Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) – the nation’s fastest-growing free market think tank – is proud to announce that Rob Natelson has joined the organization as Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence. One of America’s most respected constitutional scholars, his addition represents a major advance for MSPC and significantly expands the organization’s legal and constitutional research capacity. Natelson is widely known for his pioneering work on the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. For 23 years, he served as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, where he taught Constitutional Law and became a national authority on the framing and ratification of the Constitution. His research is distinguished by extensive use of Founding-Era sources often overlooked by other scholars, leading to important discoveries about key constitutional provisions. His scholarship has been featured by many of the nation’s most prestigious academic publishers, including Cambridge University Press, the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and the Texas Law Review. Among his many scholarly “firsts”: He created The Scholarship of the Original Understanding of the Constitution , the first online guide to originalist research. He assembled the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Montana Constitution , the first organized online or print collection of materials presented to 1972 Montana constitutional ratifiers. He and his daughter Rebecca published the first complete Internet editions of Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis, the foundational collection of Roman law. “Rob Natelson’s depth of knowledge and national reputation elevate MSPC’s work to a new level,” said Chris Cargill, President & CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “His rigorous approach to constitutional scholarship and unmatched understanding of our nation’s founding principles will strengthen our policy research and expand our influence across the region and the country.” Natelson’s expertise is rooted not only in scholarship but also in extensive real-world experience. Before entering academia, he practiced law in two states, operated two businesses, and wrote a real estate law column for the Rocky Mountain News . He later hosted Montana’s first statewide commercial radio talk show, became one of the state’s most recognized political voices, led the most successful petition referendum drive in Montana history, contributed to multiple legislative reforms, and was the runner-up in the 2000 Montana gubernatorial primary. Outside of his work, he enjoys hiking and skiing with his wife and three daughters in the Rocky Mountain outdoors. With Natelson’s addition, MSPC further solidifies its role as a leading voice for sound public policy and constitutional understanding across the Mountain West. Mountain States Policy Center is an independent, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to free-market solutions, individual liberty, and government accountability. Learn more at mountainstatespolicy.org .

If you have ever wondered how many warning flares Washington policymakers need before they stop piling new taxes on employers, the answer is always, “At least one more.” An Association of Washington Business (AWB) survey  of more than 400 employers is just the latest indicator that Washington’s tax climate is stifling confidence, investment, and growth. Sixty-five percent of employers now list taxes as their top concern, up from 58 percent just months ago. Roughly three out of four businesses say they’ve been hit directly by the recent sales tax on services or B&O tax increases. More than half are raising prices because of it. The rest are just absorbing the blow and hoping things calm down. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Over the last several decades, Washington has slow-walked itself into one of the most punitive, unpredictable employment and tax environments in the country. The state also boasts the nation’s highest minimum wage, highest overtime-exempt salary threshold, and a punishing gross receipts tax that functions like a 15-plus percent corporate income tax  — far above anything other states impose. Employers also face some of the highest unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation costs in the nation, mandatory paid sick leave, and payroll taxes for both paid family and medical leave, not to mention the state’s one-of-a-kind long-term care program. It ’s no surprise that Forbes ranks Washington dead last  for business survival at 59.2% (meaning nearly 40% of businesses fail) and 48 th  for starting a business. Those rankings were established before  the state’s record $9 billion business tax package  was rammed through the legislature last spring—at least part of which was arguably illegal .  After Washington’s capital gains income tax proved insufficient to satiate revenue demand, the majority party floated a wealth tax during the 2025 legislative session (which failed—for now), but businesses with their ear to the ground also expect a general income tax in place by 2030. The tax avalanche isn’t Washington’s only problem. Employers are also wrestling with rising health care costs, renewed inflation, regulatory burdens, and ongoing tariff impacts. According to the AWB survey, 52 percent of employers say tariffs are raising their input costs. Nearly two-thirds of those affected report significant cost increases, and almost a third still face supply-chain disruptions. It's no wonder employers are losing faith in Washington’s economic direction. Only 14 percent of employers plan to expand in Washington, down from 23 percent a year ago. The share of businesses describing the state economy as weak jumped from 17 percent to 28 percent. Expectations of a recession climbed from 32 percent to 41 percent in one quarter. None of this should surprise anyone who has watched Washington’s tax debates over the last decade. Each legislative session brings a new attempt to layer another tax on employers: capital gains income taxes dressed up as excise taxes, wealth taxes, payroll taxes, digital ad taxes, local income taxes, and endless rate increases to the B&O system. The playbook is always the same: Pick a politically convenient industry, claim the tax is “modest,” promise it won’t expand, and insist that businesses won’t really feel it. But the AWB survey shows that’s not true. Businesses are feeling it. Businesses are leaving. Businesses are failing . When three-quarters of employers report getting hit by new taxes and only three in five businesses are surviving the state’s economic climate, lawmakers ought to concede that the state is not on the path to prosperity. Businesses can eventually adjust to tax changes or complex rules, but they cannot plan for a government that keeps shifting the tax base, redefining key terms, and ignoring constitutional guardrails every year. The capital gains income tax made the pattern obvious, and the digital ad tax and ongoing campaigns for income and wealth taxes only reinforce it. If lawmakers want a healthy economy, the first step is to stop treating employers like adversaries. The second is to quit using the tax code as a laboratory for every economically suspect experiment that wanders out of Seattle. The businesses that generate our state’s economic prosperity have spoken clearly. Taxes are too high; regulations are too heavy; and the cost of doing business is becoming prohibitive. If lawmakers insist on repeating the same mistakes, they shouldn’t feign shock when businesses stop expanding, stop hiring, or simply move to another state. The upcoming legislative session is a flash point. Washington can either break this cycle of never-ending tax increases or double down on it. If lawmakers truly care about affordability, competitiveness, and opportunity, the path is obvious. Stop making Washington unaffordable for the people who create its jobs.

On November 5, a federal district court decided Thompson v. Masterson . The decision may put to rest objections in the Montana legislature to calling for a “convention of states” to address the federal government’s dysfunction.   To understand why, let’s start with some history:   The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention recognized that America needed more powerful federal institutions. But they also recognized that power can be abused and misused. So they inserted checks and balances in the Constitution. One of them allows the states to amend the document without interference from federal politicians and bureaucrats. Without this procedure, the American public likely would have rejected the Constitution.   The procedure works like this: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (now 34 of 50) pass resolutions requiring Congress to call a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” Most of the Founders expected the resolutions to limit the convention to prescribed topics.   The convention then decides whether to propose one or more amendments. If it does so, the states then decide whether or not to ratify them. Three-fourths of the states (38 of 50) must approve before the amendment becomes law.   This gathering is a kind of “ convention of the states ” because it is composed of state delegations and each state has one vote. Montana has as much say at the convention as California or New York.   Most state legislatures have passed convention resolutions, because they understand that the federal government needs reform. State lawmakers who regularly balance their budgets, for example, recognize that Congress should do the same. The most popular topics in the current resolutions are term limits and fiscal restraint.   Montanans—more than most Americans—know that the federal government is not working well. Indeed, back in 1947, it was the Montana legislature’s resolution that helped secure the 22 nd  Amendment, limiting the President to two terms. But the Montana legislature has not asked for a convention to address the federal government’s current problems.   Objections   The reason for the hesitation is uncertainty sown by anti-convention propaganda, disseminated by special interests and by fringe groups on both the far left and far right.   The propaganda includes the claims that we don’t know how a convention would be chosen or how it would work, that the conclave might exceed its authority, and that the judiciary would not protect the process because amendment cases are “non-justiciable.”   Yet all of these claims are provably false . The courts regularly decide  amendments cases. In doing so, they impose uniform federal rules on the procedure. And those rules are based on the Founders’ understanding and on historical practice .   The Newest Case   In 1974, convention opponents sponsored a change in the Kansas Constitution prohibiting the legislature from calling for an amendments convention unless two-thirds of each legislative house voted for it. This provision violated several Supreme Court rulings, but that didn’t stop convention opponents.            In Thompson v. Masterson , opponents argued that the judge should dismiss the case because amendment law was “non-justiciable.” But the judge, following case precedent, ruled that amendment issues are perfectly justiciable.   Opponents further argued that the state could alter the uniform federal rules governing amendments with a rule of its own. But the judge, again following precedent, held that uniform federal law applied.   In addition to existing precedents, the judge’s decision conformed to historical practice and the Founders’ understanding.   The decision in Thompson v. Masterson reminds us that the convention process is perfectly usable and perfectly understandable. It also reminds us that state lawmakers have a constitutional obligation to help fix federal dysfunction.   Montana lawmakers: Please take note.

Whether and where to attend college can be a life-changing decision with significant impacts on an individual's future job opportunities and potential debt liabilities. Students, parents, and policymakers all have a vested interest in ensuring the return on investment is worth the considerable expense.  This is why there's  a need for states to focus on performance-based funding formulas for higher education. States across the country currently differ on their ap proach to funding higher education institutions. Some formulas are based on enrollment numbers, and others have a minimum number that their funding cannot go below. In recent years, there has been a push towards using performance-based formulas. In 2023, Texas and Tennessee decided to reward their institutions based on achieving performance metrics rather than supporting subpar outcomes. This means they are funded based on outcomes such as certificates, degrees, and credits earned. The aim of this is to prepare students for the workforce. Idaho’s higher education institutions are currently providing funding based on enrollment instead of outcomes. Some state lawmakers are looking to change that.   Idaho Representative Wendy Horman, the co-chair of the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee (JFAC), stated earlier this year that using outcome-based funding means “ rewarding  people who are succeeding and improving and demonstrating growth.”   Representative Steven Miller also noted that colleges and universities are going “to have to relearn how to do business … they’re going to have to reshape, and if they don’t understand that they are going to suffer losses one way or another.” He further explained, “A college or university’s ultimate goal should be to help students graduate at the lowest cost possible while still ensuring they enter the workforce and find the best opportunity. If the institutions want to do other things, they need to figure out how to finance those other things.”   There are three basic approaches that policymakers in the U.S.  have taken for higher education funding formulas . The enrollment-based model looks at the headcount of students at the institution and budgets accordingly. There is usually a base number per student, and that number will fluctuate  by year. The base-adjusted formula uses a mechanism to make sure that university funding doesn’t drop below a certain point or retain a minimum share of funding. The performance-based model looks at certain outcomes and provides funding based on objectives that policymakers want the university to achieve. 32 states currently use some type of performance funding approa ch. Obviously, some formulas can mix multiple approaches, but for the most part, they can be separated into those subtypes. Idaho currently uses the enrollment-based approach.    During the last 15 years, there has been an increased use of performance-based funding formulas across the country for higher education. Taxpayers want to fund institutions that are effective. Some educational data can be subjective in the qualitative sense, but there are plenty of quantitative, objective, and measurable outcomes for higher education institutions.   There are different ways to implement a performance-based model, but a popular metric to consider is post-graduation job placements. While this data may be hard and time-consuming to find, this is a great marker for the public to gauge an institution’s effectiveness. Budget writers can also reward schools with funding if they provide training for jobs in high-demand areas or in developing fields. A simple way to think about it is that the state must determine the true purpose of the institution and then incentivize its higher education institutions to meet that purpose.    Overall, the national data shows that performance-based formulas make a positive impact on the job market and degree completions. Indiana is a great example of this. The Hoosier State initially started with 1% of higher education funding being allocated through outcome metrics, to eventually reach 6%. During this time, there was a 22% degree completion rate for “high-impact degrees.” After adopting performance-based funding metrics, Florida’s four-year higher education graduation rate increased by 14.5% from the 2009-2013 period to the 2016-2020 period. Competitive higher education institutions focused on meeting performance-based outcomes are what Idaho deserves. To ensure that taxpayers, parents, and students achieve a strong return for their considerable investment, the Gem State should use performance-based funding for higher education. Other states across the nation have realized the benefits of a performance-based funding model, and Idaho should join them in promoting accountability, transparency, and efficiency for its higher education system.

Hope and optimism versus doom and gloom. Excitement for the future versus tired arguments over the past. Angry attendees at a parental choice town hall meeting in Pocatello repeatedly yelled at panelists and prevented parents from asking questions. From Coeur d’Alene to Pocatello, hundreds of parents have been turning out for the Idaho Kids Win town halls to learn more about the state’s new parental choice tax credit, armed with a desire to improve the educational outcomes for their kids. These are moms and dads who work hard, juggle bills, and make daily sacrifices because they care deeply about their children’s education. They come with questions—good ones. They come to listen, to understand, and to figure out what this new program might mean for their families. Unfortunately, a very different group is showing up too. They aren’t coming to listen. They are there to agitate. While parents sit patiently with notebooks and questions in hand, the activists sit waiting for their next opportunity to jeer, interrupt, or hijack the microphone. The difference between the two groups couldn’t be clearer: one wants answers, the other wants a scene. One Idaho mother of four described walking into a meeting hopeful—grateful, even—for the chance to ask questions and bring accurate information back to other families at her school. Instead, she found a room where a handful of loud voices seemed determined to make sure no one else could speak. When panelists affirmed that parents know best what their children need, some activists openly groaned or even yelled. One even said, “parents are just not smart enough.” That statement alone reveals everything: these folks aren’t there for constructive dialogue. They don’t believe parents are capable of making decisions, and they resent that the conversation includes them at all. Meanwhile, real parents—like the one who told me she wanted to ask a question but felt intense pressure from activists nearby to stay quiet—are being intimidated into silence. Another parent walked away believing she wouldn’t be allowed to speak at all. That is unacceptable. At the Pocatello town hall, one attendee openly complained that parent questions would come before her prepared political statements. Think about that for a moment. A meeting designed to help families understand a program meant  for families  somehow became offensive to someone who showed up not to learn, but to give a speech. Parents want clarity. Activists want a stage. Parents want help navigating their children’s needs. Activists want a viral moment. Parents want facts about how the program works. Activists want to grill legislators with gotcha questions and then deride them for not playing along. Most parents are grateful for these opportunities. Most families leave feeling even more determined to participate. But there are some parents who leave feeling discouraged, believing their voices don’t matter. Others felt they couldn’t speak freely without angering the activists around them. Instead of community dialogue, they faced hostility. Instead of clarity, they encountered chaos. And that chaos serves only one purpose: to prevent families from getting help. And to prevent any change in the educational landscape of the state. The Parental Choice Tax Credit program was designed to give parents options—especially parents who have struggled to find the right learning environment for their children. Whether you support the program or oppose it, silencing parents at events created  for them  should never be acceptable. Idaho is a place where we pride ourselves on neighbors helping neighbors, on civil debate, and on respecting one another—even when we disagree. But what we’ve seen at some of these town halls is the opposite: intimidation, hostility, and contempt toward parents who simply want information. Parents should not need courage to ask a question about their child’s education. They should not have to endure someone telling them they’re “not smart enough” to make decisions for their own kids. And they certainly should not be pressured into silence by activists whose goal is to shut down discussion rather than contribute to it. The families showing up at these events deserve better. They deserve respect. They deserve the right to speak freely. And they deserve answers—real answers, not shouting matches or political theater. A small group of agitators may be determined to intimidate parents, but the rest of Idaho shouldn’t let them. These meetings belong to families. The conversation belongs to the community. And the future belongs to the children whose education is at stake, not the adults who believe their political interests should come first.

Teachers’ unions are known for filing lawsuits against school choice, and as expected, on September 26, 2025, a committee led by the Idaho Education Association (IEA) filed suit with the Idaho Supreme Court, asking justices to declare a Writ of Prohibition to prevent House Bill 93’s Parental Choice Tax Credit from opening on January 15, 2026 . ​ On November 10, 2025, Mountain States Policy Center filed an amicus brief addressing the IEA’s claims with national case law analysis demonstrating that HB 93 is a constitutionally sound program that serves a legitimate public purpose benefitting Idahoans.   ​We have a strong interest in ensuring positive educational outcomes for Idaho students and firmly believe HB 93 has the power to provide expanded opportunities for families.   ​Our work toward this effort includes opening our Center for Education , offering community information sessions with lawmakers at local town halls, and establishing resources like IdahoKidsWin.com . Additionally, MSPC has provided state lawmakers with evidence-based policy recommendations, testified by invitation in committee hearings, and provided the legislature with empirical studies and reports to guide implementation.   ​This breadth of work provides a unique perspective to show the court that the parental choice tax credit serves to benefit the community as a whole, is directly related to the functions of government, and therefore does not violate the “public purpose” doctrine, as claimed by the IEA.   ​Although school choice opponents readily refer to HB 93 as a “voucher scheme or subsidy,” it is neither . This distinction is an important focus of our brief, as much of the constitutional analysis of school choice options depends on the funding structure.   Instead, the parental choice tax credit empowers parents to take charge of their student’s education. Unlike a voucher, there is no direct government payment to any private school, nor is money distributed to an Education Savings Account or scholarship.   HB 93 was specifically drafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny.   There is currently no enforceable state supreme court ruling in the United States holding a school choice tax credit as unconstitutional. Instead, court after court , across the country has allowed families to benefit from education choice tax credits.   ​Absent valid funding scrutiny, the legal challenges brought to the court center on the state education clauses presented in Article IX, Section 1, of the Idaho state constitution, which specifies:   ​“The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”   ​Plaintiffs claim that this wording of the constitution should be interpreted to only allow for a single public school system. However, providing alternative school choice options separate from common schools does not in any way infringe upon the constitution and, much to the dismay of the teacher’s union, the public system is not guaranteed a monopoly on Idaho children’s education.   ​The Idaho Legislature has fulfilled its mandate in support of public education through a funding increase in 2025, and an all-time high of $2.7 billion in total.   ​The $50 million in general funds allocated to the parental choice tax credit represents less than 2% of the state's overall education budget and can hardly be considered a parallel, competitive education system, as claimed. ​ Uniformity as dictated by the teacher’s union is not the law, and if it were, diverse state-funded programs like charter schools, or the Idaho Launch and Idaho Opportunity Scholarship programs, would be at risk of being deemed unconstitutional as well, based on precedent.   ​Bottom line: the education landscape is big enough to offer diverse, complementary education options that better support families, and the state constitution affords the legislature the ultimate authority in establishing appropriate school choice provisions. ​I encourage you to read the amicus highlighting personal stories of Idaho residents, the results of public polling in favor of school choice, and empirical studies demonstrating that improved outcomes for all students coincide with educational freedom.   HB 93 is not only allowed under our state constitution, it should be celebrated. The $5,000 tax credit ($7,500 special needs) will help children who don’t fit the traditional public school system receive the best possible education to meet their individual needs.

Idaho parents, my name is Meg Goudy, and as the Director of the Bill & Milly Kay Baldwin Center for Education at Mountain States Policy Center, I am excited to help Idaho families navigate through the eligibility and application process for the new Parental Choice Tax Credit Program. This exciting new tax credit was enacted through House Bill 93 to help Idaho families pay for qualified private education expenses. Several key deadlines are approaching, and I strongly encourage you to review our Idaho Kids Win  website for additional details and follow the Idaho State Tax Commission’s timeline listed below for the 2026 advance payment and the 2025 tax credit reimbursement. November 1, 2025 — File Your 2024 Idaho Tax Return To qualify, the Idaho Tax Commission must receive your 2024 Idaho Form 40 individual tax return   by November 1, 2025. If you haven’t filed yet, it’s not too late. You can: Drop your return off at one of the six Idaho Tax Commission offices (located in Boise, Twin Falls, Pocatello, Lewiston, and Idaho Falls) or Send via certified mail to: Idaho State Tax Commission, PO Box 56, Boise, ID 83756-0056 Even if you have no income or have never filed before, you still need to submit a return to establish your individual taxpayer account. Your 2024 tax year information will determine: Eligibility for the 2026 advance payment, and Priority level for the 2025 qualified expense reimbursement. December 1, 2025 — Register for a TAP Account   here. By December 1, 2025, register for an individual Taxpayer Access Point (TAP) account through the Idaho State Tax Commission. Business account users will need to set up an individual account to apply for this program. You must have a TAP account in order to apply for the Parental Choice Tax Credit Program. Same-day access is possible, but full registration can take up to 10 business days if validation requires a mailed access code. To speed up registration, have the following ready: Taxpayer name Social Security number ZIP code Information from your 2024 tax return January 15, 2026 — Application Portal Opens Starting January 15, 2026, families can begin submitting applications for both the 2025 reimbursement and the advance tax credit using their TAP account. March 15, 2026 — Application Deadline All applications must be submitted by March 15, 2026. The tax commission expects all $50 million of funding to be awarded, but a waitlist may be opened depending on the number of applicants. April 15, 2026 — Eligibility Notifications By April 15, 2026, families will receive notifications from the Idaho State Tax Commission regarding: 2025 tax credit reimbursement, and 2026 advance payment eligibility Final Reminder This program operates on a first-come, first-served basis, with priority given to families under 300% of the 2024 Federal Poverty Limit . We encourage you to review the deadlines carefully and act early to secure your family’s spot. If you have any questions, please review our FAQ page , send me a message at MGoudy@MountainStatesPolicy.org , or attend one of our upcoming Idaho Kids Win townhall events: Idaho Falls - November 12th Pocatello - November 13th Moscow - December 3rd Nampa - December 4th

Note: This is a joint op-ed with Liya Palagashvili  of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University . Across Idaho, more than 160,000 people earn income—whether as a primary or supplemental source—through self-employment, contract work, or small business ownership. They include truckers, delivery drivers, freelance creatives, childcare providers, and self-employed farmers and tradespeople who remain central to Idaho’s economy. Together, they generate over $9 billion annually, according to U.S. Census Bureau data . This independent workforce reflects Idaho’s spirit of self-reliance and enterprise — yet labor policies haven’t kept pace with the way people earn a living today. Much of Idaho’s workforce turns to self-employment because that’s how many local industries operate — from agriculture and construction to family-run services and trades. For others, independent work offers the flexibility  to manage their time, earn income on their own terms, and pursue family, education, or creative goals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 80 percent  of independent workers prefer their current arrangement, and fewer than 9 percent say they’d rather have a traditional employee job. But self-employment comes with tradeoffs. The same independence that defines this kind of work can also leave people without basic protections. Under current laws, self-employed workers often go without benefits like health coverage or retirement savings — and even when companies or clients want to offer them voluntarily, they’re discouraged from doing so because of legal uncertainty.  Current labor rules risk  treating those arrangements as formal “employment,” triggering costly liabilities. As a result, many businesses or clients avoid offering benefits altogether. Surveys show that  81 percen t of self-employed workers want portable benefits solutions — ways to access benefits while keeping the independence they’ve chosen. That’s where portable benefits come in. Portable benefits would travel with workers as they move between jobs, clients, or projects — benefits that belong to the individual rather than a single employer. Picture a truck driver, a freelance designer, or a self-employed farmer who receives contributions from each company or buyer they work with — funds that accumulate in a personal benefits account they can take with them from job to job. This reform isn’t about changing what makes self-employment appealing. It’s about expanding access to financial security while preserving the independence and initiative that define Idaho’s self-employed workforce. Lawmakers can make that possible by establishing safe harbor provisions that allow companies or buyers to voluntarily offer benefits without fear of reclassification.  With its entrepreneurial economy built on small businesses, family farms, and independent trades, Idaho is uniquely positioned to lead — and modernizing its labor laws would help workers thrive on their own terms. While other states, such as California, have moved in the opposite direction with restrictive reclassification laws like Assembly Bill 5—leading to measurable declines in self-employment and disrupting industries such as trucking and the creative arts—Idaho can instead embrace policies that expand flexibility and opportunity. Supporting voluntary portable benefits would reinforce Idaho’s commitment to economic freedom, entrepreneurship, and individual opportunity. Across the country, momentum  for portable benefits is gaining traction. States such as Utah and Tennessee have advanced proposals to modernize labor laws and enable voluntary benefit programs for self-employed workers. In other western states, including Nevada and Montana, similar bills have been introduced in the past year. At the federal level, proposals in Congress would create similar safe harbors, allowing innovation at scale. After years of debate about how to support nontraditional workers, policymakers are finally beginning to act. What’s notable is that these workers aren’t asking for government mandates or subsidies. They’re asking for the freedom to participate in modern systems of security without sacrificing the independence they’ve chosen. Portable benefits meet that need — offering stronger financial security without compromising the initiative and determination that define Idaho’s workforce. By removing outdated barriers to voluntary portable benefits, Idaho can prove that independence and security not only coexist — they make each other stronger. Liya Palagashvili is a senior research fellow and director of labor policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Jason Mercier is Vice President and Director of Research   of Mountain States Policy Center.

The trades, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning), face a growing concern surrounding what could most accurately be labeled a retirement crisis. Some estimates say that for every five journeyman who retire from the trades , only two apprentices from a younger generation will replace them.  Licensure raises the price of entry into the trades’ labor market, artificially limiting the number of people who can enter it. Given the ever-important need for skilled laborers in the trades, this is a big concern. The research shows that Idaho has the ability to lower its licensure requirements without significant harm, and therefore should do so. Idaho’s licensure requirements are essentially the same across electrician, plumber, and HVAC. To gain a journeyman license, which allows someone to work alone at the commercial level, one must work as an apprentice for 8,000 hours under the supervision of a journeyman, and complete four years of course instruction. Alternatively, one could also work as an apprentice for 16,000 hours under the supervision of a journeyman. For electrical licensure in particular , a journeyman electrician is allowed to supervise up to six apprentices at a time in residential settings, and two apprentices at a time in non-residential settings (commercial or industrial). No such stated ratios exist in Idaho law for plumbing or HVAC. Idaho also has a universal licensure law , which allows it to streamline the process of getting a license for those who have already been licensed in another state. For electricians, there is reciprocity with Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. For plumbing , Idaho only has reciprocity with Montana, Oregon, and Washington. For HVAC, Idaho does not have reciprocity with any state, but does allow applicants to submit documentation of 8,000 hours of work and four years (576 hours) of schooling, even if it was completed in another state, to then qualify for the entrance exam. Finally, focusing on the journeyman license for electricity, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota,   South Dakota, and Texas all have lighter licensing requirements, only requiring 8,000 hours of work experience and a successful examination. This begs the question of why Idaho has decided that 8,000 hours of work experience is sufficient if you are in Texas but not if you are in Idaho. Surely, electrical work is not so different as to make 8,000 hours in Texas equal to 8,000 hours and 576 hours of schooling in Idaho.   So what should Idaho do? Should Idaho drop its licensure requirements to match the states it already reciprocates? Should it increase its requirements? Should it do nothing at all? There needs to be a more principled account of the usefulness of licensure. How does licensure actually affect the quality of the trades? The main argument for licensure is that it protects consumers from poor-quality workers. It is argued that there is a large risk factor if a low-quality electrician enters the field. But does licensure actually ensure that there will be higher-quality electricians, or does it just artificially restrict the number of people in the trades? Are there other associated benefits that may outweigh the costs? Often, the main benefit cited in favor of occupational licensing is that licensing increases quality. This argument says that in high-risk occupations, such as medicine, where consumers lack the appropriate knowledge to compare between different doctors, or where there is low market competition that lowers the incentive for raising quality between competing firms, the government can protect consumers by instituting licensing that ensures only high-quality workers enter the respective field. Of the twelve studies reviewed by a 2015 White House study, however, only two of them found positive increases in quality. The document says  outright that “[m]ost empirical evidence does not find that stricter licensing requirements improve quality, public safety or health.” In spite of evidence that there is growing market demand for the trades, and in spite of evidence that those same trades are suffering from shortages, Idaho continues to impose heavy licensure requirements on electricians, plumbers, and HVAC workers. Idaho’s own regulations are even more stringent than the requirements for states whose licenses they recognize. This imposes significant costs on consumers and does not seem to have a positive effect on worker quality based on the available evidence. It would be best practice for Idaho to seek to lower barriers to entry into the trades to meet the needs of the present.

On October 24 th , 2025, I was honored to be a keynote speaker at the Idaho Department of Education’s 10th Annual Family and Community Engagement Conference in Sun Valley, ID. Over 300 teachers, principals, and community leaders came together for this year's event, giving a state-wide perspective on all the things we should be doing to better equip our parents and students with what they need to succeed in educating their youth. The keynote addressed my most recent research project: “ The Parental Guide to Digital Media Safety Resources .” Together, we went through real-world applications of parental controls that are already available on the devices most families use every day, including some that never have to be downloaded in order to use. We stress-tested how these tools help parents put limits on the digital world, manage exposure to content, and teach children the basics of responsible tech habits. It was a lively, pragmatic discussion focused on the vision that parents should have the last word, not platforms, in determining how their children interact online. The “Parental Guide to Understanding Digital Media Protection Resources” focuses on voluntary parental tools as market-driven solutions, making the aim one that encourages innovation, competition, and consumer options. Efforts by the government to regulate social media, or force one-size-fits-all digital rules on society, only too often encounter constitutional questions and don’t create the intended outcomes. Courts in California, Arkansas, and elsewhere have invalidated policy mandates as free speech violations. Conversations such as the ones I just had in Sun Valley should remind us that empowering families starts with information and choice. Parents don’t need the government to police their children’s phones, they need support and encouragement to be better equipped for the job of parenting. Strengthening parental rights is about creating policies and systems where the power of policy empowers parents, not circumventing them. Once again, I am grateful to the Idaho Department of Education for the invitation and to every engaged attendee who was a part. The interest in market-oriented approaches to digital safety is the exact place and path we need to be on for Idaho families. Let’s keep the conversation going and keep parents in the driver’s seat.

The federal Medicare health insurance program for seniors has been overbudget since its inception in 1965. By 1990, the plan was at least nine times over the original budget as determined by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the program would seem to be a noncontroversial first step to decrease the financial burden on taxpayers and guarantee that future generations of seniors have access to Medicare. A bipartisan bill, The No UPCODE Act , has been proposed in the United States Senate to address fraudulent upcoding in the Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part C program. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (Idaho), along with other Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues, is on record in support of the bill. Special interest groups, however, have lobbied strongly against the bill, arguing that the proposal would lead to Medicare “cuts.” The bill is currently stalled in the U.S. Senate. The CBO estimates that passage of the bill would save taxpayers $124 billion over ten years . Medicare is divided into four parts: Part A is for hospital coverage, Part B is for provider payments, Part D is for drug benefits, and Part C or Advantage is essentially a health maintenance organization (HMO) that includes additional benefits, such as eye and dental care, at a fixed price. Medicare Advantage has been the fastest-growing segment of Medicare over the past ten years or so and is an alternative to Parts A and B. Parts A and B are considered traditional Medicare, which basically allows enrollees to go to any hospital or provider. Advantage, on the other hand, is set up such that participating health insurance companies receive one check from the federal government for all advertised benefits. Enrollees have a co-pay, but the insurance company requires them to go to “approved” hospitals and providers that have contracts with the insurance company. Historically, competition among health insurance companies involved in the Medicare Advantage program has been fierce. Even conservative pundits and political leaders have supported Medicare Part C because of the perceived competition. Yet, regardless of the amount, taxpayers are still making the basic payments to the insurance companies before patients pay their co-pay. Traditional HMOs are set up such that enrolled patients pay their entire insurance premium. The HMOs can and do save money by denying or delaying patient care. Medicare Advantage (essentially an HMO), on the other hand, allows participating insurance companies to receive more taxpayer money if their enrolled patients are sicker. Hence, companies will add questionable or unnecessary diagnoses to patients’ health records, which leads to fraudulent upcoding. Since over half of all Medicare recipients are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, eliminating upcoding would be an excellent first step to saving taxpayer money in the overall Medicare program. Not only would this reform save money, it would also be a start at guaranteeing the viability of Medicare for seniors in the future. Ending the practice of fraudulent upcoding is a logical step to improve Medicare solvency, and Congress should give this proposal serious consideration.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises  v. Raimondo  is reshaping federal land use in Wyoming and policy throughout the United States. The ruling reversed decades of precedent requiring courts to defer to a U.S. agency’s interpretation of laws. This meant that federal judges were required to favor the government over individual taxpayers or businesses, regardless of how far off base an agency's interpretation strayed from common sense or a plain reading of the law. Now it’s time for Wyoming legislators to follow suit by enacting legislation allowing state judges to interpret laws on the merits instead of weighing state agency opinions above those of individual residents or businesses. An example of how this practice impacted Wyoming was the Biden Administration’s May 9, 2024, decision to elevate non-use of public lands for conservation to the same level as mineral extraction, grazing and recreation. Nowhere in the 1976 law (the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)) authorizing the latter three uses is there reference to non-use being a valid mandate for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). So, without Congressional approval, the BLM radically changed its mandate in a way that would significantly impact the ability of Wyoming residents to earn a living and enjoy the federal lands within our state borders. And no one could do anything about it. Bolstered by Loper, however, the Trump Administration is proposing to rescind  the Biden interpretation, known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, and return to the BLM’s prior mandate to operate in accordance with principles of “multiple use” and “sustained yield” under FLPMA. The Trump Administration is also in the process of rescinding multiple land use plans finalized under the Biden Administration that shut down coal production and limited leases for oil and gas. Prior to the Loper  decision, multiple states — including Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Idaho — recognized the importance of letting judges use independent judgment in deciding cases instead of favoring state agency interpretations. They acknowledged, as Chief Justice John Roberts did during his 2005 Senate confirmation, that the proper role of judges should be “to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” The majority of states, however, including Wyoming  and Mountain West neighbors Montana  and Washington , still defer to agencies, at least partially. As Taylor Walker wrote  earlier this year for The Goldwater Institute: “Across the nation, government agencies often expand their constitutional power by applying overly generous interpretations of statutes and their own regulations. These expansive interpretations are then upheld by the courts, who are quick to defer. This creates an unbalanced legal system where the cards are stacked in favor of unelected government employees and against average Americans.” Goldwater, along with the Pacific Legal Foundation, created model legislation  to remedy the situation—a version of which Gov. Brad Little of Idaho signed into law in March 2024. The two-sentence Judicial Deference Reform Act simply states: “A. In interpreting a state statute, regulation, or other sub-regulatory document, a state court or an officer hearing an administrative action may not defer to a state agency’s interpretation of it, and must instead interpret its meaning and effect de novo.  B. In actions brought by or against state agencies, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing officer must exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation which limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.” Wyoming legislators and those in Montana and Washington should adopt this language to permanently ensure that citizens receive equal treatment with government agencies under the law. An added benefit to the legislation would be that lawmakers would be encouraged to be more specific since courts rule against the drafter when contract provisions are unclear. In a state like Wyoming, whose residents so value individual freedom, enacting the Judicial Deference Reform Act should be a no-brainer.

When politicians start promising cheaper milk and lettuce, it’s time to check your wallet—and your common sense. In both Seattle and New York, mayoral candidates have decided that the next great government experiment should be running grocery stores. In New York, Zohran Mamdani wants to open city-owned supermarkets. In Seattle, both incumbent Bruce Harrell and challenger Katie Wilson say City Hall should step in to “save” grocery access after recent closures. It’s the latest example of politicians diagnosing the problem correctly—food affordability and access—but prescribing exactly the wrong cure. The grocery business is brutally competitive. Margins hover below two percent. Every price tag depends on global logistics, scale, and constant adaptation. Private grocers like Kroger, Safeway, and Grocery Outlet succeed not because they’re greedy, but because they’re efficient. They are constantly trying to innovate to compete against the giants such as Wal-Mart, Costco and even Amazon. And yet, some Seattle politicians actually believe City Hall—an organization that can’t fix potholes or build housing on time—can somehow stock shelves better than companies that have done it for a century. Kansas City already tried the “government grocery store.” It lost nearly $900,000 in a single year. It turns out, when the government says it can “save money by not making a profit,” taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill. Here ’s the real kicker: the same politicians now wringing their hands about grocery store closures helped cause them. When Fred Meyer announced it was leaving Lake City, Seattle leaders blamed “corporate greed.” But these are the same voices—both in Olympia and in Congress—who fought to block the Albertsons–Kroger merger, a deal that could have created efficiencies, stabilized struggling stores, and preserved jobs. The Federal Trade Commission, cheered on by Washington’s political class, stepped in to stop the merger. Now, the very same politicians who celebrated that decision are shocked that stores are closing. This is what happens when ideology outruns economics. By preventing private grocers from combining resources to compete, policymakers made grocery operations less sustainable—and now claim government intervention is the only solution. It’s the equivalent of cutting the power line and then selling flashlights. Both Harrell and Wilson now want the city to get into the grocery business—either through public-private partnerships, city-owned land, or direct operation. They argue that food access is too important to leave to the private market. But the reason food access is shrinking is because of policies that punish success and discourage investment: rising taxes, increasing crime, minimum wage mandates, and endless permitting headaches. No city-run grocery will survive in that environment, either. Subsidizing a broken system doesn’t fix it—it just hides the damage for a while, at taxpayer expense. The bottom line is this: some elected officials now believe they can do a better job running grocery stores than the people who’ve done it for generations. But when politicians who blocked grocery mergers now promise to “save” grocery stores by running them themselves, it’s not leadership—it’s irony in bulk. Government doesn’t need to run grocery stores. It just needs to stop breaking the ones we already have.

What comes back from the dead more frequently than Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Freddy Krueger? Efforts to impose an income tax in Washington State. Like those perennial terrors, this income tax fixation in the Evergreen State should finally die, too. Unfortunately for taxpayers already suffering under the weight of the largest tax increase in state history  imposed earlier this year, a new income tax proposal is in the works for 2026. According to the Washington State Standard : “The Senate Democratic Caucus discussed the politically explosive idea, which has been repeatedly rejected by voters and the state Supreme Court, during a retreat earlier this month. They also talked about other means of raising revenues to avert deficits in the current and next budget.” Washington voters have rejected ballot measures  and constitutional amendments proposing an income tax ten times. The most recent ballot failure was in 2010, with 64% voting no. When the legislature has attempted to go around voters and impose an income tax anyway, the state Supreme Court has overturned the taxes (except for the capital gains income tax). The clearest message from the justices rejecting an income tax came in 1960 with this one-page ruling : "The argument is again pressed upon us that these cases were wrongly decided. The court is unwilling, however, to recede from the position announced in its repeated decisions. Among other things, the attorney general urges that the result should now be different because the state is confronted with a financial crisis. If so, the constitution may be amended by vote of the people. Such a constitutional amendment was rejected by popular vote in 1934." Perhaps income tax advocates in Washington feel emboldened by the shocking court ruling in 2023 to deviate from these clear decisions when the state supreme court ruled that a tax on capital gains income wasn’t an income tax. Every other tax jurisdiction in the world, however, defines a capital gains tax as an income tax . Speaking of Washington’s new capital gains income tax and the record tax increases already imposed this year, the impact has dropped the state to one of the lowest tax rankings in the country based on neutrality and competitiveness. According to the Tax Foundation’s 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index :   “Washington| #45 Overall - In Washington, lawmakers implemented a new 9.9 percent rate on the capital gains tax, causing the state to slide two places on the individual income tax component of the  Index . The state’s top estate tax rate—already tied for the nation’s highest—was also increased from 20 to 35 percent. Nevertheless, a host of tax increases in Maryland resulted in Washington swapping places with it and improving by one rank. Washington’s adoption of new sales taxes on business purchases of digital products, including digital advertising, went into effect on October 1, after the July 1, 2025, snapshot date of this  Index , but will affect Washington’s rank in future editions.” For those who argue an income tax would help provide stability for Washington’s revenue, they should heed this warning from the state’s July S&P credit rating : “Sales-tax-based revenue structure, which has demonstrated less sensitivity to economic cycles than those of income-tax-reliant states.” Ironically, S&P also noted this: “In addition, the state constitution allows Washington to raise taxes with a majority vote of the legislature but restricts it from levying an individual income tax.” It’s a bold strategy to double down on the largest tax increase in state history by reviving yet another income tax proposal from the crypt of repeated voter and court rejection. In the words of Kylo Ren from Star Wars, Washington lawmakers' appetite for tax increases is always, “More! More!”  Maybe for the sake of taxpayers and the state’s economic competitiveness, the spending side of the ledger should be addressed instead.

At George Washington's Mt. Vernon estate on Monday night, Mountain States Policy Center achieved new heights. MSPC was named one of five national winners of The Heritage Foundation’s Innovation Prize , recognizing outstanding projects that strengthen civic education and advance America’s founding principles. The award honors MSPC’s coming 2026 initiative, We the Students: Mountain West Civics Cup , a four-state high-school civic knowledge and leadership competition designed to mark America’s 250th anniversary. The Civics Cup will engage teams from Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming in a blend of quiz-style civics challenges, mock hearings, and policy simulations—all focused on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. “We’re honored that The Heritage Foundation has chosen to invest in our vision for restoring civic understanding and pride across the Mountain West,” said Chris Cargill, MSPC Founder, President & CEO. “The Civics Cup will transform America’s 250th into a living classroom—where students learn not just how government works, but why it matters.” More than 300 organizations submitted proposals but a total of only 10 have been honored this year. They include: Cana Academy :  HISTORY 250: Telling America’s Story One Film at a Time Emergent Order Foundation :  250 Years in Pursuit Herzog Foundation :  The Freedom Tour Matthew Mehan, Hillsdale College :  The American Family's Book of Fables Sophia Institute for Teachers :  Fostering Virtuous Patriotism: Celebrating America's 250th Anniversary in Catholic Schools Constituting America : Celebrating America's 250th Birthday In Our Nation's Classrooms and Living Rooms The Harlan Institute : Are These Truths Still Self-Evident? A High School Moot Court Competition Set in 1776 Mountain States Policy Center : We the Students: Mountain West Civics Cup The Moving Picture Institute : Son of 1776 Wedgwood Circle : Marblehead: The Untold Story of the Men in the Boat The $50,000 Heritage Foundation grant will help MSPC develop a reusable, standards-aligned civics curriculum, a public question bank, teacher resources, and a professional livestreamed regional final. It will also provide travel stipends and small scholarships to ensure that rural and frontier schools can fully participate. The Heritage Foundation’s Innovation Prizes are part of its initiative to highlight organizations nationwide that advance civic renewal, freedom, and self-governance in honor of America’s semiquincentennial. This round of prizes totals $250,000 distributed among five winners. Founded in 2022, Mountain States Policy Center is one of the nation's first multi-state think tanks, providing research and education in support of free enterprise, individual liberty, and limited government. MSPC serves Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming through practical policy research, leadership training, and civic education.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), the leading free-market think tank serving the Mountain West, is pleased to announce the hiring of Meg Goudy as Director of the Bill & Milly Kay Baldwin Center for Education. Meg is a graduate of the University of Montana who began her career in education policy with the Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction. During her five years of public service, she pursued advanced studies at the University of Washington and helped implement key legislative initiatives to benefit Washington students. After taking time off to start a family, Meg joined the national Freedom Foundation in Olympia, where she spent the next decade fundraising, managing grants, planning events, and working as a paralegal. Now, Meg is excited to advance education reform across the Mountain States, drawing from her background in state-level education policy, nonprofit leadership, and her personal experience witnessing her son’s academic success after leaving the public school system. “Meg brings a unique blend of policy experience, nonprofit management, and personal passion for educational freedom,” said Chris Cargill, President of the Mountain States Policy Center. “Her leadership will help the Baldwin Center become a powerful force for expanding opportunity and ensuring every child can attend a school that fits their needs.” The Bill & Milly Kay Baldwin Center for Education is the education policy arm of the Mountain States Policy Center. The Center focuses on promoting innovation, transparency, and choice in K-12 education across the Mountain West, including Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Eastern Washington. Its work includes: Research and policy recommendations that support education choice, student improvement, charter schools and innovation Advocating for transparency and accountability in public education spending and outcomes. Empowering parents with tools and information to make the best choices for their children’s learning. Hosting events and publishing research that highlight success stories in education innovation and parental empowerment. Under Meg’s leadership, the Baldwin Center will expand its reach across the region, helping shape state-level reforms and fostering collaboration among educators, lawmakers, and families. Meg can be reached at: mgoudy@mountainstatespolicy.org . About Mountain States Policy Center Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) is an independent research and educational organization dedicated to advancing free enterprise, individual liberty, and limited government in the Mountain West.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), the region's top free-market think tank, announced today that Governor Greg Gianforte will be honored with its Elevation Award at the upcoming Montana Liberty Dinner in Billings November 6th. The dinner features keynote speaker Dr. Ben Carson , world-renowned neurosurgeon, author, and former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The event brings together policymakers, community leaders, and supporters of freedom and opportunity across Montana to celebrate the principles of liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility. Governor Gianforte  will be honored with the 2025 Elevation Award - the organization’s highest honor - recognizing individuals who demonstrate exceptional leadership in advancing freedom, economic opportunity, and sound public policy in the Mountain States region. “Governor Gianforte has been a steadfast advocate for policies that empower families, encourage entrepreneurship, and strengthen Montana’s economy,” said Chris Cargill , President of the Mountain States Policy Center. “We are honored to recognize his commitment to elevating the principles of liberty in our state and across the region.” The Montana Liberty Dinner is part of MSPC’s ongoing effort to bring thoughtful dialogue and research-based solutions to the Mountain West. The organization conducts independent research and outreach in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Eastern Washington, promoting policies that expand opportunity and reduce government barriers. Tickets are available online at mountainstatespolicy.org. About the Mountain States Policy Center Mountain States Policy Center  is an independent research organization dedicated to advancing free-market principles, individual liberty, and limited government throughout the Mountain West. Learn more at www.mountainstatespolicy.org

Discussions about government use of artificial intelligence (AI) often begin with a simple question: "Is this tool going to help the taxpayer that is funding it, or is it just another fad?” Municipalities across the Treasure Valley in Idaho are already experimenting with AI in small, practical ways, whether it is admin efficiency, search tool utilization, or for Garden City “googly eyes” experiments. The main question we are all wondering is, can these AI tools save government employees time? There are early indications that it will work if combined with common-sense guardrails, human review, and transparency. It is exciting to see city staff across the state embracing AI resources to move the needle for efficiency and innovation to better utilize taxpayer money. Mountain States Policy Center has long argued that the goal should be using technology to cut waste and trim red tape so government employees can focus on what really matters and those activities that need human interaction. We previously highlighted a reform in Virginia , “ which includes AI-assisted statute-to-rule traceability, cross-state comparisons to identify outliers/unnecessary regulation, and a public permit tracking dashboard that reports agency performance in real-time." The Boise-area AI pilots are prime examples of the “assist, don’t replace” model that is critical in implementation. When AI generates a first draft of social media press releases, or helps staff sift through city code to find the right citation, that’s time freed for the work only humans can and should be doing: planning, permits, public safety, and direct service. It’s not glamorous, but it’s real productivity, and it is exactly the kind of thing that lets taxpayers see more value for the dollars they already are paying. As governments begin to embrace these AI tools, the standard cannot change: public trust comes first. Taxpayers expect their governments not to waste time or money, and they expect bureaucrats to be straight with them about how they use new technology. That means labeling AI-assisted content when appropriate, keeping sensitive or personal information out of public models, and making sure a real person is ultimately accountable for every public-influencing decision. If an AI tool or system can’t clear that bar, it shouldn't get deployed. If it can, it should prove its worth with transparent metrics and methods that taxpayers and local residents can check/verify for themselves. Those principles are the same ones that are  highlighted in our broader modernization agenda , whether we’re talking about permitting “shot clocks,” better dashboards, or AI-assisted audits to reduce duplication. When AI is implemented for helpful, quick fixes for useful and fast tasks, it should always be double-checked by a human. Ultimately, AI can make local government more responsive without growing government itself. That’s the balance all taxpayers deserve, and an exciting future full of innovation with accountability, efficiency with transparency, and service that earns trust every day.

Calls to abolish the property tax are growing louder across the country as elected representatives respond to constituents' increasing concerns about rising property assessments and tax bills. Wyoming is one of the states currently having this debate. What happens there next could be a lesson for lawmakers in other states. In the last year, Wyoming legislators passed stopgap measures to lower residents’ bills in the short term. The lack of meaningful and long-term reform, plus increasing assessments, is leading people to seek to eliminate the property tax in favor of a sales tax increase. In addition, more residents and their representatives are asking philosophical questions about the morality of taxing property repeatedly and why they should “pay rent to the government” in their opinion for property they supposedly own. To those who complain that they never “own” their property because of property taxes, what would be the alternative? As Jared Walczak writes in Confronting the New Property Tax Revolt : “Imagine a new community is formed in a place without government services. The best thing to do, presumably, is form a government, because some services are best provided or at least funded by governments. But if this were impossible for some reason, the private sector certainly can provide roads, schools, security services, firefighters, and the like. Imagine that homeowners enter contracts for some of these services, paying premiums for police and fire protection, or paying to ensure that their home is on the road grid. Would they value these services, and expect to pay for them, even though they already paid for their home? And would they, in fact, potentially value them more highly if their home has a higher value?” Regardless of whether one pays for services via property taxes or other means, a homeowner will need them continually, not just the year of purchase. Local governments are structured to provide stable services. As for a region’s economic outlook, multiple studies show that property taxes are healthier for growth than income and sales taxes. The data is clear: property taxes are both the most efficient way to raise local revenue, do the least harm, and can even help increase gross state and domestic product when taxes are shifted from income and sales taxes to property taxes. Defending the property tax does not mean it cannot be improved. The current system in Wyoming is a patchwork of complex and temporary exemptions that people must apply for and potentially unconstitutional rate cuts that treat people differently based on the type of property owned and the length of time spent in it each year. Policymakers across the country should focus on enacting levy limits and providing more transparency on the impact spending has on property taxes. This would shift the focus from assessments to the revenue needed to effectively provide core services while holding government officials accountable for spending decisions. When paired with a reform known as Truth in Taxation , residents would be able to meaningfully constrain their bills. These laws require local governments to advertise proposed property tax increases with detailed information and adequate time for public input and comment. To aid lower-income people of all ages, legislators could also pass what are known as circuit breakers. Generally, there are two types . One offers relief when property taxes surpass a certain income percentage and is known as a “threshold” circuit breaker. The other basis discounts on a “sliding scale” of different income levels. Instead of swapping a property tax system that has worked well for decades with an unproven and unreliable one destined to create animosity and infighting between different localities, why not improve the current one with reforms proven to guarantee both taxpayer relief and stable government revenue? Legislators should also avoid any changes like California’s Proposition 13, which passed in 1978. That law significantly distorted the market by discouraging homeowners from selling because if they moved, their property tax bill could be significantly higher each year based on the price of the new home. It also benefits long-term homeowners at the expense of new arrivals and causes problems for local governments, which must find other revenue streams to adequately fund local services. Skyrocketing property taxes that have outpaced wage growth and inflation in recent years have rightly frustrated homeowners and made them question the system. Lawmakers in Wyoming have thus far responded with short-term legislation to temporarily reduce the pain. While calls for scrapping the system are understandable, studies show the alternative – moving to a higher sales tax or imposing an income tax – will hurt the economy and job growth, provide inadequate funding, generate animosity between counties, and potentially deter people from moving to Wyoming. Policymakers should instead move to foster fairness, stability, transparency, and fiscal restraint through the proven concepts of levy limits paired with Truth in Taxation legislation and potentially circuit breaker relief to help lower-income homeowners of all ages. In doing so, lawmakers would pave the way for many other states facing property tax revolts to chart sustainable and sound paths forward through an emotionally charged issue.

Moody’s Ratings, one of the major global credit review companies, has reaffirmed its highest credit rating for Idaho while saying the state’s credit “outlook remains stable.” This good fiscal news is a reflection of Idaho’s sound fiscal management and helps save money for taxpayers by keeping government borrowing costs low with favorable terms. According to Moody’s October 9 update : “Idaho's Aaa issuer rating reflects its strong credit position supported by continued higher than average economic and demographic growth, healthy and stable finances, and low leverage and fixed costs.” Idaho State Treasurer Julie Ellsworth noted in a press release: “This reaffirmation highlights the strength of Idaho’s economy and the sound financial management that protects our taxpayers. By keeping Idaho’s top-tier rating, we ensure continued confidence in our state’s fiscal stability and investment quality.” In May of this year, Fitch Ratings also reaffirmed its highest credit rating for Idaho. Fitch said : “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.” According to a new report  from Pew Charitable Trust, Idaho has approximately 87 days' worth of spending capacity in its rainy day reserve. This is the 8th best nationally for budget savings. For comparison, Washington state has only 13 days' worth of savings for spending, which is 49th worst. The national average was 47 days. Although states across the country are facing a tightening budget outlook, the continued decisive action of policymakers  to right-size Idaho’s spending, combined with an $880 million general fund reserve  (15%) and $1.3 billion in total reserves (22%), provides the Gem State with ample resources to weather economic changes.