The mostly friendly state battle for tax competition and economic competitiveness is alive and well in our region. Except for some states on the left coast (looking at you Washington), prioritizing additional tax relief is front and center in state capitals across the country. This includes major income tax reduction proposals in Idaho and Montana. Though Idaho currently boasts a lower income tax rate, Montana may soon leapfrog that if Governor Gianforte gets his way. We previously highlighted how Montana’s Governor has proposed dropping the Treasure State’s income tax rate from 5.9% to 4.9%. Recently discussing this proposal Governor Gianforte noted : “As I meet with Montanans in every corner of our state, I hear loud and clear: tax relief is a priority. That’s why we’ve proposed to cut taxes again this session, to once again deliver the largest tax cut in state history. Our tax cuts will let Montanans keep more of what they earn, help folks navigate the nationwide affordability crisis, and create a more prosperous future for our state and people.” Here are some of the current regional income tax rates: Montana - 5.9% (Gianforte proposal to drop to 4.9%) Idaho - 5.695% (lawmakers are currently advancing a reduction to 5.3% ) Utah – 4.55% Colorado – 4.25% (temporary – capped at 4.40%) North Dakota – 2.5% Nevada/South Dakota/Washington/Wyoming – No personal income tax (though Washington does have a standalone 7% capital gains income tax) There have been some complaints in Montana and Idaho that income tax reductions only benefit the wealthy. A couple of things to keep in mind about this. First, the tax code shouldn’t exist to redistribute income. Its focus should be on funding the core functions of government using the principles of transparency, simplicity, neutrality, and stability while causing the least amount of economic distortions possible. Second, when talking about taxes based on a percentage of income, the relief will be proportional to the tax paid. There are many exemptions, deductions, and targeted credits specifically designed to help alleviate the tax burden for the low-income. Finally, don’t overlook the impact of corporate income tax cuts on increased economic activity including more business investment, increased employment and higher wages. Here is a good primer from the Tax Foundation  on how corporate income tax cuts impact those important economic variables. Another tax relief idea for lawmakers to consider is using automatic triggers to reduce income tax rates based on revenue growth. This is one of the recommendations in our Policy Manual . For example, Indiana lawmakers are currently considering an automatic trigger to reduce its income tax : "Indiana’s individual income tax rate will go down to 2.9 percent in 2027, the third lowest rate in the country for states with an income tax. Sen. Travis Holdman’s (R-Markle) bill would automatically lower the tax rate further by 0.05 percent every even-numbered year, beginning in 2030 — but only if state revenues grow by at least 3 percent in the previous even-numbered year." It is exciting to see policymakers in Idaho and Montana prioritizing additional income tax relief to grow their state economies and ensure that local businesses remain competitive with those across the region.

Idaho families could soon have more education options. On Friday, after a debate lasting nearly two hours, the Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 93 - a parental choice tax credit. "This is big win for Idaho families," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. “The growing body of research clearly shows that choice programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance. We were delighted to offer our research and recommendations to help inform the debate." HB 93 would provide a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses including private school tuition. Special needs students could qualify for $7,500 tax credits.   There is a cap on what would be available of $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget . It does not take any funding from public schools. “This is not an either or choice," sponsor Representative Wendy Horman said. "This is a both/and. It’s one more piece of the pie.” The bill has strong new accountability measures, including oversight by the state tax commission, and a requirement for parents to submit a satisfaction and engagement survey to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the tax credit.   Our exclusive Idaho Poll shows strong support for a $5,000 tax credit, with the majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in Idaho in favor. MSPC President Chris Cargill was asked to testify on the proposal in committee this week. Here's what he had to say: Last week, the President issued an executive order to expand educational freedom and opportunities for all families . In the order, the president calls on state officials to put politics aside and allow parents to choose the best educational setting for their children. He may not have mentioned Idaho directly, but the message was loud and clear. House Bill 93 now moves to the Idaho Senate for consideration.

President Donald Trump is moving to follow through on a campaign promise to eliminate the federal Department of Education. It may be about time. It's hard to find one thing the federal department has done to improve outcomes for children since the late 1970s when it was created under the Carter Administration based on his promise to the National Education Association union. A January 30 White House Fact Sheet noted : "According to the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) , 70% of 8th graders were below proficient in reading and 72% were below proficient in math. 40% of 4th graders did not even meet the basic reading levels. Standardized test scores have essentially been flat for over 30 years, despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent on government-run education." The federal Education Department employs 4,400 people and costs taxpayers about $70 billion every year - quite a large chunk of change considering the constitution says nothing about the federal government's involvement in education. More than 1,000 Department of Education employees are paid more than $160,000 annually, with nearly 90 making upwards of $200,000—more than four times the average starting teacher salary. Could these funds be better spent on improving educational outcomes for kids, or raising teacher pay? Even if the department was discontinued, that doesn't mean all federal policy would cease. As long as Congress continues appropriating funds, federal dollars for K-12 schools would likely still continue to flow, as would the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which ensures students with disabilities are offered free education. How would it all work instead? The federal government could simply block grant the funds to the states, allowing state education officials the responsibility, in concert with their legislatures and local school boards, to ensure the money is being spent appropriately. Idaho S uperintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield recently told Idaho Reports : " . . . we’ll see what President Trump does with the U.S. Department of Education. I mean, we hope that money comes in block grants and that the restrictions of how those dollars can be used are lessened if not taken away. Idaho’s in a great position to educate our own kids. That’s not the job of the federal government. In fact, I don’t know that it’s the job of the state at that point. It’s the local district that that sets those priorities and aligns the budget. . . . I am not concerned if the Department of Education goes away or has an adaptation because we are taking care of kids now, and I think that we can handle that at the state level. Now, with that said, the worst thing in my mind is for the federal government to take the money away. Which, I understand, the federal government doesn’t have money, it’s our money. To say we’re not going to send your money back to you, but we’re going to keep all of the rules in place, that would be a worse place than we are now." Idaho receives about $1,900 per student in federal funds. Montana brings in $3,270. In a perfect world, the money would be allocated directly to parents to decide the best educational path for their child. No more failed federal requirements such as No Child Left Behind , or Race to the Top , or Common Core . The education policy discussions would happen at the state level. It can be done.

As Elon Musk heads the federal government’s attack on overregulation and fiscal bloat as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a group of 13 Wyoming legislators is trying to prevent this state from ever becoming a regulatory leviathan.     SF 127  would require the state legislature to approve or reject major agency rule changes if they meet at least one of three criteria. Those three reasons are: 1) the annual impact of the change reaches $100,000 or more; 2) it would negatively impact competition, employment, innovation or particular industries; and 3) it has the potential to considerably impact social and cultural relationships. The rest of the legislature should join them in support.   As Jonathan H. Adler  wrote  for the Cato Institute concerning similar legislation at the federal level, “Imagine … if the board of a Fortune 500 company required the company’s vice presidents to obtain board approval before implementing the two or three percent of decisions that are most important and potentially costly. This would not surprise, nor produce ‘gridlock.’ Rather, it is what we would expect from a responsible board.”   Sen. Brian Boner, one of the sponsors of the legislation, said “We have a significant problem with overregulation in Wyoming.” He cited the example of how sales tax was applied on a locally owned oil field service company in his district. “The sales tax on my constituent’s labor was arbitrarily enforced depending on where and when his work occurred. The end result is this mom and pop business ended up paying this sales tax in all circumstances, whereas his larger competitors had the ability to distinguish between the situations when they had to pay the tax and when they didn’t.”   The fiscal note  on the legislation says it will cost taxpayers $163,000 per year starting in fiscal year 2027 for an extra attorney to review legislation. But Boner said it doesn’t address how much Wyoming taxpayers will save as a result of reducing regulations. “With an economy that produces over $40 billion of goods and services every year, I anticipate the savings to our citizens will be significant,” he added. He wants to permanently prevent Wyoming from becoming like  California, where a seemingly endless array of products are stamped, “known to the State of California to cause [cancer] [birth defects or other reproductive harm]” because of state regulations surrounding chemicals.   Wyoming is not alone in trying to streamline government in the region. Idaho’s legislature recently adopted Speaker of the House Mike Moyle’s   HB 14: Idaho Code Cleanup Act . That bill now on its way to Gov. Little’s desk would “establish an efficient process for the identification of provisions that are obsolete, outdated or unnecessary so that such provisions may be considered for removal.” In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte earlier this month invited Mr. Musk and former presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (who recently left DOGE) to Montana to discuss how the state has streamlined regulations through its Red Tape Relief Task Force and to discuss how to “reduce the administrative state, get spending, deficits and the national debt under control, and ultimately unleash American opportunity.”   Legislators in Wyoming and across the region should take advantage of the momentum and attention paid to reforming government by Mr. Musk’s high-profile efforts at the national level. Mountain States Policy Center also just r eleased a new study that the lawmakers can consider identifying additional opportunities for regulatory reform. Structural reforms like SF127 that put legislators in charge of how their laws are implemented are key to keeping government closer to the people instead of in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.   Combined with the massive win in the U.S. Supreme Court last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo  – which made it more difficult for federal agencies to regulate with impunity, and a Trump administration focused on reversing the regulatory onslaught under the Biden administration, Wyoming businesses have much to look forward to in the next four years. May SF127 be the opening salvo in what turns out to be an energetic and targeted strategy to permanently make government more accountable to the people of Wyoming.

Education choice is one step closer to reality in Idaho following Wednesday's vote to advance a parental choice tax credit to the full House of Representatives. The Idaho House Revenue and Taxation committee advanced House Bill 93 - a $5,000 parental choice tax credit - by a vote of 8-7. Last year, the same committee rejected a similar proposal by one vote. The bill would provide a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses including private school tuition. Special needs students could qualify for $7,500 tax credits.   There is a cap on what would be available of $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget.     The bill has strong new accountability measures, including oversight by the state tax commission, and a requirement for parents to submit a satisfaction and engagement survey to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the tax credit.   Our exclusive Idaho Poll shows strong support for a $5,000 tax credit, with the majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in Idaho in favor. Furthermore, contrary to reports of constitutional restrictions, the legal cases prove education choice is possible in Idaho and beyond. Legislators received written and in-person testimony from hundreds of concerned citizens from around the state. The hearing room was packed with those wishing to give testimony. MSPC President Chris Cargill was asked to testify and provided these comments: Last week, the President issued an executive order to expand educational freedom and opportunities for all families . In the order, the president calls on state officials to put politics aside and allow parents to choose the best educational setting for their children. He may not have mentioned Idaho directly, but the message was loud and clear.   The executive order confirms what MSPC has previously researched and reported : “the growing body of rigorous research demonstrates that well-designed education-freedom programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance.”

Lawmakers in Wyoming are considering two pieces of legislation that, while aiming to protect children, may actually push the state into a lengthy court battle.   HB 43  is an age-verification bill that requires websites with “harmful materials” to implement an ID verification system. It allows parents or guardians of a minor who is “aggrieved” by a violation to bring a civil action against an online platform for allowing access.   The bill presents a number of technical, privacy and practical challenges. Because of Wyoming’s small population, websites may simply block users rather than risk litigation.   Age verification laws have had a tricky time passing constitutional muster, and have been blocked by the courts in California, Utah, Arkansas, Ohio and Mississippi.   HB 19 in Wyoming would require parental consent to use social media. It delegates rulemaking to the state’s Attorney General. Again, social media parental consent laws have been preliminarily blocked by courts in Ohio and Mississippi.   We have previously written about the need to protect children online, but there is an important balance to ensure we do not weaken constitutional rights. There is also a legitimate question as to whether it is the government’s job to police the internet or social media.   Tech companies have introduced various ideas to help with the effort as well . But it should be noted that filters, blockers, and screen time monitors already exist. Companies may choose to adopt a policy like app store verification, if the market calls for one. The question, then, is whether the strong arm of government should mandate  one?   One idea would be to follow other states like Florida in implementing digital literacy and safety into school curricula. But passing a bill that will likely be struck down as violating the First Amendment won’t make a single child safer. Instead, we need to do the hard work, together, of finding policy solutions that place the family, not the government, at the center of a child’s upbringing, and give them safety tools they can use free of government coercion or censorship.

Medical Certificate of Need (CON) laws have existed since the mid-1960s. They are a classic example of government intervention and central planning of the health care delivery system. Their stated purpose is to hold down costs and at the same time provide more charity care. They operate by requiring doctors, hospitals, and clinics to receive government permission before providing more health care services in a given region. Thirty-five states, including Wyoming, have some type of CON laws. New York State passed the first CON law in 1966. Businesses, insurers, consumers and providers came together to study the need for additional hospital beds. The group determined there was a surplus of beds and recommended state officials restrict further hospital expansion with special legislation. The law made it illegal to add beds to an existing hospital or to treat patients in a new facility without first gaining permission from state officials. The federal government became involved in 1972 when Congress amended the Social Security Act to require all states to review new health care construction projects that exceeded $100,000 in value. Failure to comply with this rule would result in the federal government withholding Medicare and Medicaid money from the offending state. In 1974, because of exploding costs in health care, Congress passed the National Health Planning and Resource Development Act (NHPRDA). This law established a comprehensive federal health care CON regulation, with the penalty for a state’s non-compliance being forfeiture of federal Medicare and Medicaid dollars. The policy goals of NHPRDA were two-fold – to limit the number of health care facilities available to patients in a specific geographic area and, because of more volume and higher payments directed to existing facilities, provide more charity care at those hospitals and clinics allowed to operate in an exclusive area. States were encouraged to establish their own CON programs and all 50 states complied. By 1982, however, the federal government realized the national CON law was not saving money, but was restricting care and limiting available health services for patients. No increase in charity care occurred. Recognizing this failure, Congress repealed the federal law in 1987 and subsequently 14 states, including Wyoming, repealed most or all of their individual CON laws. Officials in Wyoming, however, left a nursing home construction CON in place. HB 289 seeks to repeal the CON law related to limiting construction or expansion of nursing homes in the state. The argument in support of the Certificate of Need concept was that the federal government, through Medicare and Medicaid, has paid for health care in the U.S., and this funding, in turn, gave the government the justification to limit the expansion of the health care system through CON laws. The CON limits, however, artificially create monopolies and restrict access to health care for patients, leading to Congress’s repeal of the national CON law in 1987. The evidence is now clear that CON laws increase the cost of health care. Researchers Stratmann and Russ at George Mason University found that lack of normal competition raised the price of medical care and reduced the availability of hospital beds and medical equipment. An earlier study found almost a 14 percent increase in per-patient health care costs in states with CON laws. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that health care costs are 11 percent higher overall in states with CON laws compared to states without the restrictive law. Over the decades, at both the federal and state levels, there has been no evidence that CON laws increase the availability of charity care. With 50 years of real-world experience, the evidence is now clear that neither federal nor state-level CON laws reduce health care costs. They do, however, reduce competition and patient access to care. Elected officials in Wyoming should give serious consideration to HB 289 and give patients more options and choices in their selection of a nursing home.

When using taxpayer dollars all of us want that money to be put to work in ways that best benefit our society. This is why tax resources should be spent on improving classrooms and student outcomes, not used as a means for promoting government union political ambitions. That's why it is exciting to see a new proposal to stop tax dollars from being used to subsidize the activities of teacher unions. Idaho Representative Judy Boyle has recently proposed House Bill 98 . This proposal would ensure that taxpayer money doesn’t pay for things that are outside the focus of improving education. Government officials would not be allowed to use school district funds, staff, or equipment to support teachers’ union activities. This bill is an outgrowth of work previously discussed in another post on this blog. We noted that taxpayer dollars should be spent on things that truly benefit our communities: education, infrastructure, and public services. HB 98 puts the philosophy into practice. The bill prohibits public officers from using taxpayer dollars to promote teacher unions through various means, whether deducting union dues from people's wages or using district funds for union-related activities. It is important to note that this legislation does not restrict teachers' ability to unionize or be involved in union activities, it simply ensures that these activities will not be financed by the taxpayer. Teachers can still do work on behalf of their union, but they must now do so on their own time and with their own personal finances. HB 98 signals a real move in the right direction to ensure that taxpayer dollars aren't used to subsidize the activities of teacher unions.

Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle said today that a series of tax cut bills would be coming soon. The first bill is to reduce the income tax ( HB 40 ) and in the coming days, there will be proposals to reduce the sales tax and local property tax burden. Speaker Moyle tweeted: “Big news for Idaho taxpayers: Today's bill delivers more than $252M in tax cuts, starting with cutting individual and corporate income taxes to 5.3%. It exempts pensions for working military retirees and eliminates capital gains on gold & silver. This is just the beginning!” Moyle further mentioned the need for Idaho to remain competitive with the ongoing income tax changes in neighboring states . Montana is considering an income tax reduction this year from 5.9% to 4.9%, leap-frogging Idaho’s current 5.695% rate. Utah's income tax is at 4.55% while Nevada and Wyoming don't impose an income tax. Here is the statement of purpose for HB 40 : "This legislation reduces state government’s income tax burden, allowing Idahoans to keep more of their own hard-earned money. First, it reduces Idaho’s flat income tax rate on individuals and corporations from 5.695% to 5.3%. Second, it expands Idaho’s income tax exemption on U.S. military pension income to include certain disabled veterans under age 62, all veterans aged 62-64, and undisabled veterans under age 62 who are also employed and earn sufficient income to owe federal income taxes. And third, it removes capital gains and losses for both precious metal bullion and monetized bullion from the calculation of state income taxes." Another tax relief idea for lawmakers to consider is using automatic triggers to reduce income tax rates based on revenue growth. This is one of the recommendations in our Policy Manual . For example, Indiana lawmakers are currently considering an automatic trigger to reduce its income tax : "Indiana’s individual income tax rate will go down to 2.9 percent in 2027, the third lowest rate in the country for states with an income tax. Sen. Travis Holdman’s (R-Markle) bill would automatically lower the tax rate further by 0.05 percent every even-numbered year, beginning in 2030 — but only if state revenues grow by at least 3 percent in the previous even-numbered year." It is very exciting to see HB 40 include plans to eliminate income tax liability for most military retirement pay. Exempting military retirement pay from income taxes was one of the recommendations made last year by one of our Sawtooth Leadership Academy students. Christopher Sheftic, a sophomore at Lake City High School in Coeur D’Alene, did his Sawtooth Leadership Academy  research project on: “Growing Idaho’s economy by exempting military pensions from taxes.” From Christopher’s Sawtooth research paper : “Idaho should consider fully exempting its income tax on veteran retirement pay so that it can attract more military retirees . . . Veterans bring significant federal benefits to Idaho when they retire here and proceed to send their children to local colleges or universities, start new businesses and create jobs, fill jobs in the private or public sector, and grow the state tax base. The Gem State should strive to join the veteran-friendly parts of the country while reaping the benefits.” Speaking of our Sawtooth Leadership Academy, we are now accepting applications for the 2025 program. Not only could your student’s research paper result in a legislative recommendation like Christopher’s, but $8,000 in scholarships are available. Additional details about the Sawtooth Leadership Academy are available here .   As for HB 40, by further reducing the income tax burden and the economic drag these types of taxes create, lawmakers can put families, businesses, and Idaho's economy in a strong position for the best overall tax climate for success.

Certain fuels burn hotter and faster than others, a lesson quickly taught to new firefighters. “It lights up like gasoline” was a phrase I heard to describe the way certain shrubs would burn and catch individuals in their path. It seems like tragedy is the fuel feeding recent action-oriented proposals addressing the extreme wildland fire seasons in the Western United States.    At both state and federal levels, wildland fire policy discussions are heating up and for good reason. Longer fire seasons, extreme fire behavior, and high wildfire risk  are the norms for the Western United States, as experienced in Idaho throughout 2024 and is sadly the reality facing Los Angeles, California today. Poor fuel management , understaffing, bureaucratic barriers  to fire prevention, slow federal response times , and even home insurance gaps have created large and expensive hurdles. These are concerns needing action in every western state and by the federal government. Multiple public officials recently implemented an initial attack on these challenges. Idaho Governor Brad Little hosted a press conference where he outlined his priorities and proposals to address many of these needs and the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fix Our Forests Act on January 23rd.   After last summer’s report on the 10 priorities for reducing the impacts of wildfire, Governor Brad Little is delivering on the report’s recommendations. The Governor’s press conference on January 17th outlined progress on better fuel management, improved interagency cooperation, and proposed insurance protections for Idaho homeowners via House Bill 17 . His budget proposal also increases funding for early fire detection, firefighter bonuses, enhanced aviation programs, and better funding to meet the realistic needs faced each year.   Governor Little said: “The devastating southern California fires are heartbreaking, and we continue to pray for the many families impacted. However, the extent of the damage is, unfortunately, not altogether surprising. The decisions of California’s elected leaders have made many places in the Golden State unsafe to live. The opposite is happening in Idaho. We are strategically and proactively reducing fire risk and ensuring Idahoans’ property is covered.”   The national FIX OUR FORESTS Act  is bipartisan legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on January 23rd. This legislation is long overdue and addresses many of the challenges federal land managers have faced over the years. Streamlining environmental reviews of forest management projects and protecting projects from frivolous litigation could expedite many years of backlogged fuel management.   Under current federal policy, the use of forest restoration practices will never meet the needs. For example , the U.S. Forest Service manages about 193 million acres of land and 80 million of these acres need restoration. The current rate of management is 2 million acres per year, meaning it would take 40 years to restore our forests through selective logging and healthy prescribed fire. A goal that would never be achieved at the current rate.   The FIX OUR FORESTS Act would also prioritize restoration, adopt new science and techniques for management, improve safety of infrastructure and powerlines, and improve interagency communication. Representative Bruce Westerman  of Arkansas sponsored this legislation and testified in front of the House Committee on Natural Resources saying: “This week, Congress has a rare opportunity. Unlike hurricanes or tornadoes, proper forest management can prevent wildfires. We can save a pound of cure by investing a penny in prevention. The Fix Our Forests Act is a comprehensive, bipartisan package that offers real solutions that will help prevent future catastrophic wildfires like the ones affecting southern California . . . The bill ensures land managers do the work when the sky is blue, not when it’s orange, and fire is on the doorstep.” Instead of spending billions of dollars mopping up fire-torn neighborhoods and forests, our country needs proactive fuel management. One of the saddest nightmares out of the L.A. fires is that residents faced bureaucratic obstacles and red tape that prevented effective fire prevention on and around their property. Out-of-control wildfires are preventable if  the government allows and focuses on prevention.

President Donald Trump’s pen is setting a new standard in the debate over education choice, just as Idaho lawmakers debate a proposal to expand options for local families.   On Wednesday, the President issued an executive order to expand educational freedom and opportunities for all families . In the order, the president calls on state officials to put politics aside and allow parents to choose the best educational setting for their children. He may not have mentioned Idaho directly, but the message was loud and clear.   The executive order confirms what MSPC has previously researched and reported : “the growing body of rigorous research demonstrates that well-designed education-freedom programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance.”   The order comes as numerous bills are introduced in the legislatures of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to expand options. On Thursday, the House Revenue and Taxation committee in Idaho introduced an updated version of the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit.   The bill – HB 93  – would provide a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses including private school tuition. Special needs students could qualify for $7,500 tax credits.   There is a cap on what would be available of $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget.     The bill has strong new accountability measures, including oversight by the state tax commission, and a requirement for parents to submit a satisfaction and engagement survey to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the tax credit.   Polling shows strong support for a $5,000 tax credit, with the majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in Idaho in favor.   Furthermore, contrary to reports of constitutional restrictions, the legal cases prove education choice is possible in Idaho and beyond.   The president has set the stage, the research confirms the validity of the policy, and our families have shown the need. The only thing left is for lawmakers to act.

Lawmakers in Washington State and Wyoming are taking two radically different approaches to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Washington policymakers are considering HB 1448 to allow local RCV, while Wyoming lawmakers have introduced HB 165  to prohibit Ranked Choice Voting. The policy of RCV was thoroughly routed at the ballot box last year across the country with one narrow exception. Last November voters rejected Ranked Choice Voting in Idaho ( 70% no ), Oregon ( 58% no ), Colorado ( 54% no ), and Nevada ( 53% no ). RCV was narrowly retained by Alaska voters by a mere 743 votes out of 321,203 cast . Similar to the Wyoming ban proposal, 68% of Missouri voters  last year approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting Ranked Choice Voting. Let’s look first at Washington’s HB 1448. According to the bill report : “Permits the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in elections for offices in counties, cities, towns, school districts, fire districts, and port districts, and establishes certain requirements for RCV ballot design and vote tabulation. Establishes an RCV work group to advise and aid the Secretary of State when developing implementation and support materials for local governments that enact RCV.” Among those testifying in opposition to WA’s HB 1448 was the Secretary of State’s Office. As reported by Center Square : “Brian Hatfield, legislative director for Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, spoke out against HB 1448, saying he hoped the committee 'will take into consideration the additional expense, the logistical problems and the confusion that would result in moving from our current system which relies on simple addition to a system that relies on an algorithm.’ He called ranked choice voting a ‘regressive move’ and noted that ‘adopting a more complicated way to vote is highly likely to disenfranchise people who can’t easily adjust to changing rules. This includes new American citizens and people who are learning-challenged.’” The opposition of Secretary of State Steve Hobbs is no surprise. Last year Mountain States Policy Center interviewed Secretary Hobbs on this topic. He told us : “Ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process. This includes people living with developmental disabilities – such as my son – for whom choosing one candidate is more straightforward than figuring out how to rank a list of them. Additionally, it can be a challenge for newly-naturalized citizens to adapt to American elections. Converting some elections to ranked-choice voting would increase the obstacles to exercising their rights as Americans. Top-two primaries present none of these challenges. You pick your favorite, then you send in your ballot. That’s something people can easily grasp. I stand firmly behind Top Two and encourage other states to learn from our usage of it.” Secretary Hobbs also wrote a statewide op-ed last year with Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton outlining their concerns with RCV (“ Ranked-choice voting sounds good. But here’s why it would disenfranchise voters ”). Experimenting with RCV in Washington isn’t new. This is from a 2009 blog post by the Washington Secretary of State’s Office discussing why 71% of Pierce County voters repealed Ranked Choice Voting after using the system only once: “It has always been kinda confusing to explain, but advocates believed it would be extremely popular and then possibly catch on elsewhere. Its biggest usage was last year when a new County Executive and other offices were filled this way, running in tandem with the regular state primary and general elections. It went downhill from there. Voters participating in an auditor’s survey said by a 2-to-1 margin that they didn’t like the system. And this year, it was back on the ballot –and voters have thrown it out by a 71-29 margin.” As for Wyoming’s HB 165, the text is short and to the point: “Nothing in this election code shall be deemed to authorize any election in Wyoming to be conducted through ranked choice voting. Any existing or future ordinance enacted or adopted by a county, municipality or any other governmental entity that purports to authorize ranked choice voting in violation of this subsection is void. As used in this subsection, ‘ranked choice voting; means a voting method that allows voters to rank candidates for an office in order of preference and has ballots cast to be tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of a candidate until the candidate or candidates with the most votes are declared winners, or any other system that allows a voter to vote for more than the number of candidates permitted to fill a particular office.” It's not often we’ll quote a California governor for policy advice, but former Governor Jerry Brown said this  when vetoing a ranked-choice voting bill in 2016 : “In a time when we want to encourage more voter participation, we need to keep voting simple. Ranked-choice voting is overly complicated and confusing. I believe it deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.” We’ll soon see what decisions lawmakers in Washington and Wyoming make on their very different RCV bills.

The National Assessment of Education Progress, or NAEP, has released the latest data showcasing math and reading scores for 4th and 8th grade students. Referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card,” the latest results continue to paint a troubling picture for not only the Mountain States, but the nation as a whole.   In math, the assessments “measured students' knowledge and skills, and their ability to solve problems in mathematical and real-world contexts. Students also answered survey questions about their opportunities to learn about and engage in mathematics inside and outside of school. ”   In reading, the “assessment included literary and informational texts to assess students' reading comprehension skills. Students also answered survey questions about their opportunities to learn and their engagement with reading in and outside of school. ”   Overall, the reading score for students across the nation in the fourth grade was two points lower than 2022. Students in the eighth grade also saw reading grades fall by two points.   In mathematics, fourth grade results were two points higher than 2022, but still three points lower than the pre-pandemic score in 2019. For eighth grade students, the results compared to 2022 did not change, but they remain eight points lower than 2019.   The NAEP allows a state-by-state look at the data. For Idaho, the one bright spot was that eighth grade students performed better than their national counterparts. The bad part is less than half of students are proficient in either math or reading, whether they are in fourth or eight grade.   The results from the other states are just as troubling, and, in most cases showcase a large decline since 2000. (See below for complete data)   There is one data point that isn’t made clear by the graphics – that being spending. Washington spends twice as much as Idaho on K-12 public education yet achieves just as bad if not worse results.   What can policymakers do to improve these numbers? We have a few ideas in the education section of our Policy Manual .

The proposed tax cuts keep coming in Idaho. First, we saw the introduction of one of the largest income tax cuts  in state history. Then there was the proposal to increase the state’s grocery tax credit . Now comes HB 74 to use state funds to provide local property tax relief. Combined these proposals are estimated to provide $400 million in tax relief. While property tax relief is needed in Idaho, it is a tricky nut to crack with no statewide property tax levy and local spending driving the burden. Here is the statement of purpose for HB 74 : “This legislation provides an additional $100 million of property tax relief to Idahoans. $50 million of property tax relief will be provided through the School Facilities Fund as established in HB 292 of the 2023 legislative session. An additional $50 million in property tax relief will be provided in the homeowner property tax relief account that was also established in HB 292 of the 2023 legislative session.” According to the Idaho State Tax Commission : “There’s no legal limit to how much any property’s tax bill can increase or decrease. But each taxing district can raise the property tax portion of its budget by no more than 3% unless one or both of these apply: Voters approve an increase to property tax revenue (e.g., bonds, overrides) Your taxing districts apply new construction or new annexations” This means that even with the property tax relief proposed by HB 74, if local spending increases, so too will property taxes. 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 good news is that Rep. Cannon is exploring ways to bring Truth in Taxation to Idaho’s local property taxes. For taxpayers, the cash back in their pocket proposed by HB 74 is a good thing. The challenge 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.

The growing leviathan of government red tape constrains American individuals and businesses, drains taxpayer purses, stifles economic progress and discourages self-reliance. If this makes you angry, you should probably avoid Pocatello , Idaho where it has been illegal not to smile since 1948 (though the existing law was out of humor, it remained on the books).   But in all seriousness, the states are the proving grounds for well-structured regulatory reform, with Idaho and Montana leading the way. These states are implementing the three essential pillars of regulatory reform : legislative oversight, executive responsibility, and judicial deference.   The governors and legislatures of Idaho and Montana recognize the critical necessity of adopting regulatory reform. Their examples of strong executive oversight of rulemaking and limiting bureaucracy and of legislatures increasing their lawmaking stewardship have improved the state economies and fostered potential growth in the region.   So where do these leaders in regulatory reform go from here and what are the lessons for other states? Our new study looks to answer this question. A frequent phrase on any farm with animals is, “SHUT THE GATE!” For anyone who has chased free and roaming livestock around a field, it is easy to understand why it is too late to shut the gate once the horse has bolted. It seems that many lawmakers forget this altruism. Leaving the proverbial gate (well-written statutes) wide open to the bureaucracies to stampede away with the rule of law. Future reforms should focus on shutting the gate, putting the horse back into the corral, and keeping the gate closed.   Lawmakers should adopt a practice of a cyclical review of statutes, in addition to rulemaking. This would require agencies to conduct a cyclical review of all statutes to find outdated, unnecessary, or complicated laws. Idaho has already led the way on cyclical rulemaking review, but it is important to review the source of the rules in the first place, the statutes. Once the statute review has been conducted, the agencies would present findings and recommendations to the committees. This continued responsibility towards all statutes will keep the bureaucratic horse firmly locked behind the gate of well-written statutes.   On January 15th, Idaho’s Speaker of the House Mike Moyle announced a piece of legislation that would strive towards this recommendation.   Congressional Republicans have proposed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act . The REINS Act is an attempt to wrest back lawmaking from the fourth branch of government and the executive. Republican lawmakers have reiterated the need to have congressional oversight on regulatory authority.   Idaho’s long-standing utilization of legislative review of administrative rules gives evidence that a federal REINS Act would prove a success for all taxpayers, businesses, and the national economy. Even before Governor Little’s implementation of zero-based regulation and utilizing sunset clauses on a cyclical basis, Idaho’s legislative review slowed the promulgation of new regulation.   State and federal rulemaking across the country would benefit from a REINS Act with required legislative approval of new rulemaking.   What are the next steps forward for states that are already leading the efforts for regulatory reduction? For Idaho, the successful reduction in the administrative code from 8,553 to 5,318 pages is a notable achievement and the further adoption of statutes by the legislature strengthens these reforms. The next step forward is to increase the legislature’s responsibility and obligation to shut the gate on runaway rulemaking. These reforms could include:   Adopt a cyclical legislative review of statutes identifying and eliminating or reducing unnecessary, duplicative, or excessively burdensome laws, that are contributing to unneeded rulemaking. Require all new statutes to include a Regulatory Impact Notice (RIN). While also adopting a legislative practice of using words that the agencies “may” instead of “shall” or “must.” Lawmakers should be encouraged to draft legislation that is rarely reliant on rulemaking, with language that doesn’t rely on bureaucracy to flesh out the laws. Clarify the specific requirements of a cost/benefit analysis. Adopting specific guidance of how the analysis is conducted, what it will include, and ensuring the process is simple to conduct, without needing a PhD in economics. Specify the governor’s role in temporary rulemaking, ensuring executive oversight of the temporary rules and mandating transparency in addressing the need for such rules.   Idaho and Montana’s regulatory reform efforts are something to be proud of. The strong economies and high population growth are just some of the benefits that come when a state focuses on reducing regulatory burden, so businesses and individuals can achieve more without the bureaucratic horse stampeding across their path. Other states and the federal government should take note of the lessons learned from Idaho and Montana and watch their efforts as they continue to improve their already leading position.

In a major move, President Trump has taken action to refocus America's path for the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI). By revoking the Biden administration’s AI executive order (Executive Order (EO) 14110) and replacing it with the Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence  executive order, Trump has demonstrated a strong commitment to eliminating red tape and fostering innovation. President Trump's actions signal a clear vision to keep America at the forefront of AI development and up-and-coming technologies on the global stage. EO 14110, issued by the Biden administration in 2021 , wanted to establish a framework for AI oversight within the U.S. The focus was on mitigating risks to "national security, privacy, and fairness." However, critics had raised concerns that the framework placed undue emphasis on government regulation and ideological bias in AI system development, ultimately risking the ability to innovate. This level of red tape would have delayed America’s leadership in the global AI race. In contrast, President Trump’s executive order calls for a radically different approach, one that prioritizes free-market policies, innovation, and U.S. technological leadership. By eliminating Biden’s AI directives, President Trump is clearing the way for policies that encourage economic growth, human flourishing, and national security, without the burdens of unnecessary regulations or the imposition of ideological agendas like DEI. President Trump’s new executive order lays out a clear vision for America's role in AI development. The core focus is to enhance U.S. dominance in the AI field while fostering a workable environment for innovation. The order makes it clear that the United States must remain the global leader in AI, with a focus on developing technologies "that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas." This policy is designed to strengthen economic growth, promote human flourishing, and enhance national security—key pillars of U.S. leadership in the field of AI. The order states: "Within 180 days of this order, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director), and the heads of such executive departments and agencies (agencies) as the APST and APNSA deem relevant, shall develop and submit to the President an action plan to achieve the policy set forth in section 2 of this order." Although the Biden administration’s AI policies are officially rescinded, their influence lingers in ongoing initiatives and agency activities. Under Trump’s new order, agencies will undergo a comprehensive review process to ensure that future efforts align with the new vision. Section 5 of the order mandates a thorough review of all policies, regulations, and actions tied to the Biden administration’s AI directives. This review will look for ways to eliminate barriers to innovation, promote market-driven solutions, and foster a regulatory environment that enhances the U.S.'s competitive edge in AI development. It is no secret that AI is already reshaping industries from healthcare to education, and the U.S. must lead the way in ensuring these advancements work for the American people. The message from the new EO is clear: America is committed to staying at the forefront of AI technology, ensuring that emerging innovations benefit the nation, its people, and our economy. As AI continues to develop, one new resource to keep an eye on is " Deep Seek", an innovative AI system that was just launched . With its potential to revolutionize data analysis and decision-making, it promises to be a game-changer in the tech world. Buckle up for a closer look at how "Deep Seek" is set to shape the future of AI.

Purchasing food-related groceries in Idaho could soon become more affordable under a new bill introduced today. HB 61 (Food tax credits and refunds) , proposed by Rep. Jason Monks, would increase the Gem State’s grocery tax credit from $120 per Idaho resident to $155. One of our recommendations this year  for lawmakers is to increase the state’s grocery tax credit and index it for inflation. The current grocery tax credit of $120 per Idaho resident would equal $480 for a family of four. The new proposed credit of $155 would increase those savings to $620 for a family of four, a 29% increase. According to Rep. Jason Monks, that means after claiming the increased tax credit, a family of four would be able to purchase approximately $10,000 worth of food-related groceries tax-free during the year. According to the statement of purpose for HB 61 : “Currently the grocery tax credit is $120.00 per person or $140.00 for individuals 65 and older. This legislation will increase the grocery tax credit for all individuals to $155.00 starting in the fiscal year of 2026. Additionally, this legislation will give Idaho income tax filers the option to take the $155 tax credit per person, or to receive a full refund of all taxes paid on groceries up to $250.00 per person by itemizing their grocery expenses on their annual income tax returns. This legislation will provide approximately $50 million in tax relief to Idahoans. This legislation will also reduce revenue to the General fund by approximately $50 million. Of the $50 million, $47 million will come from increasing the credit and approximately $3 million from individuals who claim the full refund by itemizing.” The alternative option of itemizing receipts proposed by HB 61 illustrates the complexity that would occur if the grocery tax credit was instead repealed ( see Section 1 (9)(a) of the bill ). This is the challenge other states have faced when trying to define what qualifies as food for taxation purposes and how to define what candy or soda is. Rather than increase the grocery tax credit, some have instead called for a full repeal of the sales tax on groceries. Instead of repealing or exempting the tax for all, grocery tax credits or rebates offer low-income households better savings. Research from the Tax Foundation concludes : “Grocery exemptions are a middle-income, not a low-income, benefit—and middle earners can be more efficiently made whole through grocery tax credits. Higher earning households purchase not only more, but higher qualities of, groceries. Low-income households, in fact, are more likely to purchase taxable substitutes to what states classify as groceries, a category that traditionally only covers unprepared foods. The result is that a household in the fifth decile spends almost 70 percent more than a household in the first decile, and a household in the top decile spends over three times as much as a household in the lowest. The distributional effects of grocery taxation diverge sharply from most policymakers’ expectations, which has dramatic ramifications for this ongoing debate and suggests better ways to achieve policymakers’ desired aims.” Sales taxes are more stable and pro-growth than other forms of taxation – especially income taxes. Policymakers can better serve citizens by adopting higher yearly grocery tax rebates and focusing additional tax relief on reducing income taxes. By adopting both the increased grocery tax rebate proposed by HB 61 and the income tax relief proposed by HB 40 , Idaho lawmakers have the opportunity to continue to build on the impressive tax relief efforts  they’ve been enacting over the last several years.

If you’re a parent, you know the game. Kids will repeat something over and over again hoping you’ll eventually believe it. It may work at home, but it doesn’t work in public policy.   The opponents of advancing education choice in Idaho like to use the state of Arizona as a billion dollar bogeyman. They paint a doomsday impression of what happened when Arizona started expanding choice options for family, and their contention is often repeated over and over again in the press.   At a recent news conference , the state teachers union held signs that read “Arizona’s voucher failure is Idaho’s warning.” Others have made derogatory comments about families who desire more options, or they’ve written op-eds saying any plan will “blow a hole in Idaho’s budget.”   The problem is opponents are just not being straight with Idahoans. It may not be intentional, but rather a genuine lack of understanding of what happened in Arizona, and what’s likely to happen here in Idaho if education choice is expanded.   First, it’s important to know what is being proposed in Idaho. So far this session, each idea has been a limited (capped) tax credit. It is factually wrong to call it a voucher – as vouchers are government checks that go directly to private schools, rather than a tax benefit that is aimed at families. Because of the cap, the state is limited on what it can spend. Further, the proposals introduced so far don’t take a dime away from the state’s public school budget.   Every state has advanced education choice differently. In Arizona, the effort has been underway for more than two decades. Why? Because the state experienced a surge of new residents and didn’t have the capacity to build schools fast enough. Education choice helped ease the overcrowding and give families more options.   Arizona’s universal  Education Savings Account (ESA) program only started in 2022, giving access to a state-monitored account that families could use to pay for education expenses outside of the public school system. Universal  is the key word in this debate, as many students in Arizona were already eligible for the accounts before the bill passed (more on that in a moment).   While it is true the program cost more than was originally budgeted, there are numerous reasons for this, not the least of which is the overwhelming demand by families throughout the state. In fact, 79,593 families have signed up.   What isn’t  true is the contention that costs surged to nearly a billion dollars and left the state in a budget deficit. How do we know? Like any other state, Arizona’s budget details are available online for anyone to see .   For example, take a state look at overall revenue and expenditures from the state for the past 10 years. A close examination indeed shows an increase in spending, but a reduction  in revenue. Still, the state’s ending fund balance was in the positive in 2024 and is projected to again be in surplus territory in 2025. The amount Arizona spends on K-12 public education has also increased – more than doubling over the past decade. The ESA program is required to give quarterly updates  on its spending and participation – and the exact amount every student has received. It is a comprehensive approach that other states should emulate. The most recent update shows the state spending $795.2 million on the universal program, not the nearly one billion that has been reported. But there’s an important detail here: roughly one out of five students who are currently participating in Arizona’s program are special needs. The state spends $250 million of the $795 million on those students, but they were already eligible for an ESA long before the universal program was adopted.   That means the cost for the new program is closer to $545 million. (But wait, there’s more!)   Arizona’s nonpartisan Joint Legislative Budget Committee confirms the new universal ESA program cost about $92 million more than had been forecasted, but that public school enrollment costs because of the ESA availability dropped  $93 million. In other words, a small net savings to the state was achieved.   In fact, Arizona’s state schools chief recently announced  that the program actually came in $4.3 million under  budget for fiscal year 2024. Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said, “Having a surplus of more than $4 million is proof positive that the critics who have claimed the ESA program will bust not only the state’s education budget but the entire budget itself were always wrong. It was always a myth, and that myth is utterly demolished.”   Even more startling are the statistics about the families who are participating. Again, contrary to irresponsible reports, the median household income of a family participating in the Arizona ESA program is just $60,600 .   Arizona currently spends $15,100 per student, per year on K-12 public schooling. If the 79,593 students using an ESA instead went to public schools, the obligation for state taxpayers would be north of $1.2 billion.   Instead, the average award size for a family that has signed up for an ESA is $7,500, a savings for the state, and an opportunity for families to select an educational path that works best for their child.

What if your address didn’t determine your public school? As WY-TOPP state assessments show, student performance varies widely throughout the state. And right now only those who reside in high-performing districts can send their children to those high-performing schools. If Wyoming adopted an open enrollment process, however, parents would be able to choose a different school within their district, county or the state (depending on the scope of the law) than the one assigned to their child or children. Before those who reside in one of those high-performing locations protest that new students might push scores lower or cause behavioral or other problems, let’s explain how the process works. With open enrollment, admission to state public schools would not become a free-for-all lottery. Given the vast distances people must drive between cities in Wyoming, geography would limit where students could apply. Second, students who live in district would take priority over those out of it. So, the number of seats open to out-of-district students would be limited to the overall capacity of the school and parents’ willingness to drive their children to a particular school, if transportation is not included. Most importantly, families who previously had no options for their children— aside from moving—would have the ability to seek a better fit for their children without disrupting their lives or forcing them to pay for private school. Nationally, the concept carries wide bipartisan support. A Morning Consult poll  from 2023 shows that 76% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats want open enrollment. Specialized programs, avoiding bullying and better student performance are three of the reasons parents choose to move districts or schools. Research  by California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that districts that lost the most students from open enrollment responded by improving their offerings and “made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years.” It also found that students who switched schools were able to study an average of 5 to 7 more classes, including art and music, foreign languages and college preparatory classes not offered in their home districts. Other studies have shown that students in open enrollment states move to higher-performing schools. Since COVID, the public school population has declined in Wyoming and nationally, with more parents choosing homeschooling and private schools. Open enrollment could be a way to keep more families in public schools as it would allow them to pick the school best suited to their children without having to exit the system. And given the declining school age population, it could become even more important to retain students. Senate File 109 , sponsored by Senator Evie Brennan of Cheyenne, is a good start to introducing open enrollment to Wyoming. While it would not allow cross-district student transfers, given Wyoming’s geography, that is less of an issue than in more densely populated states where multiple cities border one another. If passed, it requires, starting in the 2026-2027 school year, that districts add policies allowing students to enroll at any school within the district. It also prioritizes current students and their siblings who live in a school’s attendance area. And it requires districts to publicly post on their websites the number of vacancies in each grade level every 12 weeks at a minimum. If schools don’t have the capacity to admit out-of-district students, they don’t have to accept transfers. And schools do not have to accept students who have been suspended or expelled or are in the process of being suspended or expelled from other schools. According to the Reason Foundation , 16 states offer cross-district open enrollment and 13 offer it within districts. Wyoming legislators should make the Equality State the next one. Your family’s address and socio-economic status must not determine a child's success.

Here we go again. Some lawmakers in Washington state will just not give up on their quest for a state-run single-payer health care system. Their latest attempt is SB 5233 , “Developing the Washington health trust.” After several years of meetings and after realizing they had no practical funding mechanism, supporters of the health trust have added SB 5233 to force more taxes on Washington state taxpayers. SB 5233 would be a continuation, with some financing clarification, of the Washington health trust. The trust is essentially the first step toward a single-payer, government-based system for Washington state. From the opening paragraph of the bill:  “AN ACT Relating to the expansion and consolidation of public health plans in Washington under a unified financing system in order to universalize eligibility to all Washington residents, ensure comprehensive medical coverage including primary care, dental, vision, and prescription drug benefits, and achieve cost savings through administrative efficiency, bulk pricing, and cost controls…” The trust’s board will decide essential benefits, provider payments, and which drugs and services will be paid for. And everyone in the state is included in the plan, including individuals who are in the country illegally. If you like your current health insurance, you can keep it, although the stated goal is to eventually gather everyone under the single-payer plan. This includes the employed, those in Medicare, Medicaid, and potentially the retired military. The funding is more than ambitious. It includes a new employer tax, a long-term capital gains tax, a self-employment tax, and a new tax on individuals earning more than 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states have considered a state-based single-payer system, yet even some of the most progressive states have given up on the idea because of the cost. Vermont came close to instituting a single-payer system on a state-level basis. In 2011, the Vermont Legislature passed and Governor Peter Shumlin signed “An Act Relating to a Universal and Unified Health System.” The state-wide, single-payer system was to start in 2017. By 2014, however, fiscal estimates showed that the state budget would need an extra $2 billion in 2017 to fund the program. This would be a 35 percent increase over the state’s original $5.7 billion 2017 budget. The state would need to raise taxes to levels unacceptable to the public and at the same time, decrease provider payments to unrealistic amounts. Vermont officials admitted failure and abandoned the plan in December 2014. In spite of enthusiastic campaigning and support of a single-payer system, Colorado voters turned down a single-payer ballot initiative in 2016. The voters realized the overwhelming cost and enormous tax increase to fund the initiative. They were also concerned about losing their current health insurance. California legislators have considered a single-payer system in the past few legislative sessions. They have not passed any legislation, again because of the unknown but likely exorbitant cost to state taxpayer s. Canada is the poster child for a single-payer system and is often referenced by supporters of a government-run system in the U.S. The Fraser Institute is a well-respected national think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia. For the past 25 years, the organization has tracked waiting times for patients to receive health care in Canada. It surveys specialist physicians across 12 specialties throughout Canada. The institute recently released the waiting list data for 2024. It found the median time for specialty treatment once a patient was referred by a primary care doctor was 30 weeks. On average, Canadians waited 15 weeks to see a specialist, then waited an additional 15 weeks to receive treatment. Every Canadian is covered by the plan and, in theory, has access to medical care. The provinces administer the plan with funding from federal taxpayers. The government determines what procedures are medically necessary based on “data and statistics.” The data confirm that simply having health insurance does not guarantee timely access to health care. In addition, the Canadian single-payer system has created severe shortages. Medical care is rationed using long waiting lists and by limiting the number of certain medical procedures allowed. Simple medical problems, if not treated early, can turn into chronic or life-threatening conditions, so long wait times prolong pain and suffering for patients. Costs have skyrocketed and now represent the largest expense for every province’s budget. Almost 90 percent of Canadians live within driving distance of the United States. For those who can afford it, quality health care is immediately available in the U.S. In reality, Canada has a two-tiered health care system, with the U.S. providing timely care for those able to travel and pay more. Most Canadians say they like their system, but their expectations are different than those in the U.S. Waiting 30 weeks for needed medical treatment would not be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans. The exact cost of Washington's proposed SB 5233 is unknown. What is known is the fact that the supporters of a single-payer system in Washington state are counting on everyone in the state to participate. This would require multiple waivers from the federal government to force people who are now in Medicare, Medicaid, and employer-paid plans into the state program. This would be virtually impossible with the incoming federal administration. It is past time for elected officials in Washington state to abandon their irresponsible quest for a single-payer health care system. Rather than more bureaucratic control, officials should focus on health care reform that puts patients in charge and gives them more control over their health care decisions and their health care finances.