, as lawmakers now individually introduce and approve every state department budget, rather than just one large state budget. Still, the numbers are staggering, not only for lawmakers who work at the state capitol, but also for citizens who try to follow the session and be involved in the process. Making it more challenging in Idaho is the sometimes minimal lack of notice regarding hearings for bills that have been introduced. We've recommended that lawmakers commit to a Rule of Three to allow citizens more time to be engaged. In Montana, lawmakers also hit a record of 1,761 bills introduced, with a little more than half being signed into law by Governor Gianforte. Montana's joint Rule 40-40 "allows members of the Montana Legislature to request an unlimited number of bill or resolution drafts before December 5. After that date, a member may request the Legislative Council to prepare no more than seven bills or resolutions. Unused requests by one member may be granted to another member. The limits do not apply to code commissioner bills or committee bills." In Wyoming, which divides sessions among general session years and budget years, lawmakers also hit a record of 556 bills introduced. But only 31% became law. Washington state lawmakers were by far the least productive, passing only 19.5% of the more than 2,000 bills they introduced. And they're not done yet, as Washington works on a biennium and lawmakers will return next January to continue increasing the number. Passing legislation certainly isn't a contest. And this column is in no way an encouragement to increase the across-the-finish-line percentages. But it is worth pointing out that introducing legislation takes time and resources - resources that are provided by taxpayers (So perhaps a new state rock shouldn't be high on a lawmaker's list). More bill introductions also make tracking your elected official's work more difficult. Some states, including Arizona, California, New Jersey, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana and Montana have sought to restrict how many bills a legislator can introduce each session. Do all states need a rule that limits a lawmaker's appetite for more and more legislation? Maybe. But we'd rather see a self-imposed diet.

Wyoming residents are speaking loudly in support of school choice. In the first two weeks that residents could apply to receive $7,000 allotment per student under the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act--signed into law March 4 -- the Wyoming Department of Education received 3,484 applications, which includes 164 for Pre-K. Wyoming is one of multiple states this year, including Tennessee and Texas,  that enacted education savings accounts to give parents more choice about where and how to educate their children. Other school choice options were also adopted nationally this year like Idaho’s new education choice tax credit. Under Wyoming’s law, parents can use the money for tuition and fees at a private school, costs for college admission tests and AP exams, tutoring services, textbooks and curriculum for homeschooling and other expenses. As part of the program, children must take core subjects and take annual state or nationally recognized assessments. The state is one of 35 nationally plus Washington, D.C., that have some form of educational choice. If the Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passes the Senate in Congress, state residents will have more opportunities to apply for scholarships. The tax and spending legislation would create a nationwide scholarship program to provide money to families in all 50 states. Similar to the state program, it allows parents to use scholarships for private or parochial school tuition, books, tutoring, online classes and other expenses. If passed, it would create $5 billion annually in tax credits for those who donate to scholarship programs. This should encourage those interested in starting alternative schools to prepare to launch. The Wyoming Department of Education is crafting a certification process and will publish it here  when complete. It should also encourage parents who have wanted to home school but didn’t think they could afford it to reevaluate their budgets and priorities. And hopefully it will also spur more people and businesses in Wyoming to consider giving to nonprofit scholarship organizations on principle and for the potential tax benefit. The goal should be to create alternatives where students thrive regardless of their skin color or economic background. The inaptly named Wyoming Education Association, which advocates for greater public school funding – not educational achievement, has criticized the legislation and says it will “ disproportionately harm rural students and communities ” by taking money away from local public schools, as if they are the only appropriate way to educate children. As the number of people applying for scholarships shows, parents don’t think so. Neither do scores from the National Assessment of School Progress, which show that the majority of 4th and 8th graders in Wyoming are not proficient in math and reading. The on-time high school graduation rate has remained about 80 percent, as it has since the 2015-2016 school year. That is lower than the nation’s average of 87 percent, but the bigger question is what do those students who graduate actually know? Nationally, 18 percent of students entering four-year institutions after high school need to take remedial classes. The percentage soars to 48 percent at two-year institutions, according to The National Center for Education Statistics . Remedial courses don’t count toward graduation. According to the 2022 Post-Secondary Education College Readiness Research report  on Wyoming students, “Researchers found that 45.8% of (all) the degree seeking students were enrolled in developmental coursework. Furthermore, we determined that these students were less likely to successfully complete degree programs and coursework and more likely to drop out.” When broken down by institution, the study found that 20.5% of University of Wyoming students were not college ready and 51.7% of students enrolled at Wyoming community colleges were not college ready. Those statistics make it imperative to improve K-12 outcomes in Wyoming. And as research  from Mountain States Policy Center shows, education-freedom opportunities like the Steamboat Scholarships boost both student achievement and public school performance. May this new era of education choice in Wyoming and throughout the United States renew our commitment as a nation to put students, not systems, first.

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte recently signed America’s first law that protects the right to use computing power , such as blockchain nodes, distributed storage, and AI modeling on private property unimpeded by government overreach. This is great news for innovation, property rights, and economic freedom. "Montana is standing up for freedom and innovation," said Governor Gianforte . "With this law, we're protecting Montanans' right to build, compute, and innovate on their own property without unnecessary interference." At its heart, the Right to Compute Act protects everyone from excessive local ordinances and regulations aimed at curbing how anyone, individual or business, uses their personal computers, servers, or other hardware on their own property. There is a clear and bright line: as long as you’re not harming others or abusing the public infrastructure, the government has no business in how you utilize your computing power. The act specifies that any restrictions on the use of computational resources must be "demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling state interest in public health or safety." “The Right to Compute Act ensures that Montanans’ rights to free expression and property are protected regardless of whether they are exercised with traditional means or modern computational tools,”  said Tanner Avery, Policy Director of the Frontier Institute.  “This bill will help position Montana as a world-class destination for AI and Data Center investment.” By limiting governmental restrictions, the act prevents excessive local ordinances that could hinder the use of personal computational resources. Additionally, the act protects against regulations that might target specific computing activities, such as cryptocurrency mining, under the “mask” of environmental or zoning concerns. As stated by RightToCompute.ai , “A computer, like the slide rule and abacus before it, is a technological extension of the human capacity to think, a fundamental human right.” It’s a baseline principle that should be obvious, though regulators in states like New York  and California have already started to target certain kinds of computing  (such as crypto mining) on the grounds of environmental or zoning concerns. Montana is taking the opposite track and opting to guard technological freedom rather than crushing it. AI, blockchains, and decentralized networks are more than just tech fads, they’re the basis of the incoming technological revolution. By enshrining a right to compute in law, Montana is making sure it won’t be left behind in that future. Viewed up close, there is a clear opening for Montana’s neighbors in the Mountain States, Idaho and Wyoming among them, to follow Montana’s lead. Including a broader swath of people in the tech economy, with the opportunity to benefit from their own work, is a principle worth protecting. States that advertise support for innovation, property rights, and economic freedom should act on those values. Picture technology developers being able to build without obtaining permission, when operating a data center in one’s garage isn’t a political act, and where the marketplace, not a bureaucrat, decides which technologies succeed and which ones fail. That’s not science fiction. It’s just smart policy. The Right to Compute Act in Montana is an example of how states can look toward the future without sacrificing freedom. It protects property rights, encourages innovation, and sends the message that the Treasure State considers the free market, not government gatekeepers, the most potent motivator of progress.

President Trump recently used his executive pen to advance AI education across the country. Signed on April 23, the “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth,”  Executive Order implements a federal AI education framework for all K-12 schools and more. The President checks nearly every box that proponents of AI education are advocating for. The EO is creating a federal task force, holding student competitions, fostering industry collaboration, and fast-tracking grant programs. According to the AI education EO: "To ensure the United States remains a global leader in this technological revolution, we must provide our Nation’s youth with opportunities to cultivate the skills and understanding necessary to use and create the next generation of AI technology. By fostering AI competency, we will equip our students with the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to adapt to and thrive in an increasingly digital society." A high-level White House Task Force on AI Education will be led by Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The task force also consists of cabinet members and agency heads from the Departments of Education, Labor, Energy, Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation. Its role is to organize national AI education efforts. The order specifies that federal agencies will work with industry, academic researchers, and nonprofits to create online materials that will help teach K–12 students the basics of AI literacy and critical thinking. A national contest will be used to promote and showcase student and educator AI successes, advancing technology and spurring cross-sector collaboration. Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming all have something different to offer to the national conversation about AI education, and all have something to gain from the federal executive order. Each state has its challenges, but the opportunity is the same: Equip students to go from being tech consumers to tech creators in the AI-driven economy. By matching the national strategy, states throughout our region can make the most of this federal push in some very specific and important ways. Idaho can take advantage of federal dollars to boost its already strong STEM programs and give more rural educators AI teaching tools. Washington has an opportunity to turn its tech-sector supremacy into in-classroom success, establishing more effective collaboration between industry and public education through partnership, apprenticeship, and early career pipelines. Montana, with AI integration, can empower its distance learning architecture and level the playing field so rural students have access to the same advanced tools that urban students do. Wyoming has the opportunity to integrate AI literacy throughout its expanding career and technical education pathways, which have the potential to not only prepare students for college but also high-skill, high-wage jobs in an ever-changing workforce. The Executive Order on AI education acknowledges the need to get the next generation ready for a future where AI is central. The Mountain States region could extract great value by supporting the effort and ensuring that its youth are not only technology consumers, but also technology creators and leaders in the AI-fueled world.

Like an aggressive hog in the show ring, U.S. trade policy is attacking every other participant for existing near its space. For anyone who has ever watched a hog show with an aggressive hog, there are no winners or losers in the fights, just a bunch of bruised and annoyed animals. Since January, U.S. trade policy has been fixated on tariff tax increases, compelling consumers and trade partners to leave the ring bruised and annoyed.   These tax increases are not a strategic tool but simply fuel volatility. In the short term, this policy is not beneficial to America, especially American farmers. Though we may say, “To the victor go the spoils,” the only thing agriculture wins from a trade war of this scale and strategy is spoilage, as perishable products wait for an end destination. Just look at Idaho’s experience with reciprocal tariffs during the first Trump administration. There were a couple of short-term brags, but the failures are still accumulating costs.   In 2018, the threat of tariffs leveraged small improvements in trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, Japan, and China and motivated partners to the negotiating table for a few Idaho products, like potatoes. But most commodities, including potatoes, paid the million-dollar price tag of retaliatory tariffs. The dairy industry faced significant price cuts, resulting in direct payments to dairies. Wheat also became less competitive on the global market due to retaliatory tariffs, losing market share to competitors, which takes years to regain.   Though the president claimed that China paid the tariff bill on products like steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar panels, and other goods, it was retailers and consumers  who absorbed the tax on goods. But despite millions of Americans paying this tax increase, it wasn’t consumers who saw rebates. A few farmers with political leverage snagged 92% of the tariff revenue into relief payments, providing another revenue stream to fuel the unprecedented farm aid, but the relief wasn’t consistent or enough to make up for the trade war damage. This history is likely to be repeated with the President’s new, larger Trade War.     But here’s the frustration: it wasn’t only farmers who were hurt during the trade wars. Main Street USA was damaged significantly as businesses using tariffed goods lost sales, and the entire agricultural supply chain saw economic impacts, including job losses and costs to the average household of at least $300 .   A 2024 study  concluded that despite claims to help the American heartland, the 2018-2019 tariffs failed to provide relief. Import tariffs had “neither a sizable nor significant effect on US employment in regions with newly-protected sectors [and] by contrast had clear negative employment impacts, particularly in agriculture.”   With Idaho’s cash crop receipts down 6 percent  year-over-year in 2024 and the state’s growing export markets ( 14% increase YOY ), market instability from the trade war will be damaging. Idaho haystacks from 2024 are still unsold, while export-focused hay presses turn off machines and lay off workers . Wheat piles sit waiting for movement to ports as the new crop approaches harvest, because planting decisions were made last fall. Most Idaho commodities , like dairy, meat, and potatoes are feeling the effects of instability.   Though the current economic instability will hurt Idahoans, Idaho farmers should have no expectation that any relief packages targeted at agriculture will overpower the economic losses from another trade war. Idaho received 1.4 percent of total government payments to agriculture in 2020, and what was received was pennies on the dollar for industries facing losses.   Farming’s annual production cycle leaves little room for market responsiveness, especially when tariff announcements change weekly. Economist Brett Wilder of the University of Idaho said , “ We’re in this window where people are deciding what crops they’re going to plant. People have to make that decision right now and live with that decision through the rest of the year, even if something changes next week.” With the recently announced 90-day pause, Idaho agricultural producers can only wait and see, hoping the glut of products moves enough in the next three months to prevent spoilage of the new crop.   Admittedly, the aggressive hog has reason to be annoyed at some participants, but the current trade tactic is failing American businesses, farmers, and most importantly citizens. Yes, improvements in the trade deficit, protection of environmental concerns and labor reform, and boosting manufacturing and critical industries  are all concerns of many Americans that need addressing. But, as history has repeatedly shown, tariff tax increases will only cause products and work to spoil as America watches trading partners leave our show ring.

In our 2024 Idaho Poll, a plurality of Idahoans said the property tax was the one tax that impacted their family the most. In fact, complaints about high property taxes have led the Idaho Legislature to offer relief - even though the state itself doesn't have a property tax. The vast majority of the property tax burden comes from school districts and local governments, and that's true whether you are in Idaho, Washington or most any other state. If you want to know who is responsible for the increased burden, you may want to look in the mirror. On the one hand, citizens complain about the ballooning rates, on the other, they vote to increase the rate with remarkable efficiency. Consider this week's elections throughout Idaho. More than $75 million in levies from 24 school districts were on the ballot. All but two passed. School bonds were a different story. Three Idaho districts were asking for a combined $150 million in bonds, and all three failed. Whether the levies and bonds are justified isn't the issue. Each community will make its own decisions based on the information it is provided by the school district, local government or taxing entity. Idaho’s property tax burden is budget-driven at the local level. There is no statewide property tax for lawmakers to reduce. With this in mind, the next step for property tax relief should be a focus on spending increases at the local level. One idea to help with this is Truth in Taxation. To bring more transparency to property tax increases, Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985 . Along with Utah, Truth in Taxation currently exists in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Here is how the Utah Legislature describes the property tax transparency process: “The basic concept of the system is that taxing entities may only budget the same amount of property tax each year, unless they have ‘new growth’ (not just change in value on existing properties) or go through a very public process of notifying the public and holding a public hearing on the proposed revenue increase. To achieve this, as taxable values change, the tax rate automatically adjusts to provide a constant amount of revenue. When values increase, the tax rate adjusts down to provide the taxing entity the same amount of revenue as it received in the prior year. When values decrease, the tax rate adjusts up to provide the same amount of revenue.” Utah’s Property Tax Division further explains : “Property Tax increases require a Truth in Taxation process of public disclosure. Taxing entities are required to follow a series of date specific steps, including notification to the county, newspaper advertisements, parcel specific notices, and a public hearing, before adopting a property tax rate above a calculated certified tax rate. The timeline is different for a fiscal year taxing entity (budget cycle July 1 to June 30) and a calendar year entity (budget cycle Jan 1 to Dec 31).” Before moving forward with property tax increases, government officials in Utah need to first fill out a “ Tax Increase Checklist ” and comply with the “ Tax Increase Requirements ” details under Truth in Taxation. The challenge in Idaho is how to move forward with future property tax relief that doesn’t rely on state taxpayers subsiding local spending increases. Truth in Taxation could be just what the doctor ordered for Idaho to keep the property tax burden in check.

Nobel-winning economist, F. A. Hayek warned us what happens when we trade process for power. In moments of crisis or uncertainty, free societies are tempted to hand their problems to a "strong man"—someone who promises swift, decisive action when the slow machinery of constitutional delegation feels too unwieldy. Economist F.A. Hayek warned, "The principle that the end justifies the means...becomes necessarily the supreme rule...It is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation." We are watching that impulse unfold in real time, as the executive branch imposes, retracts, and reimposes tariffs with the flick of a tweet. One day, they’re aimed at China’s trade practices; the next, they’re a tool to fight fentanyl, fund tax cuts, or create jobs. The justification shifts—but the power flows in one direction: unchecked. Whether tariffs are the right policy tool is a different question from whether the executive is the right branch to decide when and how to use them. A tariff is simply a tax on imports, inescapably passed on to consumers. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress “shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” The question is, what are the limits of the authority Congress delegated to the executive, and should emergency powers be used to implement tax policy?   President Trump is hardly the first to flex executive power. President Biden tried to forgive hundreds of billions in student debt by executive fiat—authority the Supreme Court said he didn’t have. President Obama bypassed Congress entirely, reshaping immigration policy through sweeping executive action. For more than two centuries, presidents have tested the limits of their power. Andrew Jackson, faced with a Supreme Court ruling he didn’t like, refused to enforce it. Even Franklin Roosevelt—whose central planning prompted Hayek’s warning—used “emergency” powers to remake the economy from the top down. The pattern is clear: the more we cheer power when it suits us, the harder it becomes to resist when it doesn’t. A free society must  ask: Should one person hold the power to restructure the global economic order unilaterally?  President Trump’s April 2 executive order  declared that U.S. trade deficits “ constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” The order chronicles U.S. trade policy since 1934 and argues the international post-war system was built on flawed assumptions.   The result is a sweeping justification for tariff authority—and an unprecedented use of the word “emergency” that has already sparked legal challenges .   In response, the president argued  that judges have no authority to review his emergency declaration.   Tariffs are now portrayed as an economic panacea, but when power is concentrated in one person, there is no one to challenge those conclusions. As Proverbs warns, “ The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”   The executive order conflates correlation with causation, relying on flawed premises to justify a predetermined conclusion. There was no argument, no competing analysis, no hearing—just a decision handed down from the top. In effect, the executive branch launched a trade war against allies and adversaries with no vote, no debate, and no public process. Even worse, proximity to power invites the kind of abject groveling that produces arbitrary carve-outs, exemptions, waivers, and favors. Yes, the legislative branch is messy— but its committees, fiscal notes, and public testimony provide at least some transparency and safeguards against favoritism and corruption. That’s a world apart from one person’s gut instinct  driving tax policy. In response to this chaos, members of Congress have introduced the Trade Review Act of 2025 , which would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing tariffs. Without congressional approval, those tariffs would automatically expire after 60 days. Other proposals to put Congress back in the driver's seat on tax policy and limit emergency powers have also been introduced. Mountain States Policy Center recently joined a letter to Congress encouraging action on these constitutional safeguards. These proposals are a necessary reminder: policymaking belongs to the legislative branch. Those applauding the president’s actions because they prefer the results should ask themselves: What happens when the next president uses the same authority for goals they oppose? Imagine a future president declares housing costs a national emergency and imposes a 2% rent cap nationwide. Is that an acceptable use of executive power, or does it depend on whose hand is on the lever?   The glacial pace of our government is a feature of the system, not a bug. Deliberation, debate, and limits aren’t flaws—they’re the point. In fear or frustration, humans prefer to trade freedom for order, process for speed, and law for force. But barriers around power protect us from ourselves.   Separation of powers isn’t a bureaucratic inconvenience—it’s a wall between liberty and coercion. When we bypass the measured legislative process for the rapid decisiveness of the “strong man,” we invite authoritarian rule. Under central planning, economic damage builds, frustration grows, and the public demands even more power in fewer hands—a vicious cycle Hayek warned against. As he wrote, “We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.” We cannot defend freedom with the tools of central planning or by becoming what we once resisted. A free and virtuous society is not steered by the wisdom of one, but by the knowledge of many. If we fail to limit power when we like the outcome, we’ll have no defense when we don’t.

Congress is currently debating Medicaid reform as part of the 2025 budget package. The stated Republican goal is a continuation of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of this year and need offsetting savings somewhere else in the budget. The original proposal was a $880 billion reduction in the projected increase to the Medicaid entitlement over the next ten years, along with other line-item savings in federal spending. Medicaid began in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s Great Society legislation. It originally was a safety-net health insurance entitlement for lower-income patients, the disabled, and pregnant women. Costs were shared on a 50/50 basis between state taxpayers and federal taxpayers. In 2010, Obamacare expanded Medicaid to any low-income, able-bodied adult ages 18 to 64 and enticed states to participate by changing the financial match to 90 percent federal money and 10 percent state taxpayer money. Forty states elected to expand the entitlement, with Wyoming, Texas, and Kansas as the only states west of the Mississippi River that declined the expansion. Total spending for Medicaid was $5 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars in 1970. Last year, spending had skyrocketed to $870 billion and enrollment has exploded to 20 percent of Americans. Medicaid is one of the largest non-discretionary budget items for the federal government and is one of the top three budget spending programs for every state. It is beyond time for Medicaid reform. Spending on the able-bodied adults in the program is crowding out the spending on the truly needy and disabled. This point cannot be emphasized enough. To begin with, Medicaid should return to a true safety-net health insurance plan. Opponents of reform loudly broadcast that over eight million people would lose their health insurance if the able-bodied were removed from the entitlement. This number is absolutely false. The number of people leaving Medicaid is not the same as the number who would go without health insurance. These individuals would still potentially have access to the private insurance market or the employer-paid market. The budget debate has also raised the issue of a work requirement for those enrollees who are able to work. However, even some supporters of the requirement are seeking political cover by delaying the requirement until 2029, when another administration and another Congress could simply overturn the requirement. Also included in the debate are more frequent eligibility checks. The current proposal is twice a year, which should be a very minimum since many enrollees move, enter the workforce, or find other health insurance such as Medicare. One other issue that has been raised in the debate is the nearly ubiquitous Medicaid hospital tax. Many states tax their hospitals, which increases the amount of state spending on Medicaid. Because of the 50/50 match, the federal government then gives states more money, which the states use to give back to the hospitals in higher Medicaid payments. This is basically legalized Medicaid fraud. There seems to be little enthusiasm in Congress to eliminate the hospital tax game. Unfortunately, meaningful Medicaid reform is not being debated in the budget proceedings. Welfare reform in the late 1990s was very successful because it placed limits on how many years people could expect support. Likewise, Medicaid should be viewed as a temporary program and, for most recipients, should be a transition health insurance plan. Medicaid enrollees should have a copay requirement based on income. It is not unreasonable to require recipients to pay a small amount to receive otherwise free health care provided by taxpayers. It is condescending to believe poor families cannot manage their own health care. Allowing them to control their own health care dollars through subsidized health savings accounts or a voucher system would financially reward enrollees for leading a healthy lifestyle and making smart personal choices. Local control of the management and financing of entitlement programs works best. States, rather than the federal government, should be placed in charge of Medicaid. Block grants and waivers from the federal government would allow states to experiment with program design and to budget for Medicaid more efficiently. Now is the time to reform Medicaid and place it on a sustainable trajectory. The current budget proceedings would be a great place to start.

There was a lot of intrigue in Washington state as citizens and businesses waited to see what Governor Ferguson would do with the record tax increases lawmakers sent to his desk this year. Despite speculation that the new Governor may veto these massive tax increases, in the end, he signed them into law on May 20. Though supporters of this nearly $10 billion tax increase package (over four years) will point to many things it's supposed to pay for, the reality is that a significant portion of these taxpayer funds will be redistributed to government pay raises. As reported by the Washington Research Council : “In both budgets, compensation increases for state employees and collective bargaining agreements with non-state employees make up the largest share of the total increases—$1.882 billion (40.2%) in the Senate and $1.899 billion (46.0%) in the House.” While neighboring states like Idaho and Montana spent the year adopting record tax relief , Washington has instead decided to follow the questionable strategy of trying to tax its way to economic growth. Here are the nearly $10 billion in tax increases  Washingtonians will now face (over four years): Business tax increases – $5.7 billion Excise and sales tax increases - $2.6 billion Capital gains income and death tax increases - $655 million Repeal of targeted tax breaks - $385 million Tesla tax increase - $281 million. Expect to see taxpayers vote with their feet in response to these massive tax increases. As warned by the Association of Washington Business (AWB) last month : " It’s difficult to comprehend how state lawmakers could think this is a good time to enact $12 billion in new taxes that we know will hurt businesses, make it harder to retain employees, and raise prices for everyone. It’s alarming, tone-deaf and short-sighted.” An AWB survey of Washington businesses found : "And more businesses say they want to relocate out of state (12% now versus 9% in the winter). Idaho is the most-listed destination for businesses planning to move out of the state. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of those planning to move cite taxes as the main reason they want to leave Washington." Along with the operating budget tax increases, Washingtonians will also be subject to billions in new tax and fee increases for the enacted transportation budget, including a gas tax increase. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and Washington state endlessly raising taxes.

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with Abundance Institute. For states like Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the 10-year regulatory moratorium on artificial intelligence recently passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The committee's decision to advance this pause on state-level AI regulations marks a crucial step toward creating the regulatory certainty needed to attract substantial tech investment to our region, diversifying our economies and creating high-paying jobs across the American West. The Western states stand at a pivotal moment. While Washington has established itself as a tech powerhouse, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana offer untapped potential with their lower costs of living, abundant renewable energy resources, and high quality of life that increasingly attracts talented workers seeking alternatives to coastal tech hubs. What these states need now is regulatory certainty to attract AI companies looking to expand. The proposed federal moratorium would provide exactly that—a stable, predictable environment where tech firms can invest with confidence, knowing they won't face a confusing patchwork of conflicting regulations across state lines. The scale of the emerging regulatory challenge is staggering. More than 1,000 AI-related bills—roughly eight every day—have been introduced across state legislatures in just the first four months of 2025. This uncoordinated flood creates precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that drives investment away from emerging tech ecosystems like those developing in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. Measures like New York's proposed RAISE Act would require qualifying AI labs to hire third-party inspectors under ambiguous rules. If Western states feel compelled to create their own competing requirements, companies would face the burden of navigating different auditors in different states evaluating them on different metrics—directly undermining our region's attractiveness for new facilities and jobs. Even basic definitions aren't consistent across proposed legislation. Terms like "developer," "high-risk," and "consequential decision" vary widely from bill to bill. This definitional chaos creates legal uncertainty that deters the very investments our Western states need to diversify beyond traditional resource-based economies. The moratorium provision passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would create a 10-year window of opportunity for states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana to develop their tech ecosystems under stable, predictable conditions. This breathing room would allow our states to focus on what really matters for attracting tech investment: workforce development, infrastructure improvements, and business-friendly environments. Importantly, the moratorium doesn't block state efforts that remove barriers to innovation, streamline permits, or apply tech-neutral rules equally to AI and non-AI systems. Our states can and should continue creating favorable business environments while maintaining appropriate consumer protections through existing laws. The pause would also prevent a harmful race among Western states to create competing regulatory regimes, which would fragment our regional market and undermine the collaborative interstate approach needed to compete with established tech hubs. Critics have spread several misconceptions about the moratorium. First, it wouldn't leave AI unregulated in our states. Existing laws covering privacy, consumer protection, civil rights, product liability, anti-fraud statutes, and tech-neutral sector rules all continue to apply. The moratorium simply prevents a maze of new, conflicting AI-specific rules. Second, rather than primarily benefiting Big Tech, the moratorium levels the playing field for emerging tech ecosystems like ours. Without it, established companies gain an insurmountable advantage, while the smaller innovators most likely to consider our states are disadvantaged. Finally, this isn't about undermining states' rights. Our states retain their traditional police powers and can enforce all their generally applicable laws—they just won't be forced into a counterproductive regulatory arms race that fragments the regional market while Congress works on a coherent national framework. The AI revolution presents a historic opportunity for economic diversification throughout the American West. Washington can strengthen its position as a tech leader, while Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana can establish themselves as attractive alternatives to traditional coastal tech hubs. With the committee's approval of the moratorium provision, we're one step closer to the regulatory certainty that will allow our Western states to focus on building the infrastructure, workforce, and business environment needed to attract AI investment. While the moratorium still needs to pass additional legislative hurdles, the committee's approval signals growing recognition that a patchwork of conflicting state regulations would harm American innovation and competitiveness. For Western states looking to build tech economies, this progress toward regulatory certainty couldn't come at a better time. If the moratorium becomes law, our Western states will have a decade to develop coordinated regional approaches that showcase our unique advantages—abundant clean energy, affordable living costs, outdoor lifestyle amenities, and a growing tech talent pool. With regulatory certainty as a foundation, we could market the Western states as a unified, innovation-friendly region. The potential of AI to transform our regional economies is enormous. But that potential can only be realized if companies have the confidence to invest here. The committee-approved moratorium takes us one step closer to providing exactly the stable, predictable environment needed to make the American West a new frontier in artificial intelligence. Taylor Barkley is Director of Public Policy at Abundance Institute . Sebastian Griffin is the lead researcher  for the Junkermier Center for Technology and Innovation at Mountain States Policy Center .

President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) recently that will effectively place price controls on drugs that are purchased by patients in the United States. The EO allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain the same or better prices on drugs that other nations have. Although the federal government controls the Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare health insurance programs, the EO simply describes the recipients of the lower-cost drugs as “American patients.” The EO states, “t his abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end. Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories. As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal.” In other words, the EO has two goals – decrease costs for Americans and make a deal. The penalty for non-compliance is that the federal government would “take additional aggressive action” against the drug companies. Let’s start with some background. The Medicare and Medicaid programs began in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s Great Society legislation. By 1990, Medicare was nine times over the original budget. With costs exploding, the federal government placed payment controls on hospitals and providers and also increased regulations on patient benefits. The Medicaid program began as a safety-net health insurance plan for the poor, the disabled, and low-income women with children. The entitlement has exploded in both enrollment and cost, especially with the passage of Obamacare. It is now one of the largest budget items for every state and the federal government. Rather than enacting meaningful reform to these programs, as well as to our overall health care delivery system, the Trump Administration has targeted drug manufacturers to decrease health care costs. Also as background, the costs associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing are heavily weighted toward the research and development of new drugs. The cost of actually producing the drug is essentially pennies on the dollar. To recoup R and D costs, drug companies charge American patients prices that the manufacturers determine to be reasonable. Once R and D costs are covered, the companies then charge other countries, with their socialized health care systems, basically whatever that particular country will pay. Any money from these other “most-favored-nation” countries is almost pure profit since manufacturing costs are so low. It seems logical that drug manufacturers should charge other countries the same prices as Americans pay. Historically, these other countries have been unwilling to pay higher prices and instead, simply deny their citizens access to those new drugs that bureaucrats determine to be too expensive. With these socialized health care systems, the government controls medical access and benefits, including pharmaceuticals. Of course, at the end of the day, Medicare and Medicaid are socialized health care programs in the United States where government bureaucrats, not enrollees, determine benefits. Hence, the Trump Administration feels justified in its attempt to dictate prices for drug manufacturers If Americans want to continue to have access to new life-saving and life-extending medications, someone will need to pay for drug research and development. History strongly suggests that other countries will not be willing to increase their drug budgets and that relying on them to pay more would not be a successful deal. From a fundamental economic standpoint, the consequence of price controls is to have less of that product or service. Rather than heavy-handed price controls on pharmaceuticals, elected officials should look for meaningful ways to reform our existing health care delivery system to decrease costs.

Ever-expanding bureaucracy has become the accepted norm of the United States government. The administrative state’s expansive entrenchment into the traditional operations of government has led to an unofficial anointing as the fourth branch, with erroneous beliefs such as ‘ they make our lives better’  justifying continued growth. But the Constitution’s guidance only recognizes three branches of governance: legislative, judicial, and executive. Life-changing policies should only come from these three institutions.   In failing to respect this constitutional framework, the administrative state must be reminded of its subjugated status to the executive branch and end the regime of governance-by-regulator. Recent executive orders from the Trump Administration are addressing this lapse in civic education, bridling excessive regulations on the energy sector, and advancing bureaucratic restraint.   This bureaucratic minimalism focuses on the essential processes of government, aligns strongly with legislative intent, and minimizes unnecessary complexity in order to grow economic opportunities. On April 9, President Trump signed two executive orders and one memorandum curtailing gluttonous bureaucratic growth. These three efforts mandate zero-based regulatory reform , overturn unlawful regulations  to align with recent Supreme Court decisions, and eliminate anti-competitive regulations.   The executive branch’s adoption of zero-based regulation  will require 10 agencies and subagencies to cyclically justify regulations from scratch  by inserting sunset provisions into energy codes. Modeled after Idaho’s zero-based regulatory practices, the federal government will benefit from a continual review and update of regulations to keep up with changing needs and technology. As the executive order reads, “Zero-based regulation uses the bureaucracy against itself. If bureaucrats move slowly, the default is deregulation and free markets—not the sclerotic status quo.” Agency resistance and slow response times lead to heavy costs on individuals and businesses. This executive order will force agencies to re-evaluate every regulation, justify its existence, and allow citizens a say in holding agencies accountable to the people.   Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Senior Fellow James Broughel said , “The executive order echoes successful reforms implemented at the state level, most notably in Idaho, where a zero-based regulation system with a sunset review process enabled the state to eliminate tens of thousands of unnecessary regulatory restrictions and earn recognition as the least regulated state in the nation.”   The second declaration was a memorandum rescinding unlawful regulations under 10 recent landmark Supreme Court decisions. The recent flood of Supreme Court decisions siding with the American people over the administrative state is a result of decades of regulatory overreach. As agencies stretched the enforceable interpretations of the law and moved away from legislative intent, legality came into question. Recent Supreme Court decisions, like Loper Bright, determined the unlawfulness of many agency practices and mandated that agency enforcement align strictly and clearly with legislative intent.   The memorandum directs agencies to revoke any unlawful regulations expeditiously under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception. CEI’s Fred L. Smith said, “This new initiative goes beyond previous orders invoking typical platitudes about efficiency, cost-benefit and ‘outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective’ by specifically invoking ‘deconstruction’ of an administrative state now largely regarded as unconstitutional and irredeemable."   The final component of the April 9 efforts addresses the need for maintaining American competitiveness by eliminating anti-competitive regulations . The EO states, “Federal regulations should not predetermine economic winners and losers. Yet some regulations operate to exclude new market entrants. Regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation — as well as the benefits they create for American consumers — should be eliminated.”    Recognizing that the American people are more adept than bureaucrats at identifying regulations stifling entrepreneurship and opportunity, public input will be solicited.   Congress is also getting involved in this important regulatory reset. U.S. Senator Jim Risch  (R-Idaho) introduced the "Zero-Based Regulations Act" to cut red tape and improve the opportunity for hardworking Americans. Risch said, “Idahoans are fed up with heavy-handed federal regulations stifling our freedoms.” Detractors of bureaucratic restraint are already fear-mongering, claiming public health and other essential protections are under attack, but British Columbia’s  experience justifies the need for regulatory minimalism. From 1994 to 2001, British Columbia’s lackluster economic growth of 2.6 percent per year (lagging behind Canada at 3.9 percent) motivated the new provincial government to launch the Red Tape Reduction Action Program. Within 3 years of enactment, the province reduced regulatory requirements by 36 percent, resulting in economic growth surpassing national rates by an average of 1.1% per year.     If the poorly corralled fourth branch of government continues unhindered, the result will be economic minimalism, an undesirable alternative. The efforts of the Trump Administration to enact zero-based regulation, remove unlawful rules, and end anti-competitive regulation will work at reining in the overgrown fourth branch of g overnment. As Idaho has already demonstrated at the state level, bureaucratic restraint is the best path forward to decreasing regulatory creep and increasing entrepreneurship and opportunity.