Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) - the region's premier free market think tank - has announced the election of two new members to its governing Board of Directors . Consistent with the organization's bylaws, Scott Brown of Rexburg and Tim Hennessey of Boise were elected unanimously by MSPC's board in December. Mr. Brown, who holds an MBA from Boise State University, is the CEO of Sterling Medical, and a visionary health care leader in Idaho and beyond. Sterling has 20 clinics across four states and annual revenues totaling $35 million.Throughout his career, Scott has been recognized for his exceptional leadership, including being named ‘Hospital Administrator of the Year.’ Mr. Hennessey worked for 20 years for Prudential Financial's PGIM Real Estate. He was responsible for sourcing, pricing and structuring large-scale private equity transactions and is currently a senior advisor for Madison Capital. Tim is married, lives in Boise, and has prior board experience on the boards of The Park Theater Trust, the Mid-Peninsula Ice Rink Foundation, and the Idaho Sled Hockey Association. "Tim and Scott are both committed, free marketeers who understand the proper role of government and our mission as a trusted research organization," said Chris Cargill, MSPC's President. Hennessey and Brown take the board positions previously held by Dan Kristiansen of Eagle and Chris Patterson of Priest Lake, whose terms expired at the end of 2024. "Dan and Chris's contributions were invaluable, as the organization launched and proved successful under their leadership," Cargill said. Mountain States Policy Center is governed by a 17-person Board of Directors made up of individuals from across the region who serve staggered terms. The MSPC board meets quarterly to govern the organization, but to avoid the appearance of bias, board members do not have influence over MSPC research ideas or recommendations.

The findings of a recent audit performed by the Washington State Auditor’s Office  showed that on average, Washington paid $8.6 million on unnecessary Medicaid premiums for clients residing in the seven states being reviewed, with even more costs across the nation. Auditors also found that Washington could improve existing processes to reduce unnecessary premium payments, but Medicaid needs better solutions nationwide.   Nationwide, state governments spent $880 billion on Medicaid in 2023 . Washington spent $29.2 billion, Idaho spent $3.6 billion, Wyoming spent $726 million, and Montana spent $2.4 billion in the same time frame. The states that spent the most on concurrent Medicaid recipients are California with $134 million and Washington State with $65 million. The Washington State report found that one of the biggest problems is concurrent Medicaid enrollments. This happens when one person is enrolled in multiple states. This is due to individuals moving, or not having permanent housing. In Oregon for example, individuals who had concurrent enrollments were twice as likely to be homeless than the rest of the Medicaid population in Washington. This results in the government paying multiple times for the same person and not providing any additional benefits. In the report, Washington officials noted that they have worked to increase communication with Oregon to resolve these cases. Between 2019 and 2022, Oregon spent $445 million in covering duplicate Medicaid enrollees.   Oregon state auditors commented that “about 3% of Oregon’s Medicaid recipients were also enrolled in another state."   One of the major difficulties with addressing this issue is the inaccuracy and discrepancies found in the system used to track the enrollees. The Social Security Administration can provide faulty information that throws off those looking for concurrent enrollments. While this ultimately does fall on the state governments, the federal government has to upgrade and improve its tracking systems to provide more real-time data to state agencies.   There seem to be two sides to addressing this issue on the state level. One is internal and the other is external. On the internal side, The Washington State Auditor suggested that the Health Care Authority and Department of Social and Health Services increase their communication to identify individuals who have potentially moved. If an individual leaves one government program due to relocating to a different state, that information needs to be communicated throughout the state departments to prevent concurrent enrollments. On the external side, increased communication between neighboring states is critical.  Most of the time these individuals move to a neighboring state and the governments can simply check to make sure there aren’t any duplicates in programs spanning over multiple states like Medicaid.   Washington State and Oregon concluded that the best course of action is to create a process to recover the funds spent on duplicate enrollments, work with the U.S. Treasury to create a pilot project, create a process to check national data, and request funds for additional data matching staff. This looks to be the best course of action. Taxpayer-funded programs like Medicaid need a high level of accountability to be efficient. One concurrent Medicaid enrollment is one too many, and with a single state paying $8.6 million, it demonstrates this issue needs to be addressed immediately.

Ready or not Idaho’s 2025 Legislative Session starts on January 6. Many important policies will be considered ranging from education choice to tax reform. There will also likely be a surprise or two. It is of paramount importance for Idahoans to have the ability to be actively involved and heard by their elected officials during this lawmaking process. Unfortunately, it is currently more difficult than it should be for this to occur. While the Idaho Legislature commendably provides the opportunity for remote testimony , it is needlessly difficult to sign up for committee notifications. I know this from firsthand experience. Without a master listserv signup for committee updates, those wanting these important legislative notifications are required to go committee by committee. You also can’t sign up consecutively. There’s a required “waiting” period between each signup. This is the warning you receive if trying to sign up rapidly: "You need to wait for some time before subscribing again." This waiting period meant it took me a full week to complete the signup process for all the committees. This is incredibly inefficient and is not the case in neighboring states. Most state legislatures use a master email listserv. They also don’t require you to resubscribe after every session. Here is an example of how easy it is to use the master signup process  for the Washington legislature. Montana uses the same easy process.  Wyoming also uses a master email listserv. Not only is it difficult to sign up for committee updates in Idaho, but the notices are not sent with enough time for citizens to be able to make plans to participate in their governance. Far too often committee updates are sent the night before a hearing instead of the standard best practice of three to five days in advance. To help maximize public involvement in their governance, Idaho lawmakers should amend their rules to require at least three days notice of the bills to be heard at public hearings. Providing advance notice of bills scheduled for public hearings is a standard practice among states. This will help provide busy citizens with the time needed to adjust schedules if they wish to provide comments on pending legislation. This type of common-sense transparency reform has tremendous public support. Our recent Idaho Poll found 92% support for requiring three-day notice for legislative public hearings . Here are examples of legislative rules requiring advance notice of bills scheduled for public hearings. Washington five-day notice:  “1) At least five days’ notice shall be given of all public hearings held by any committee other than the rules committee. Such notice shall contain the date, time and place of such hearing together with the title and number of each bill, or identification of the subject matter, to be considered at such hearing. By a majority vote of the committee members present at any committee meeting such notice may be dispensed with. The reason for such action shall be set forth in a written statement preserved in the records of the meeting. 2) No committee may hold a public hearing during a regular or extraordinary session on a proposal identified as a draft unless the draft has been made available to the public at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing. This rule does not apply during the five days prior to any cutoff established by concurrent resolution, nor does it apply to any measure exempted from the resolution.” Montana three-day notice : “Notice of a committee hearing must be made by posting the date, time, and subject of the hearing online and in a conspicuous public place not less than three legislative days in advance of the hearing.” To help maximize Idahoans participation in their governance, lawmakers should adopt the following legislative transparency best practices: Utilize a master email listserv subscription for all committee updates; Subscription notifications do not expire after the session; Provide a three-day notice for all public hearings and agendas  (automatically emailed to those subscribed); Post all bill amendments in advance for committees and floor action; and Post the room number on the legislative website where lawmaker offices are located at the capitol building. Whether we are entrepreneurs, parents, students, members of a trade group, or even a lawmaker, it is important to have meaningful public notice of when a bill is going to be available for a public hearing and what the actual text of that proposal is. Only then can we rearrange our schedules, review, and prepare to provide the testimony lawmakers need to help advance good policy for the state. Requiring at least a three-day notice of bills scheduled for a public hearing will help improve the information available not only for citizens but also for lawmakers as bills advance through the legislative process.

Civics, civility, free markets and at least $8,000 is on the line as Mountain States Policy Center begins to accept applications for the 2025 Sawtooth Leadership Academy. The Sawtooth Leadership Academy is designed for ambitious high school and college students who are eager to explore and embrace free market principles, gain practical insights from industry leaders, and contribut e to their communities as future leaders. The core of the Sawtooth Leadership Academy is our belief in putting Free Markets First. We believe that the free market – not government intervention – is the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Mountain States Policy Center invites all high school and college students in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Eastern Washington to apply to be part of the Sawtooth Leadership Academy program in 2025. All accepted students will: Participate in a series of six online courses, featuring some of the region’s top political and business leaders; Help plan and execute Mountain States Policy Center’s Great Debate series at a local college campus; Write a policy study to be published by MSPC and voted upon by the public; and Showcase study and research, and host a table of guests at MSPC’s Fall Dinner in Boise October 7. Finalized publications will be up for a public vote in September. The publication that receives the highest number of votes receives a $5,000 scholarship. The second and third place finishers will receive $2,000 and $1,000. This program is well-suited for individuals who: Demonstrate Ambition and Commitment Ambitious individuals who are driven to achieve their goals, both academically and personally, and who exhibit a strong commitment to making a positive impact in their communities. Seek Real-World Experiences If you are excited about learning through hands-on experiences and practical applications, the Sawtooth Leadership Academy offers opportunities to engage with leaders and gain insights directly from professionals. Desire to Build a Network Students who recognize the importance of building a network of like-minded peers and industry leaders, fostering connections that extend beyond the program. Can Commit to Program Requirements Prospective applicants should be able to commit to the program's schedule. These activities will be once a month, and likely not overlap with activities through school. Attendance at events will be part of qualification to receive scholarship. Are based in the Mountain States Students must be enrolled in high school or college in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or Eastern Washington to be considered. The application deadline for this year's program is January 31st. Interested students should submit an application here.

The legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming are still a week or two from getting started, but we’re already seeing a flurry of education choice proposals.   In fact, in Washington, where legislators can pre-file legislation, House Bill 1140 has been introduced by Representatives Travis Couture and Jim Walsh . The legislation would create new “empowerED scholarships” using Education Savings Accounts .   The exciting proposal would specifically fund ESA’s for low income students, special needs families and students who are trapped in failing schools. The funds would be available via a state-issued debit card, with oversight capability. The money would have to be spent on education, including tuition, fees, textbooks, tutoring, therapies and more.   The fund would receive revenue from the legislature, as well as a B&O tax credit, where businesses could offer support on a voluntary basis. The maximum scholarship for students without disabilities would be $12,700, but those who are special needs could receive more.   Democrats control near super majorities in the Washington legislature, and the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction has made it clear he has no interest in providing families with more options, despite the state’s dramatic increase in education spending and equally dramatic poor public education outcomes.  Instead, it appears more likely that lawmakers will simply throw more money at public education, even as fewer and fewer students attend public schools.   It is worth noting that, in Washington, more than 118,000 students and their families now opt out of the state’s public school system, saving taxpayers more than $1.5 billion each year, and more than $11 billion over the past ten years. Those who can afford to send their child to private school, or home school, already do so. But those who can’t are left behind, something this bill aims to fix. Education Savings Accounts are extremely popular with the general public - more than 70% support the policy nationwide .   The likelihood of a bill like this passing this coming session may be low. But, considering more than half of states now offer some education choice plan , lawmakers could, at the very least, hold a hearing.

Americans can vote by mail, vote in person and even vote with their feet. Indeed, policies have consequences. The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau tells an incredible, and familiar story: Americans are fleeing high tax, high regulation states for those that offer better opportunity for their families. It's playing out on the national level, and the state level. Idaho has now broken through the two million population marker. Nine of the top ten states are considered either moderate (Nevada, North Carolina) or conservative in their governance. Let's first examine the states with the highest percentage growth. Population 2023 Population 2024 Growth % Florida 22,904,868 23,372,215 2.0% Texas 30,727,890 31,290,831 1.8% Utah 3,443,222 3,503,613 1.8% South Carolina 5,387,830 5,478,831 1.7% Nevada 3,105,595 3,267,467 1.7% Idaho 1,971,122 2,001,619 1.5% North Carolina 10,881,189 11,046,024 1.5% Delaware 1,036,423 1,051,917 1.5% Arizona 7,473,027 7,582,384 1.5% The Census Bureau data shows every state had population growth, but some states were clearly attracting new residents, while others were simply treading water. The 2024 data, when compared to 2020, is even more stark. In fact, Idaho is growing nearly three times faster than Washington state. Montana's growth greatly exceeds Washington's. Assuming the numbers hold, the population movement is going to have a monumental impact on the 2030 Census, the reallocation of seats in the House of Representatives, allocations in the Electoral College, and the future of the nation. The latest data shows Idaho, Utah and Arizona each gain a seat in the House and therefore, the electoral college. Florida & Texas would gain four seats each. California would lose four. New York could lose two.

Legislative sessions across the Mountain States will kick off in January. We’re excited to see which of our policy recommendations  lawmakers decide to act on. Before we turn the page on 2024, here are some of our favorite policy memories from the last year: We had nearly 1,100 in combined attendance at our annual dinners in Coeur d'Alene and Boise. Former White House Press Secretary, author, and current FOX News host Kayleigh McEnany was the keynote speaker at our Spring Coeur d'Alene dinner . MSPC recognized several lawmakers with our Elevation Award. Montana Representative Sue Vinton was honored for leading the charge to bring charter schools to the Treasure state. Representative Vinton also spearheaded the effort to introduce Education Savings Accounts for special needs children in Montana.  In Idaho, MSPC honored state House Majority Leader Jason Monks, Representative Wendy Horman, Senator Doug Ricks, Senator Lori Den Hartog and Senator C. Scott Grow. All of these leaders have been instrumental in the introduction of the Parental Choice Tax Credit proposal for families that would have offset the cost of school tuition and other education-related expenses. Those attending our Fall Boise dinner  were treated to speeches by United States Senator Tim Scott and former Congressman and current FOX News host Trey Gowdy. Idaho Reports was presented with the 2024 Elevation Award at the Boise dinner for its in-depth coverage of the legislature and policy debates in the state.   We held our first annual dinner in Billings featuring Wall Street Journal  columnist Kim Strassel.   With a unanimous vote , the Idaho Legislature this year adopted our recommendation to close the state’s unconstitutional loophole that could allow home equity theft  to occur. When ruling against this egregious practice in 2023, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said it best : "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more."   Among the provisions of the school facilities funding reform  adopted this year is an additional reduction in Idaho’s income tax rate.   With the approval of SJM 103 , Idaho lawmakers made it clear that the state is dam proud and strongly supports the clean renewable hydro baseload power, navigation, and irrigation provided by the Snake River dams. The Legislature declared: “the State of Idaho opposes any actions to degrade the functionality, in whole or in part, to remove or breach any dams on the Columbia-Snake River System or its tributaries…” Last year we teamed up with U.S. Senator Jim Risch to write an op-ed  discussing the importance of the Snake River dams.   MSPC was invited by the co-chairs of Idaho's JFAC budget committee to give an hour-long presentation  to the committee about performance-based budgeting. JFAC is now moving forward with this important budget reform.   One of our Senior Policy Analysts, Amber Gunn, had an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal  discussing the problems with rent control . One of the comments posted on the WSJ website said: “This article needs to be free so it can be blasted to everyone far and wide.”      Washington Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers posted this on her Facebook account after meeting with MSPC: “I really enjoyed the opportunity to catch up with Chris Cargill with Mountain States Policy Center this week. I have been so impressed by the way Chris and his team have hit the ground running to build trust and restore confidence in our free market system, which is exactly what our country needs more of right now!”   An editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal sent us this comment: “The Mountain States Policy Center is a valuable resource for journalists on the political, fiscal and economic issues facing Northwest states and how they relate to those issues nationwide.”   One of our Senior Policy Analysts, Madi Clark, wrote a joint op-ed with Idaho’s U.S. Senator Mike Crapo  discussing federal forest management. The op-ed ran in several regional newspapers . We’ve now had joint op-eds published with Sen. Crapo (forests), Sen. Risch ( Snake River dams ), and Congressman Simpson ( agriculture ).   Ballotpedia published a page discussing our work. MSPC is listed as an "influencer." According to Ballotpedia: "An influencer is a person or organization that has the power to change things or peoples' minds, or to make things happen. The impact of an influencer is recognizable and significant, and includes changes in behavior or opinion in others. Notably, these agents have the power to create change without necessarily taking direct action, such is the power of influence." Our Director of the Junkermier Center for Technology and Innovation, Sebastian Griffin was featured on a panel at the State Policy Network’s (SPN) annual meeting . His update addressed one of the most crucial issues facing the Mountain States Region - broadband implementation and the balance of power between the public and private sectors . The other SPN panelists pointed to Sebastian’s study as the model needed for lawmakers across the country.   Our new Policy Manual  was mailed to thousands of elected officials and media members across the states we cover. Here is one of the comments we received from a legislative staffer: “Please extend my compliments to the staff of the Mountain States Policy Center for their outstanding Policy Manual. I particularly LOVE their use of QR codes to add content . . . if you ask me to rate the manual on a scale of 1-5, I would demur and give it a score of 25…the 25 separate times I’ve folded down a page because I found the data point or policy proposal to be of overarching interest. No higher compliment from this policy wonk to his compatriot wonks in the fight for freedom and first principles.” We released the Idaho Poll  to provide critical information to policymakers regarding the state's top policy issues. From tax and budgeting to education freedom, and even energy use, this comprehensive data taken directly from the citizens of the state helps inform our research work and is critical to the debate in the halls of the state capitol this January. None of this would have been possible without your support. We’re excited for what’s to come in 2025, but we wanted to thank you first for a successful 2024!

Ranchers, miners and mineral extractors in Wyoming should be preparing deregulation lists for the incoming Trump administration and new Congress. Incoming leaders have pledged to undo the onslaught of onerous new rules generated by the Biden administration that frequently target key industries in this state. Chief on the list should be repealing the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan—finalized Friday—which governs how 3.6 million acres of federal land in southwest Wyoming should be used. The proposed Rock Springs RMP  elevates conservation to equal status with grazing, recreation and extraction. Petroleum groups in the state said earlier this year that a version of the plan could lead to both 3,000 jobs lost and $900 million in revenue evaporated . Ranchers would lose leases under the plan as well and many worry it could mean permanent loss of recreational access to thousands of acres in future years. Congress has a simple tool it could use to rid the state of something guaranteed to permanently damage its economy and way of life: The Congressional Review Act  (CRA). The CRA is effectively a legislative veto to federal agency rules. It allows Congress to look back over the last 60 legislative session days and overturn rules they disagree with by simple majority in both houses. If the president signs the bill or Congress overrides a presidential veto, the rule can’t go into effect. If a rule is overturned, it “may not be reissued in substantially the same form,” and the decision will not be subject to judicial review. Both these tenets of the law mean it would be extremely difficult for the Bureau of Land Management to reissue its Rock Springs plans at a future date under a new administration. Given that the Rock Springs RMP was just finalized, it falls within the window for Congress to review. Enacted in 1996, the CRA was only used once through 2017. However, during the first two years of Trump’s prior administration when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate as they will when the next Trump administration takes office, it became a meaningful way to overturn regulations. E & E News , a publication that covers energy and the environment, reported in November that this time around lawmakers have been strategizing for the last two years how to place more rules under the CRA’s purview and which ones to prioritize. It noted that “Republicans have been eyeing Interior Department resource management plans.” Stacey Daniels, the spokeswoman for Sen. Cynthia Lummis, said she “ opposes the Rock Springs RMP and is working with Senator Barrasso to overturn it, including the potential use of the Congressional Review Act.” She added that, “Senate Republicans stand ready to repeal the worst of the Biden administration’s rules that meet the criteria for nullification under the Congressional Review Act.” Sen. John Barrasso said, “The Trump administration must work immediately to reverse the Biden administration’s war on American energy. The Rock Springs, Buffalo, and Greater Sage-Grouse resource management plans must be rewritten. Together with President Trump, Republicans will make energy and mineral production on federal lands an urgent and top priority.” Rep. Harriet Hageman has repeatedly said she opposes the Rock Springs plan and has sponsored legislation to restrain federal agency rule-making powers. Here’s to the new Congress using its time wisely to effectively repeal regulations that arbitrarily restrain economic activity on federal lands and hinder the ability of Wyoming residents to earn a living. And while they’re at it, our elected representatives should also work to return unappropriated federal land to state control to prevent similar situations from arising again.

State legislators in Washington state have a big budget challenge ahead of them. If they want to know why, they should look in the mirror. When the Evergreen State’s legislative session opens next month, lawmakers will be staring at a massive budget shortfall - a whopping $10-12 billion. And let's be clear - the gap has nothing whatsoever to do with tax revenue. In fact, tax revenue is growing dramatically. Instead, the issue is the colossal failure by lawmakers to control spending or prioritize tax relief. The budget chasm Washington finds itself facing is not occurring in neighboring states. For example, the current headlines in Montana and Wyoming are about major tax relief proposals while Idaho lawmakers are discussing even more tax cuts building on the reductions already enacted. This different fiscal outlook between the states can directly be traced to the contrasting governing philosophies. While policymakers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming prioritized tax relief and fiscally conservative budgeting over the last several years, Washington lawmakers have been doing their best Thelma and Louise impersonation by stepping on the spending gas. In doing so, they are driving the state over the fiscal cliff. Consider the fact that even though revenue was growing significantly, Washington lawmakers not only failed to provide any broad-based tax relief but instead accelerated their spending even faster aided by tax increases, including imposing a new capital gains income tax. Based on the response from legislative leadership, it sounds like Washington policymakers plan to double down on this tax and spend philosophy by imposing even more tax increases in 2025. Consider this report from KING 5 News : " Tax increases, and potentially new tax proposals, will be on the table when Washington state legislators convene in Olympia in January for an historic session." Washington's massive spending increases and lack of tax relief aren't just a contrast with more fiscally conservative states. Oregon taxpayers are scheduled to receive nearly $1 billion in tax relief and New York's Democratic Governor is proposing $500 "Inflation Refund" checks for next year. Governor Hochul said , "It's simple: the cost of living is still too damn high, and New Yorkers deserve a break." I'm sure that Washingtonians would agree with that sentiment of their taxes being "too damn high" as well. It is time for Washington policymakers to follow the budget Hippocratic Oath and do no more harm by getting spending under control. One place to start is to learn from the example of former Governor Christine Gregoire. Facing a significant budget shortfall in 2008, Governor Gregoire wisely concluded that the pay raises she had agreed to for state employees weren't " financially feasible ." Realizing that current and outgoing Governor Jay Inslee has already ordered a freeze on hiring, services contracts, goods and equipment purchases, and travel , it's safe to assume the billions in pay raises he secretly agreed to this summer are also not "financially feasible" either. Right? Do Washington lawmakers really plan to impose tax increases to provide government pay raises?

In any relay race, when the first leg stumbles out of the gate, every team member is hurt. Regulators recently placed a massive hurdle of increased capital requirements in front of banking institutions, hindering the ability to loan money, especially to struggling credit scores. The significant capital increases of Basel III Endgame are not an isolated action to the 29 banks with $100 billion in assets but will have costly consequences on the most vulnerable of our economy. Justifying the July 2023 proposal with the recent failure of mismanaged banks, regulators advised significant increases to capital requirements. The business community fought this challenge last year, with over 97% of commentary opposed to the proposal. Now the economy is waiting to hear about the latest revisions and expecting the incoming Trump administration to prioritize the United States, instead of the recent bureaucratic attempts to tangle up the country’s financial institutions. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issues global banking standards. Multiple iterations have been issued since the financial crisis of 2007 with the most recent version dubbed, “Basel III Endgame” which increases rules on credit, capital, and investment risk. The United States has been slow to adopt this rule, and other member countries have danced around the issue taking cues from the United States. But not to be outdone because of procrastination, U.S. regulators gold-plated the requirements proposed in July 2023 . The proposed increase in capital requirements will limit the ability of small businesses and low-income consumers to obtain financing. If you are a small business owner, the challenges in obtaining financing are diverse: credit history and longevity, risk, changing financial ratios, varying opinions within the same bank, inadequate funding, and the list goes on. To our economy’s detriment, farmers, small businesses, and low-income earners are going to have an even more difficult time obtaining financing due to the proposed Basel III Endgame rules. The U.S. hurdle ignores the significant regulations the banking industry has adopted since the 2007 banking crisis, places the United States at a competitive disadvantage, and hurts the smallest economic players the most. The Basel III Endgame proposal failed to recognize the significant safety measures ingrained within the United States banking economy because, in April of 2024, all banks passed a stress test well above the mandatory floor. The United States government has already implemented and fine-tuned domestic policy solutions to prevent a repeat of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The Dodd-Frank Act is a major component of these preventions. In 2006, the median capital ratio was 12.5% and today it is approximately 18%. For the banking industry and most especially the loan-seekers, Basel III adds to our regulatory burden instead of complementing existing efforts. The proposed regulations would not have prevented any of the bank failures in March of 2023 . The only beneficiaries of the proposed Basel III Endgame requirements seem to be other global players who have lower requirements. On a $15 million loan in the U.S. banks would need at least $975,000 in capital to cover the loan if it is a publicly traded company or $1.5 million if it is not investment grade. In the E.U. more options exist for the loans, with capital requirements beginning at $300,000 up to $1.5 million. A bank has a lot more flexibility to do business when fewer dollars are set aside to meet capital requirements . This summer, competing countries like the European Union realized the U.S. had yet to adopt these disadvantaging regulations and chose to postpone adoption for the E.U.  for one year, to “ensure[s] a global level playing field and… to see what others are doing.” In a discussion with a large banking institution, Mountain States Policy Center found that this bank would be forced to only fund mortgages from the wealthiest of clients with the highest credit scores of at least 760-780. Currently, this banking institution considers credit scores at 620 or above. Think of the implications to small businesses, farmers and ranchers, low-income households, and employment in regions reliant on agriculture and small businesses. Basel III Endgame as proposed in the U.S. version will only hurt the economy and add unnecessary hurdles to already healthy banking institutions. As capital requirements increase because of new proposed calculations, borrowing will become more expensive, dividends will be complicated, and consumer lending will see reductions in credit cards, auto loans, and mortgage loans. This will be a surmountable hurdle for wealthier, high-credit-scoring members of our economy, but for most Americans, the new hurdles will be undefeatable.

Typically, courts provide clarity. They do not exist to make or enforce law but rather interpret what the law says. Nothing more, nothing less.   But a week of tumultuous rulings in Montana has, in many ways, upended the state’s legislative authority and made an overall mess of the policy-making process. It’s an unwanted Christmas gift that’ll just keep giving – and taking – for years to come.   The Montana Supreme Court’s questionable decision in Held v. Montana reads more like a policy argument than a finding of law.   The case was brought by a group of young people  seeking to put the state on trial for its climate regulations. The young people claimed the state policy on climate change threatened their “physical and mental health.”   Recent legislative actions have barred state  bureaucrats from considering world climate impact in analysis of large energy projects in Montana. The state law says it “may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders. It may not include actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.” In other words, consider the impact on Montana – period.   Greenhouse gases are, of course, not confined by state lines. It is difficult, if not impossible, to know the exact worldwide impact of any one project in any one state. And even if you could, the impact of any Montana project is likely dwarfed by massive greenhouse gas emissions coming from other parts of the world.   Still, the majority of the court ruled with the teenagers, reading a new right into the Montana Constitution of a “stable climate system,” and ordering legislative action.   It should be noted that the words “clean and healthful environment” appear in the state constitution, but “climate” is not found in the document. The justices claimed that didn’t matter, because the constitution was “a living thing designed to meet the needs of a progressive society” – a contention that is often used by courts that feel the need to legislate.   The court’s ruling will undoubtedly have an impact on Montana’s economy and its future energy needs, opening the door for projects to be stymied.   While the court may feel strongly about the role of climate change in the environment, it has no constitutional authority to decide what the state should do about it. That is supposed to be left to the policymakers in the legislative branch, and to the executive branch charged with enforcing the law.   This is not the first time the Montana Supreme Court has overstepped its authority  and likely won’t be the last. Judicial reform was already likely to be a high priority in the upcoming legislative session, but with this ruling, it likely goes into overdrive.   The tug of war between our branches of government continues.

The Cowboy State has once again won the tax rodeo for having the most competitive tax structure according to the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation recently released its 2025 State Competitiveness Index . This study revealed which states are taxpayer-friendly for both individuals and businesses. States are ranked based on income, sales, excise, property, capital gains, corporate, payroll, estate, and VAT consumption taxes. The Tax Foundation found that Wyoming is the most taxpayer-friendly state, Montana is 5th, Idaho is 11th, and Washington is 45th. The report acknowledges that replicating Wyoming’s exact tax structure may not be possible due to its significant tax revenue from natural resources, but other taxpayer-friendly states like Montana and Idaho can be replicated.   Wyoming was the top-ranking state for the 5th year in a row mostly because of its lack of corporate or individual income tax. Additionally, it has no inventory, franchise, occupation, or value-added taxes. It also enjoys tax exemptions for manufacturers and data centers. Wyoming has the luxury of having no corporate or personal income tax due to significant tax revenue from minerals. Although Wyoming's exact tax model can’t be copied, its principles can be applied everywhere.   Idaho improved from its prior ranking of 16th to 11th. This can be attributed to its individual and corporate tax rates declining from 5.8% to 5.695%. Idaho has no statewide property tax (local tax only), no estate tax, and a 33-cent gas tax. Idaho currently collects $4,541 in state and local tax collections per capita. Idaho can improve its ranking by lowering individual income taxes even more.    The principal research analyst for the Idaho Tax Commission notes , “ Idaho’s tax structure is typified by moderate to low overall taxes. It’s a proportional tax system with a broad structure and good balance between tax types. "   Washington ranked poorly because of its multiple high tax burdens. It is an outlier in that it doesn’t have a typical income tax, but it does levy a 7% capital gains income tax. Similarly, while it doesn’t have a corporate income tax it does have a state gross receipts tax ranging from 1.3% to 3.3%. It also levies a sales tax, property tax, estate tax, and a high gas tax. Washington collects $6,644 in state and local collections per capita. Washington needs to lower its spending and rein in what is considered taxable. Unfortunately, a recent state court ruling allowing a capital gains income tax opens the door to tax other assets and sources of income. Montana has an individual income tax ranging from 4.7% to 5.9%. Montana has a relatively low tax burden with a property tax rate of 0.69%, no estate tax, and a 33.75 cent gas tax. Montana collects $5,065 in state and local tax collections per capita. Montana has been trending in the right direction by passing multiple tax cuts in the 2023 legislative sessions. Included was lowering the income tax ceiling from 6.75% to 5.9%, increasing the small business exemptions from $100,000 in 2021 to now almost $1 million in 2024, and lowering the capital gains tax to make Montana the 4th lowest in the country. Governor Gianforte recently announced that he plans to reduce the state income tax even more to 4.9%.   In response to the release of the Tax Foundation study, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte commented, “ In Montana, we’ll continue advancing our pro-jobs, pro-family, pro-business policies to make our state the best place to live, work, and start a business. By cutting taxes and reducing red tape, the American dream can come alive for even more Montanans”   The Tax Foundation study shows that reducing tax rates should be at the forefront of policy decisions for every legislative session across the country. Washington state needs to address the shortcomings of its tax code. The Evergreen State should be looking at ways to trim spending, instead of stretching the meaning of words to tax even more like the capital gains effort. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are on the right track and should remain steadfast in their pursuit of limited government, efficient spending, and low taxes.

Mountain States Policy Center - the region's largest free market research organization - has released the results of The Idaho Poll - the state's most anticipated public opinion survey. The Idaho Poll is released every other December ahead of the legislative session to provide critical information regarding the state's top policy issues. From tax and budgeting to education freedom, and even energy use, this comprehensive data taken directly from the citizens of the state helps inform our research work and is critical to the debate in the halls of the state capitol this January. The poll was conducted by RMG Research, Inc., from November 26-December 6, 2024. More than 800 Idaho registered voters participated, with a margin of error of +/- 3.5%. Crosstabs for the polling and the actual questions can be found here. A summary of the poll results is found below. Previous versions of the Idaho Poll are available here. (Please note: Polling data is available for public use, but credit must be given to "Mountain States Policy Center's Idaho Poll.")

The bipartisan U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic recently released its 520-page final report on the origin of the virus and its impact on the United States. The committee also provided a summary of its findings . The report is very thorough and includes two years of interviews, hearings, testimonies, and over one million pages of documents. Let’s start with the origin of the virus. It was first discovered in Wuhan, China, which happens to be the home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. WIV is China’s main research facility for work on highly contagious and deadly viruses. Employees at WIV became ill with viral-type symptoms in the fall of 2019, several months before the outbreak of COVID 19. In addition, the virus possesses a biologic characteristic not found in nature. In other words, the evidence is overwhelming that the virus originated in the Wuhan laboratory and not from a random animal. It appears that the World Health Organization caved to the Chinese Communist Party and allowed a natural-origin argument to persist. For unknown reasons, U.S. government officials promoted this theory of a natural origin. The committee also uncovered data that revealed U.S. taxpayers funded research at WIV through an organization named Ecohealth. This fact was repeatedly denied by government officials. Fraud and abuse were rampant in the U.S. relief programs. The federal government used taxpayer dollars for paycheck protection programs, unemployment claims, and compensation for small business failures. Tragically, in addition to widespread abuse, at least half of all dollars lost in the relief programs were stolen by transnational fraudsters. The pandemic definitely targeted certain vulnerable groups. Seniors, the immunocompromised, and people with chronic illnesses were at high risk of suffering the worst effects of the virus. Healthy individuals, especially children, were at very low risk of developing severe complications. There is no evidence that the six-foot distancing rule, the universal mask mandate, and the draconian lockdowns were effective. What is well known is that thousands of employers went out of business, thousands of employees lost their jobs, and a generation of children lost educational opportunities. Social interactions were severely limited, including being allowed to visit sick and dying relatives. Government bureaucrats and teachers’ unions seemed to react in an emotional fashion rather than an evidence-based manner. The issue of vaccines remains somewhat controversial. It is clear that vaccine development was expedited and that vaccines saved thousands if not millions of lives. On the other hand, it appears that vaccines did not prevent the spread of the virus nor did government officials consider that natural immunity would prevent the worst effects of the virus. It is well documented that the U.S. health care system was overwhelmed by the COVID 19 virus. Hospitals were over capacity, diagnoses for non-viral conditions were delayed, and treatments were delayed or not provided. Unfortunately, the officials most involved with managing the pandemic were less than forthcoming with the committee. They evidently obstructed the committee’s investigation at many levels. In conclusion, it seems that the people in charge of the pandemic response had a knee-jerk, we-must-do-something mentality without using scientific evidence. There is also a distinct possibility that U.S. government officials did not want to alienate the Chinese government by confirming the lab leak theory. The congressional report makes clear that lockdowns, mask mandates, forced social distancing, school closures, and mandatory vaccinations should be thrown out of the playbook for any future government pandemic response. Hopefully, the country has learned a lesson and will respond in a much different fashion for the next crisis.

Mountain States Policy Center - the region's leading free market think tank - announced today that former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey will speak at MSPC's Education Choice Policy Forum at the Idaho state capitol on the first day of the 2025 legislative session. The event will take place in the Lincoln Auditorium at the Idaho state capitol on Monday, January 6, from 9:00-11:00am, and will be followed by a major legislative announcement and news conference. "We are delighted to be able to showcase Governor Ducey's work, which has helped improve the lives of millions of children in Arizona," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. Governor Ducey, who served as Arizona's 23rd governor, was the leading voice on education choice in the Grand Canyon State. He is known for pioneering Education Scholarship Accounts and universal school choice – providing every family with the opportunity to have their student attend whatever school is best for them. As the Hill reported, Arizona’s program “has become the standard that school choice advocates argue other states need to emulate.” Conservative Columnist George Will described Ducey, the former CEO of Cold Stone Creamery, as the “most successful 21st century governor.” MSPC's 2025 Education Choice Policy Forum is open to the public and is free to attend. You can register for the event here. ### MORE INFORMATION: National Affairs: "The Arizona Miracle" Hoover Institute: "Doug Ducey, on passing universal school choice"

Santa isn't the only one with a list this time of year. While we aren't in the business of making a naughty list, there are several recommendations we hope Idaho lawmakers will put on their policy nice list for the 2025 Legislative Session. Based on our recent Idaho Poll results , many of these proposals have strong public support. Here are Mountain States Policy Center's top recommendations for lawmakers to consider (in no particular order): Education Expand options for students and families with enhanced education choice opportunities  by adopting an education choice tax credit. (66% Idaho Poll support) Provide transparency for public school open enrollment decisions. Increase accountability and transparency with a Public School Transparency Act . (82% Idaho Poll support) Taxes Increase the grocery tax rebate  and index for inflation. Improve transparency with a tax transparency website , taxpayer receipt , Truth in Taxation property tax website , and gas tax transparency stickers . (88% Idaho Poll support for Truth in Taxation). Send voters a constitutional amendment to require a legislative supermajority vote (or voter approval) for tax increases . (72% Idaho Poll support) Adopt revenue growth triggers to authorize automatic tax rate reductions . Move to a 30-day filing threshold  for remote income tax liability. Avoid imposing a mileage tax . Budget/Spending Use performance-based budgeting  to focus spending on outcomes.   Transparency/Governance Enhance public participation in the legislative process by requiring three-day notice for public hearings . (92% Idaho Poll support) Stop the use of low-voter turnout special elections to propose local tax levies and bonds by moving votes to the November general election  for maximum voter engagement. Authorize an open government ombudsman. Authorize a statewide voters’ guide . (85% Idaho Poll support) Reform the ballot fiscal impact  statement process. Institutionalize Idaho’s regulatory reform executive orders into statute. Health care Don’t expand the Hospital 340B program without reforms first .     Avoid further Medicaid expansion . Consider reasonable Medicaid work requirements. (63% Idaho Poll support) Natural resources/Energy Oppose any breaching of the Snake River dams  and efforts to reduce operational effectiveness. Work to restore more state control over federal land .    Additional details on these recommendations are available in our Policy Manual . As for our role during the coming legislative session, there are certain things we will (and won't) do: We will stand for freedom, liberty and free markets through our research and recommendations; We won't pressure lawmakers or call people names; We will produce ideas and analysis that inform the debate - and let those ideas do the talking; We won't attend a public hearing unless invited by lawmakers to offer testimony; We will review various proposals and legislation, offering analysis; and We won't grade bills or any lawmaker. Mountain States Policy Center looks forward to working with Idaho lawmakers to help advance these policy reforms when the 2025 Legislative Session kicks off on January 6.

“I’m happiest behind a cow,” is the phrase I always hear when my dad is asked about retiring from veterinary life. Though his days have become filled with small animal medicine, his favorite calls always see him driving in the vet truck to work on the small farms and ranches nearby. But for him and many veterinarians the cows don’t pay the bills, and farmers and ranchers are facing a severe shortage.   When your average veterinary student loan debt is $185,486 (veterinary college only) and the average starting salary in the U.S. is $125,416 for an independent private practitioner, the math is tricky. The opportunity cost of forgone income in a different career is also high with four years of undergraduate and 4 years of veterinary school, not to mention any additional education and cost it took to qualify for vet school like a Master’s or PhD. Veterinarians who prefer to work with large animals should also expect a 13% to 20% cut in their salary .   Idaho, along with many other agricultural states is facing a shortage of veterinarians. But not just any veterinarians, large animal veterinarians. These vets need to be willing to get kicked, stepped on, end the day covered in muck, and be willing to wake in the middle of the night to pull a calf or stitch up a prized bull. However, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, the shortage is overblown and the current capacity of veterinary colleges will meet or exceed the market needs.   John Volke, senior analyst with Brakke Consulting provided a report to the AVMA stating, “Certainly, given the circumstances we’ve seen in last 20 years, if we add 50% more vet schools over a 10-year period, going from 30 to 46, then demand either has to grow at a similar pace or it will have a depressing effect on prices and wages.”   But the cost of veterinary care indicates that a shortage exists when the price of veterinary care has risen over 60 percent in the past decade and outpaced inflation and health care costs. In the last two decades, this cost has increased 149 percent, largely driven by corporate acquisition of many veterinary practices.   For large animal practices, the price increase is the least of the worries when large animal veterinarians are difficult to find and critical to conducting business. Large animal owners need veterinarians to fill out paperwork and conduct exams to move livestock across state borders, assist in documenting reproductive records, and vaccinating large numbers of animals with market-required vaccines. In all of Idaho , about 90% of a required large animal vaccination (brucellosis) is given by about 50 vets. Only about 10% of students want to work with large animals, and the existing veterinarians are aging out.   The recent move to encourage a partnership between Idaho colleges and the new Utah State University veterinary school isn’t the only policy opportunity Idaho should consider. Idaho pet owners and large animal producers should support licensing opportunities beyond a full-scale veterinary practitioner. Consider the human medical field where various needs can be met by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, chiropractors, ultrasound technicians, etc. Veterinary medicine has much less flexibility with a drastic jump in qualifications between a certified veterinary technician (2-year degree with an average salary of $44,040) and a veterinarian (8-year degree, $125,416 salary). Additionally, vet techs stay in the career for only about seven years because of poor salaries and a lack of growth opportunities in the industry.   Veterinary medicine needs mid-level practitioners to meet the growing needs of pet owners and agriculture. Colorado voters recognized this in November and passed Proposition 129  with 52.3% in favor, which establishes a career pathway for a ‘Veterinary Professional Associate.’ The new Veterinary PA  will “provide quality, routine medical care, more pets can be treated – reducing the burden on existing veterinary staff and allowing veterinarians to focus on more complex diagnostics and procedures.” The AVMA, however, is staunchly opposed and very disappointed over this fracture in their monopoly. Livestock producers also need technicians certified in large animal skills that can function independently of the rare, large animal veterinarian. For example, ultrasound technicians could perform pregnancy diagnostics on herds without needing a veterinarian present and some laymen can do pregnancy checks through a rectal examination in cattle (non-veterinarians can legally perform pregnancy checks in some states and ultrasound pregnancy checks are legal in England, but illegal in Idaho.) One advocate of training laymen for routine veterinary tasks believes  ultrasound technicians will succeed or fail in their work quality just like hoof trimmers and others providing services to dairies and ranches. Certifications should also be allowed for vaccinations and bloodwork, just like pharmacy techs and phlebotomists exist in human medicine. Veterinary medicine can be a beautiful career, but you would be kidding yourself to believe most practitioners have a career like James Herriot. My dad is one of the lucky ones, who thrives on cold, wet, sleepless nights when he has saved another animal. However, most veterinarians have very little desire to provide this care to those whose livelihoods depend on certain tasks. Idaho policy needs to recognize the monopoly veterinary medicine has on large animal services and begin opening the door to laymen who are willing to learn and become certified so they can meet the demand of large animal owners, leaving time for the 50 large animal veterinarians in Idaho to address the high-qualification, complex needs.

Sometimes the best gift is simply the absence of something—especially if that something is an invasive federal rule that violates the privacy rights of millions of small business owners and usurps the rightful regulatory authority of individual states.   Thirty-two million American businesses  received an early Christmas gift on December 3, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction that included a stay of the dreaded Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule (“BOI Rule”) authorized by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The rule creates a federal obligation for most small business entities to disclose personal information about their beneficial owners, senior officers, and other control persons to a new national database maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).   FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is most known for its administration of the Bank Secrecy Act to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. FinCEN acknowledged  in a December 2022 press release that the agency would need “substantial resources to build a modern directory that employs real-time data verification, along with other data, information-sharing, and security best practices.” Indeed, the BOI Reporting Rule is a disquieting expansion of the agency’s authority that has resulted in significant budget increases  leading up to its implementation.   Twenty-three types of entities are exempt from the rules, including publicly traded companies, nonprofits, and certain large operating companies. In other words, the FinCEN rule is specifically targeted at small businesses.   Until the passage of the CTA this kind of regulation belonged exclusively to the states. The Act effectively creates a new category of federal corporate regulation that authorizes the disclosure of individuals’ private information to foreign governments and regulatory agencies for the express purpose of criminal investigation without court authorization or agency justification.   Thanks to the federal court’s December ruling, American business owners are at least temporarily safe from facing federal criminal penalties for noncompliance and fines of $500 per day, pending final resolution of the lawsuit. Prior to the stay, attorneys and accountants nationwide scrambled to inform their clients of the new rules and the penalties for noncompliance.     Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al v. Garland, et al.  was the result of a few tenacious business owners under the leadership of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) going to the mat on behalf of American businesses and farms. Among other things, plaintiffs argued that the reporting requirements violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.   We sounded the alarm  about this law last year, when the clock began ticking for millions of American businesses that would be required to file under the new rules. Since January 1, 2024, new businesses have been required to file initial reports within 90 days of notice of formation or registration. The rule’s estimated compliance burden for a single-member LLC is around 70 minutes on the low end, but FinCEN has acknowledged that its definition of “beneficial owner” will result in a substantially higher compliance time for more complicated ownership structures—to the tune of almost 11 hours . The injunction provides immediate relief to American business owners by imposing a nationwide prohibition against enforcement of the rule’s reporting requirements.   NFIB’s complaint cited a long line of precedent demonstrating that legal authority over general corporate formation belongs to the states, not to the federal government, and cited a 1987 Supreme Court ruling  that said, “No principle of corporation law and practice is more firmly established than a State’s authority to regulate domestic corporations.”   The complaint called the CTA “an unconstitutional affront to the individual rights of Americans” that would “federalize the internal affairs of tens of millions of entities, whether they constitute for-profit commercial enterprises, political advocacy organizations, or even religious groups, while compelling invasive disclosures to federal regulators for the express purpose of criminal investigation. By so doing, the Act threatens cherished privacy and associational interests in those entities, upsets the careful balance between state and federal actors, and imposes chilling criminal consequences for millions of presumptively innocent people.”   Whether this temporary reprieve results in permanent dismissal remains to be seen. For now, American business owners can breathe a sigh of relief and be grateful for the early Christmas present.

The final tabulations from the 2024 election are in, and while voter turnout was high, most states did not break a record. Idaho, Washington and Montana all surpassed 75% voter turnout, short of the records notched in 2020. The data on voter turnout can help dispel myths about the voting policies in each state. For example, Washington state switched to a complete vote by mail system in 2012. Policymakers even added postage to ballots in 2019. Yet there is little evidence showing it has increased voter turnout. In fact, Washington's voter turnout in off-year elections now hovers in the high 30's. Idaho and Montana, which still vote in person, often come close to matching Washington's turnout numbers, even though both states are more rural and it takes more effort to vote. Idaho Washington Montana 2024 77.8% 78.9% 76.5% 2022 57.2% 63.8% 61.3% 2020 81.1% 84.1% 81.3% 2018 66.7% 71.8% 71.5% 2016 75.8% 78.7% 74.4% 2014 56.1% 54.0% 55.4% 2012 74.2% 81.2% 72.1% 2010 56.8% 71.2% 56.3% As the National Conference of State Legislatures points out , only eight states conduct their elections entirely by mail. They include C alifornia, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington Proponents of voting entirely by mail have repeatedly said it would increase voter turnout and allow for easier access to democracy. In the 2020 general election, vote by mail was used extensively due to the COVID pandemic. But research from the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research shows vote by mail had little effect on turnout. As Stanford researchers wrote: “ Most people who voted by mail most likely would have voted in person had voting by mail not been an option. In fact, turnout rose by a similar amount in states that didn’t even allow no-excuse absentee voting — the most common form of mail-in balloting and the one the researchers study — in 2020. ” If a state is going to transition to vote by mail it should follow the example of Colorado and not Washington. Colorado requires mail ballots to be received by 7 p.m. on election day . Washington is just postmarked by election day. The latter turns election day into election month and adds to voter frustration as election results swing wildly days after the election as more ballots trickle in. Vote by mail may be a good option for some voters, but the research shows little evidence it increases voter turnout. Policymakers supporting vote by mail should be honest about both the positives and negatives.

There’s bound to be some sticker shock when you shop for your holiday meals this year. While the federal government claims inflation is subsiding, it still costs much more than it should for all the fixings.   Idaho is one of just 13 states that add to the pain with a sales tax on groceries. At a full 6%, the tax is higher than most. For every $100 you buy in groceries in Idaho, you pay $6 in tax.   But because the state offers a $120 per person rebate, a family of four could buy up to $8,000 per year in groceries and not have to pay a single dollar in tax. Out-of-staters pay the tax and don’t get a rebate.   Still, the grocery tax rebate is not indexed for inflation. As such, its value decreases each year.   Taxing food is not popular. And taxing work shouldn’t be either.   I would respectfully suggest that focusing exclusively on repealing the grocery tax takes our eye off a much bigger and even more important prize – reforming and lowering the state’s income tax.   Montana just announced plans to lower its income tax below 5%. Arizona has lowered its income tax below 3%. Utah’s income tax is just 4.65%. Many other states have lowered their income tax rates to be competitive.   At 5.8%, Idaho is quickly gaining a reputation of having one of the higher income tax rates in the nation. With a median household income in Idaho of $70,214 , the total estimated state income tax liability for the average family is $4,072.   Rate Average estimated tax per month   Average estimated tax per year Total liability   Sales Tax on Groceries (Average family of 4) 6.0% $72 $936 $456* (after rebate) Income Tax (Median Household Income) 5.8% $339 $4,072 $4,072 Meantime, the average family of four is spending roughly $250-300 per week on groceries. This means, on average, an Idaho family of four is paying about $15,600 per year on food, which equals a total grocery tax liability of $936. With the state’s grocery tax credit, the liability falls to $456 – or $38 per month.   A yearly grocery tax bill of more than $400 is still painful for many families, and we shouldn’t discount the plea for more relief. In fact, Idaho lawmakers should increase the state’s grocery tax rebate to keep up with inflation.   But the data shows that sales taxes are more stable and pro-growth than other forms of taxation – especially income taxes. And sales taxes are paid by a larger swath of the population. Income taxes, in contrast, are only paid by those who work in the state.   Idahoans would see more savings if policymakers would immediately reduce the state income tax and add a revenue trigger for further reductions . Income tax rate reduced to New average income tax liability (based on median household income) Savings 5.5% $3,862 $210 5.0% $3,512 $560 4.5% $3,160 $912 4.0% $2,809 $1,263 3.5% $2,457 $1,615 3.0% $2,106 $1,966 2.5% $1,755 $2,317 2.0% $1,404 $2,668 Lawmakers could also then increase – perhaps even double – the state’s grocery tax rebate while indexing for inflation. This would still allow the state to collect the tax from those coming in from out of state, while reducing the burden on families in Idaho.   Putting all the focus on the grocery tax is small potatoes. State revenues are strong enough for the full meal deal.