Mountain States Policy Center's (MSPC) Board of Directors has unanimously approved the election of Tiffany Smiley to its Board of Directors, adding a nationally recognized advocate and media contributor with deep experience in service, leadership, and public policy engagement. Smiley grew up on a small farm in rural Washington, where raising 4-H animals and working the land instilled grit, responsibility, and an entrepreneurial spirit. She became the first in her family to earn a college degree, graduating from Whitworth University with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. In 2005, shortly after marrying her high school sweetheart, U.S. Army officer Scotty Smiley, her life changed dramatically when he was blinded by an IED while serving in Iraq. At just 23 years old, Smiley left her nursing job to advocate for her husband’s care, ultimately securing his unprecedented ability to remain on active duty. That experience led her to challenge military and veterans’ systems on behalf of wounded service members and their families, contributing to meaningful reforms within the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Tiffany brings lived experience, principled resolve, and a strong commitment to service,” said Chris Cargill, President of Mountain States Policy Center. “Her background as an advocate, communicator, and leader will strengthen MSPC’s work advancing practical, solutions-oriented policy.” Smiley later sought public office in Washington state, drawing on her advocacy experience to engage voters on issues including economic opportunity, public safety, education, and government accountability. Today, she is a trusted media voice and political commentator, often seen on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NewsNation and Fox News, offering perspective grounded in family, faith, and firsthand experience outside the Washington, D.C. bubble. “I’m honored to join the Board of Directors at Mountain States Policy Center,” Smiley said. “MSPC plays an important role in shaping thoughtful policy solutions, and I look forward to supporting its mission and impact.” In 2023, Smiley founded Endeavor PAC, an organization dedicated to supporting political outsiders committed to challenging the status quo. She resides in Pasco with her husband and their three sons. For more information about Mountain States Policy Center, visit mountainstatespolicy.org . ###

One reason Montanans should opt for a new state constitutional convention in 2030 is that the 1972 constitution is plagued by poorly written language. The ensuing lawsuits give lawyers and judges power that belongs to the people and their elected representatives.   Illustrative are the provisions governing the Montana University System (MUS).   The document says, “The government and control of the Montana university system is vested in a board of regents . . . which shall have full power, responsibility, and authority to supervise, coordinate, manage and control the . . . system.” - Article X, Section 9(2)(a).   This language seems to mean that the board is a fourth branch of government, with legislative, executive, and judicial power over the campuses.   But the constitution also says that there are only three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial (Article III, Section 1). Further, it vests the legislative power only in “a legislature consisting of a senate and a house of representatives” (Article V, Section 1) and vests judicial power only in the courts (Article VI, Section 1).   Still another section reads, “The executive branch includes a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, and auditor” (Article VI, Section 1). It does not mention the regents.   By this time, you might be wondering how the board can have “full power”—or any power at all—if it has no legislative, executive, or judicial authority?   But it gets worse: The “full power” language is contradicted by the section that immediately precedes it. It gives the state board of education, not the regents, responsibility for educational long-range planning, program evaluation, and budget requests.   Obviously, in the Montana Constitution, “full power” really doesn’t mean “full power.”   Is There a Way Out?   From the standpoint of a competent constitutional lawyer, there is no perfect path out of this quagmire. The least-bad way is to interpret the constitution to mean: “The list of executive agencies (Article VI, Section 1) says it 'includes' certain offices. But there can be others as well. The board of regents is an additional executive agency.”   This interpretation gives the regents a constitutionally protected position. But its “full power” is executive only. Like other executive agencies, the board is subject to policies adopted by the people and their elected representatives and must enforce them.   Unfortunately, instead of adopting the least-bad way out, the Montana Supreme Court has wandered deeper into the swamp.   Confusion on Confusion   In 1975, the court ruled  that the legislature may not control university administrators’ salaries. The justices went on to say that sometimes the legislature may use the appropriation process to limit the regents and sometimes the legislature may not. We, the justices, will decide when.   The court did add that the board should govern “academic, administrative and financial matters of substantial importance to [MUS].” This suggests that the legislature still controls issues of general public policy.   But in 2022, the court exempted the regents from a state law protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Then, in 2024, the court allowed the regents to opt out of state laws on free speech and transgender sports.   The effect of these decisions is to give an appointed board unreviewable legislative authority over MUS campuses. This not only violates the best reading of the state constitution, but also may infringe the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that each state have a “republican form of government.”   The drafters of the 1972 constitution created a problem that other state constitutions have managed to avoid. But because of the Montana Supreme Court’s restrictive rules on constitutional amendments, only a new convention can fix it.

In October, Meta announced a new “teen AI safety” approach for Instagram, Facebook, and its other platforms.  The headline change is simple but important: parents will soon have a built-in “kill switch” for one-on-one chats between their teens and AI characters. Additionally, it’ll provide better insight into what their teens are doing with AI on Meta’s apps. This is exactly the type of voluntary, market-driven parental tool we highlighted in The Parental Guide to Understanding Digital Media Protection Resources . It is a good opportunity to repeat a core finding from that study: “The importance of combining these technological tools with informed, dedicated parenting cannot be overstated.” Meta’s new AI safety plan for teens rests on two main pillars: 1) new parental controls, and 2) expanded default protections for teen accounts. First off, Meta plans to establish a method for parents to turn off one-on-one chats with AI characters entirely for their teens. The general Meta AI assistant will still be available for homework help and basic questions, but with teen-specific safeguards layered on top. Additionally, the tool intends to block specific AI characters if parents are comfortable with AI in general, but not with certain personalities or role-play style bots. These changes come after public criticism and news reports about AI chatbots having flirty or inappropriate interactions with minors , and after growing regulatory scrutiny of youth “companion” chatbots across the tech sector. Secondly, Meta is also layering its AI controls on top of existing teen protections, like creating “PG-13 inspired” responses. This will ensure AI answers for teens are supposed to stay within guardrails modeled loosely on PG-13 movie standards, with limits on graphic or adult content. Parents will continue to be allowed to see whether their teens are chatting with AIs and set overall time limits on app usage, even as low as 15 minutes per day. The company plans to roll these new supervision tools out first on Instagram, in English, in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia, within early 2026. As with all online safety tools, it will be important to closely monitor that it is functioning as advertised. In our social media safety study, we looked at the tools parents already have available before the government ever passes a new law: Device-level parental controls that ship with phones, tablets, and game systems; App-store level settings; Platform-level tools from social media companies; and Third-party filtering, monitoring, and time-management services. Voluntary parental tools are the most flexible, constitutional, and innovation-friendly path for digital safety. Meta’s new AI tools validate the Parental Tools framework in several ways. They are opt-in and parent-directed, not government-directed. Parents can choose which features to use, how strict to be, and what conversations to have with their teens. This sits alongside competing solutions, from device-level settings to alternative “kid-safe” phones and platforms, giving families options rather than a single model for everyone. They can be used and improved faster than legislation, which means real-world failures can be addressed without waiting years for Congress or a state legislature to act. There are open questions about how well the tools will perform, whether defaults are strong enough, and whether teens will find clever ways around the guardrails. There are also legitimate concerns about data collection and the long-term effects of AI “companions” on teen mental health. As AI evolves, there will be constant pressure for the government to “step in and fix it” with sweeping and often patchwork rules. Some targeted reforms may be appropriate. But we should be very clear that while the government can help support parents, it must not try to be  the parent.

Idaho has been making major moves to attract and develop nuclear energy in the Gem State. Earlier this year, Governor Little created the  Idaho Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force.   Little announced, “As we usher in President Donald Trump’s Nuclear Renaissance, my executive order refreshes our efforts and empowers a new group of leaders dedicated to ensuring Idaho continues to lead the way in nuclear innovation, energy security, and economic growth.”   Governor Little’s most recent effort is issuing a Request for Information  (RFI) from his Office of Energy and Mineral Resources to gather the input of the sector and stakeholders to push towards a nuclear future.   State officials said in  a press release, “Idaho’s long-standing infrastructure, skilled workforce, and policy leadership positions the state as an ideal destination for companies seeking to invest in nuclear development, (The Idaho Governor’s Office of Energy and Mineral Resources) is eager to learn how Idaho can become the preferred location for nuclear development.” The RFI seeks to do multiple things within the intersection of the nuclear industry and the state of Idaho. One of these is to “ identify key factors influencing site selection decisions.”  A known standard is to prioritize safety, and therefore build nuclear facilities away from fault lines, cities, and areas prone to wildlife and other hazards. Using GIS systems helps with this planning. But there are still some unknowns as to what else the nuclear industry is looking for. Idaho has a mostly rural layout, and this RFI can propel the state forward in being a nuclear leader. Similarly, another agenda item sought to “gather input on potential barriers to investment.”   The RFI also aims to “evaluate workforce and talent needs.” This aspect can become largely overlooked. The first step is deploying enough workers to build and construct power plants. At its peak, this could require up to 9,000 workers . Once up and running, a facility usually employs between 500 to 800 workers. This workforce has to be incredibly diverse. It includes employees in the skilled trades, such as welders, pipefitters, and mechanics, but also technical workers such as engineers, chemists, and radiation safety officers. Each power plant generally spends approximately $100 million a year on a reactor’s labor force. In current plants, employers are finding that the nuclear energy workforce is aging. A recent report found that nuclear energy’s workforce has 23% fewer workers under the age of 30 than the overall energy workforce. The U.S Department of Energy stated , “ A pipeline of young talent will be essential as the U.S. nuclear industry seeks to commercialize and deploy next-generation advanced reactors in the coming decades.”   Finally, the RFI directs the task force to “explore partnership opportunities with state agencies and institutions.” This has long been a strong suit for the state. Having the Idaho National Laboratory , the nation’s leading nuclear laboratory, in its backyard, the state is perfectly positioned to use resources within the private and public sectors to maximize its nuclear advancement. From inter-governmental collaboration to partnering with university research institutions, there is a lot of room for growth and innovation for the nuclear sector in Idaho.   Federal regulatory processes could certainly be made better, but Idaho recognizes that it needs to do its part as well. Throughout the nation, states are recruiting energy plants to do business in their state. With skyrocketing demands on our energy grid, states are competing against each other to land nuclear power investments. As nuclear energy continues to evolve, it’s obvious that we have only seen the beginning of what this power source can provide. Idaho's RFI is continued proof that the Gem State is playing for keeps when it comes to attracting nuclear investors.

Health care has become a major policy issue in Congress. The recent government shutdown was caused by the minority party insisting on extending the deadline for the COVID-era, generous taxpayer subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges. This was in spite of the fact that when in the majority, they were the ones who set the deadline for December 31, 2025. Obamacare has been an abject failure. It has not provided universal health insurance coverage as was promised, nor has it controlled the ever-rising cost of health care. All Americans, except for people in the Medicaid entitlement, have seen their health care expenses go up. Congress was unable to repeal or replace Obamacare in 2017. Congress is now at odds with itself on how to offer the country a new or revised plan for our health care system. Interestingly enough, a promising and comprehensive plan was presented a few years ago in 2019. The Congressional Republican Study Committee then put together a proposal that retained the popular features of the ACA, retained Medicaid as a safety net program for the truly needy, and most importantly, gave patients much more control over their health care. The plan eliminated the employer mandate and gave the employer tax credit to individuals through Health Savings Accounts. People could contribute to their HSAs using pre-tax dollars, could watch the funds in their HSAs grow tax-free, could use those dollars for an expanded list of health care expenditures, and could withdraw that money without paying taxes. From a practical standpoint, this would have eliminated the distortion caused by existing tax laws that favor employer-paid health benefits. The maximum contributions to HSAs would increase to $9,000 per year for individuals and $18,000 for families. HSAs could be used for an expanded list of health care-related items, such as direct primary care, health status insurance, and paying for health insurance. The requirement for an accompanying high-deductible health insurance plan would have been eliminated. Polls at that time showed that Americans liked the pre-existing condition and the guaranteed issue clauses in Obamacare. The 2019 plan addressed these items by prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions and by the use of state-based guaranteed coverage pools. The plan also allowed states to provide alternatives, such as high-risk pools to cover patients with high costs and high utilization. The plan also allowed the purchase of new insurance before COBRA funds were exhausted and encouraged the use of short-term, limited-duration health insurance plans for people in transition from job to job or from working to enrolling in Medicare. Medicaid has not been sustainable in its current form for years. The 2019 plan placed a moratorium on further expansion of the entitlement and would have given states more control over the program through the use of per capita block grants. It would also have given states more flexibility by allowing greater use of the individual private market to cover Medicaid patients and by allowing states to combine their children in the CHIP program with the Medicaid program. Finally, the plan would have expanded the use of innovative care through greater use of: Direct primary care; Health care sharing ministries; Association health plans; Health status insurance (basically a form of re-insurance to cover unforeseen medical expenses); Short-term, limited-duration plans; Telemedicine; and The repeal of Certificate of Need laws. The current health care debate revolves around some form of single-payer or Medicare for All program as opposed to incrementally expanding government control with a public option or a Medicare buy-in. On the other hand, the promising 2019 plan would have been a good start toward meaningful health care reform that puts patients, not the government, in charge of their own medical care. Rather than nibbling around the edges of more socialized medicine, Congress should instead revisit the comprehensive healthcare reform proposed in the 2019 plan.

Ada County officials have significantly increased development impact fees to pay for transportation projects, passing an ordinance to charge developers more to build starting in 2026. One silver lining, however, is that they rejected a controversial proposal to go to a two-area fee zone. Public officials say higher transportation impact fees are needed to build out the road network to mitigate the traffic impact from growth. They estimate that out of $2.3 billion in transportation needs, $1.6 billion is impact-fee eligible (impact fees can only be used on specific projects like road expansions and intersection improvements). Two Alternative Plans for Raising Impact Fees Prior to 2012, Ada County was divided into four subareas for calculating impact fees. After the reunification, officials imposed a flat, $3,047 fee the following year on every developer rather than four separate fees. Public officials have only moderately increased that fee since to about $3,500 per single-family home (SFH) developed  in 2024. Ada County Highway District explored dividing the county into two in order to charge West Ada County developers more for transportation projects than East Ada County developers. After intense public feedback, officials opted to continue moving forward with the single fee zone instead. However, under the adopted Ordinance 254 , impact fees for SFH development will increase by 66% to more than $5,800. Fees on Accessory Dwelling Units, units built to help reduce the housing shortage, will increase 68% under the proposal. Impact fees for other land uses would also increase for the vast majority of uses. Multifamily impact fees are currently undetermined. Ordinance #254 – Passed 4 to 1 Under the rejected two-area plan, Ada County would have been divided into two areas for traffic impact fees, with the county largely separated by Cole Road and the Wye Interchange. Boosters of this plan argued that since most of the projects are in West Ada, it is ‘fair’ to charge a higher impact fee ($1.3 billion in project needs versus $339 million). The alternative plan would have a SFH development West of Cole cost of nearly $6,400 per SFH, an 83% increase. The same house developed on the East side of Cole would have seen a 27% increase to just under $4,500, for comparison. Ordinance #254A – Not Passed The fees extend beyond housing, as daycares, restaurants, and automobile-related companies (sales, parts, etc.) would see significant increases. Coffee shops would see a decrease. Splitting the county into subareas had posed significant challenges in the past, leading to the reunification of the county for impact fees in 2012. After all, the ACHD noted  the county “had trouble raising funds for projects” under the subarea model, a problem alleviated by the one-county boundary. Fracturing this boundary again may reintroduce this problem to the region. While it is good news that ACHD officials opted for a single, one-county zone, the staggering increase to impact fees will likely lead to inflation for consumers in the form of higher prices: from housing prices to auto repair to buying groceries.   Further, ACHD officials have adjusted one input into the impact fee model significantly. In the draft ordinance proposals, the data show average trip lengths increasing  from 6.17 miles in 2024 to 7.73 miles, a 25% increase in the input value, and therefore, an automatic increase in costs. More investigation should be done on this simple input to see if it reflects reality, as VMT per capita and trips per capita have continued to decrease across the United States, not increase. In short, a transportation impact fee is an important part of funding improvements to keep traffic flowing. A “growth pays for growth” nexus is a tried-and-true system for funding capacity improvements to fully mitigate the impacts of land uses. Yet such large and drastic cost increases may make Ada County less desirable for development and will likely lead to higher prices for the end consumer, thereby making the region less attractive overall as a place to live, work and play.

Did you know that Wyoming is only one of four states in the U.S. with a completely government-run workers’ compensation insurance system? Washington, North Dakota and Ohio are the others. North Dakota and Ohio have managed to keep their rates low. But Wyoming’s approach has led to some of the highest rates in the nation for workers’ compensation insurance. In 2020, Wyoming’s rates were the highest in the nation, falling to 7th highest in 2024. As background, workers’ compensation was one of the first social insurance laws passed in many nations. Some federal workers in the U.S. started to receive benefits in 1908, and New York became the first state to pass a law in 1910. As written in 2024’s “Worker’s Compensation: Benefits, Costs and Coverage”  by the National Academy of Social Insurance, “Passage of the laws required extensive efforts on the part of both business and labor leaders in each state to reach agreement on the law’s specifics. Ultimately, both employers and employees supported workers’ compensation statutes, often referred to as the ‘grand bargain’ because the laws contained some principles favorable to workers, some principles favorable to employers, and some principles beneficial to both parties.” Because of fewer accidents, deaths and injuries in the Cowboy State and around the nation, rates have been falling everywhere over the past two decades. The fact that 10,000 jobs  in the natural resources and mining sector – higher-risk positions – evaporated in the state over the last decade likely also contributed to the fall in rates. Gov. Mark Gordon announced in November a 15 percent rate decrease for 2026, saying, “Wyoming’s businesses are the backbone of our economy, and this rate reduction is one more way we can support their success.” He added, “By lowering workers’ compensation costs, we are helping employers invest in their workforce, strengthen their operations, and continue to build safe, resilient workplaces across our states.” Falling rates are good for Wyoming businesses in both human and economic terms, as they signal fewer workplace deaths and injuries for workers and smaller payouts by the government. But they could be much lower if the state opted to privatize the market like West Virginia did in 2006. Since that state privatized its market, it’s seen an 85 percent reduction in costs compared to its pre-reform days. It has the third-lowest rates in the nation and Gov. Patrick Morrisey announced in August that the state’s rating and statistical agent requested a 13.5 percent decrease in premium rates from private insurers in 2026. The legislation received wide bipartisan support when Gov. Joe Manchin (D) signed it into law in 2005. Being an insurance agent is not a core function of government, especially when a healthy private market exists throughout the U.S. If Wyoming officials truly want to support the state economy and allow businesses to invest in their workers and infrastructure, policymakers should advocate for privatizing workers’ compensation insurance to reduce rates and expand coverage. Let those who know the market best be the ones providing the service. We wouldn’t want Wyoming government workers to run grocery stores and fix or sell cars, so why do they still sell insurance?

Remember when Americans were told that the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) would lower health care costs and that if you liked your doctor, you could keep her? How things have changed over the past 15 years. Health care costs continue to rise faster than inflation and millions of Americans have discovered that their health insurance plans don’t cover their chosen physician. As the saying goes, to add insult to injury, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a severe indictment of the federal Obamacare insurance exchanges that revealed troubling fraud in the program. The GAO enrolled 24 fake applicants in the federal exchange, with 18 being approved. The annual subsidy that each “applicant” received was $6,700 for a total cost to taxpayers of a little over $120,000. That’s not a huge amount, but the GAO investigation went deeper. It found that in 2023, there were 29,000 duplicate Social Security numbers, and in 2024, there were 68,000 duplicates listed in the federal exchange. In other words, in a two-year period, there were nearly 100,000 fake applicants who received taxpayer subsidies. Also, the GAO discovered that when insurance brokers submitted incorrect or false Social Security numbers for applicants, the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which runs the federal exchange, accepted the application anyway. In a real sense, the federal government has been complicit in the fraud. The financial impact gets worse. In 2023 alone, the GAO found that there was no income verification on $21 billion in subsidies. Consequently, it is unknown how many applicants understated their annual income to receive higher subsidies. Looking at Census Bureau data, The Paragon Health Institute estimates that 6.4 million people were improperly enrolled in subsidized exchange plans at a cost of $27 billion. With this lack of oversight or outright fraud, it would be beneficial to know how large the entire Obamacare exchange program is today. Data from 2024 reveal that the total cost of the subsidies in the ACA exchanges was $125 billion . In other words, over 20 percent of the cost to taxpayers may have been for ineligible expenses on the exchanges in 2024. The GAO report is timely and uncovers substantial abuse and fraud in a major government program. It should also serve as a warning and demonstrate the need for meaningful oversight in other government taxpayer-funded programs.

Across the country, raising the minimum wage continues to be a topic of conversation. Some claim that raising the minimum wage to $20 would help both low-income employees as well as employers. Though some are moving forward with this experiment, others are being more cautious. For example, voters in Olympia, Washington, this year rejected a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. California, however, recently enacted this policy for the fast-food sector with disastrous effects.  On April 1, 2024, California implemented a $20 minimum wage for fast food employees . To fit this definition, an operation has to offer limited or no table service, and customers pay for the items before they are consumed. Also, the restaurant has to be a part of at least 60 establishments nationwide. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that California’s fast food minimum wage increase led to a detrimental effect on jobs , totaling around 18,000 jobs lost in the fast-food market in California from September of 2023 to September of 2024.  Relative to the rest of the country, employment in California’s fast-food sector declined by 2.7 percent more during that time period . Using the 2023 figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics , a $20 minimum wage imposition for fast food employees would harm the labor force in every state. Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should pay attention to these results as they consider similar policies. Washington State already has a high minimum wage of $16.66 for fast food workers. The industry employs roughly 100,100 fast food employees. Based on the California study, if the state implemented a $20 minimum wage, this would be a 20% increase from its current minimum, resulting in 2,402 jobs lost. A study done by the Washington Hospitality Association found that eating out in Seattle already costs 17% more than it does on average across 20 major U.S cities. A majority of this unaffordability can be attributed to the high minimum wage, meaning employers have to increase menu prices to make up the cost on their razor-thin profit margin. Idaho has a minimum wage of $7.25 for fast food workers, and it employs 20,840 workers in the industry. Increasing the minimum wage to $20 would result in 4,395 jobs lost, which would be a major shock to the industry. Montana has a minimum wage of $10.55 and employs 15,380 fast food employees. With a $20 minimum wage increase, the state would lose about 1,653 jobs.  Wyoming has a minimum wage of $7.25. The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t have as accurate job numbers for Wyoming and may have suppressed them. This is because Wyoming has a small fast-food employee population, and confidentiality could be breached. The best estimates are around 6,500 fast food jobs. Based on the estimates, a $20 minimum wage would result in a loss of 1,372 fast food jobs. A simple economic principle is that when the price of something goes up, people will buy less of it. That exact rule applies to labor as well. Large minimum wage increases greatly contribute to job loss. As the wages increase, businesses may be forced to reduce staff to offset higher labor costs, as   occurred in California.  Proposals for large minimum wage increases have become a policy prescription to combat poverty, but they operate on a false premise. It says that raising the minimum wage will improve the well-being of the workers affected, but that is far from the truth. The minimum wage of a fast food worker let go is zero. States in our region can avoid this outcome. If policymakers really want the best for these fast-food workers, they should avoid proposals that put their jobs in jeopardy. Let California’s failed $20 minimum wage experiment serve as a warning to the rest of the country.

Note: This is a joint op-ed with Mariana Trujillo of the Reason Foundation. States and local governments across America have collectively accumulated over $6 trillion in liabilities, roughly $5 trillion of which are long-term obligations. These burdens are unevenly distributed. Some states keep a disciplined balance sheet, while others accumulate massive liabilities, requiring payments that crowd out present-day spending—to the detriment of both current taxpayers and future generations. The mountain states illustrate this debt divide. According to the Government Finance Dashboard , a Reason Foundation report that compiled over 20,000 audited financial statements of state governments and nearly every city, county, and school district, long-term state and local government debt now totals roughly $14,700 per person nationwide.   How does our region fare? On one end, Idaho , Utah , Montana ,  and Wyoming consistently rank near the bottom of debt burden rankings. Idaho  ranks last among U.S. states in per capita long-term debt, at $3,900—making it the state with the least per capita debt in the country. Utah  follows with roughly $5,500; Montana  with $6,500; and Wyoming  with $8,600. But other states in the region show a different debt picture. Washington  has the highest per-resident debt in the area, owing approximately $15,400 per capita, making it the 11th highest in the nation. Colorado  comes next, ranking 13th with $14,000, followed by Oregon  at 16th with $13,000.   In states such as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Hawaii, total state and local government debt exceeds $26,000 per capita, making them the most indebted states in the country. These differences result from many deliberate choices. States that keep debt low made consistent efforts to restrain borrowing and fund their employees’ pensions and retiree obligations. Those with higher debt levels depend on borrowing to fund recurring expenses and have avoided reckoning with their growing pension costs.   Elevated debt is not only a more expensive way to finance public services; it also heightens fiscal risk. Heavy debt burdens constrain budget flexibility, raise borrowing costs, and increase vulnerability to economic downturns. Over 50 percent  of state and local government long-term debt consists of unfunded pension and healthcare benefits promised to public employees. The bonds that governments issue to fund infrastructure projects, such as roads and bridges, to build and upgrade schools, and to pay for other programs, represent another 33% of all state and local debt. Recent initiatives in some mountain states could worsen the financial situation of already fragile ones. For example, in Washington, lawmakers have decided to  defer required contributions  to the state’s pension fund to address short-term budget pressures, a move that will lead to lower payments in the present that must be made up in the future, plus interest. In Colorado, policymakers are considering  doing the same, pushing costs into the future by skimming pension contributions to afford employee raises, despite the system being only about 70 percent  funded.  Reforms that modernize pension and retiree health systems can mitigate these risks by preventing underfunding, strengthening retirement security, and stabilizing long-term costs. States can also reduce expenses by evaluating whether certain services currently performed in-house can be more efficiently performed by specialized private firms, such as trash collection, technology support, and cleaning services. In addition, governments can reduce interest costs by selling underused buildings, land, and other underutilized assets and applying the proceeds to debt reduction. The disparities across the mountain states serve as a reminder that fiscal health is never guaranteed: It is the result of policy choices made year after year. While Idaho, Utah, Montana, and Wyoming have maintained stability through disciplined budgeting and limited borrowing, Washington, Colorado, and Oregon stand among the most indebted states in the country. Unless policymakers and the public commit to prioritizing the funding of their existing obligations and reaffirming fiscal discipline, even the region’s healthiest states could erode their fiscal standing. Detailed financial data for each state and local government entity is available at Reason’s new Government Finance Dashboard .   Mariana Trujillo is Managing Director of Government Finance at the Reason Foundation. Jason Mercier is Vice President and Director of Research   of Mountain States Policy Center.

The American education system is at a crossroads. The rise of AI, student apathy, the literacy crisis and recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns are looming over the education system. American education is important. Just as low-quality steel will lead to a lower quality chassis of a car, poorly educated American workers will lead to a drop in quality of their respective vocations. At this stage of specialization in the American economy, it is more important than ever to improve American education. A ten-year analysis from the 2008-2009 school year to the 2018-2019 school year reveals very interesting points about education spending and outcomes. It is important to note at the outset that no state bases its primary K-12 funding on student outcomes. Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and Montana all base their school district expenditure primarily on enrollment. Wyoming spends significantly more per student than any other state. This is in part because Wyoming receives high levels of school funding from taxes on natural resource extraction. What is curious is that though Wyoming has always had significantly higher per-student spending and salaries for staff, its performance remained close to the other states mentioned above, as will be shown in a moment. Wyoming, in spite of being a massive spender relative to the other states, has not outperformed 8th graders in Idaho or Washington, and marginally beats out Montana, but only recently. This intra-state comparison reveals that there is more to the story than simply spending. Idaho and Utah are both low spenders but on the upper end of state outcomes, though Arizona clearly struggles and has low spending. Low-performing areas like New Mexico, West Virginia, and D.C. all have high spending levels but don’t have good outcomes. It is a mixed bag. Can a state simply increase its education budget and produce better students? That does not seem to bear out in the case study between Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Idaho. After Idaho’s per-student spending fell from 2015 to 2016, it saw increases in both 4th and 8th grade outcomes, while Washington’s large per-student spending increase was followed by a fall in 4th grade outcomes, even though 8th grade outcomes did rise. Another good example is the case of poor urban districts, which, in spite of claims to the contrary, are not underfunded . These schools routinely perform worse than other districts. This seems to point to the fact that other factors are at play here. One of the most important factors, if not the most important factor, to student success is teacher quality. Yet, what do most states base teacher salaries on? The answer is that most school districts use what is referred to as a steps and lanes system, which provides pay increases for each year of experience (“steps”), and higher base pay for education increases (“lanes”). Under this system, a teacher with a bachelor’s degree who has been teaching for 10 years will make more than a teacher with a bachelor’s degree who has been teaching for 5 years, but if the latter teacher got a master’s degree, he may increase his pay more than the former. This pay system does not reward better quality teaching. This problem is compounded by the fact that it is nearly impossible to fire a low-quality public school teacher. The process, if it is not blocked by teacher tenure, can take two to five years in a lengthy and costly legal process . Depending on the location, it becomes nearly impossible to fire anyone. What can be done about this predicament? Improving student outcomes is possible without blindly increasing spending. It is time to turn to a final case study from New Orleans to illustrate this point. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the school system was so devastated that it overturned the entire education system . Almost every school was converted to a non-profit, privately run charter school with complete pay, hiring, and firing autonomy. According to the research, this reorganization worked. The reforms were followed by significant increases in student achievement , graduation rates, college entry rates, college persistence rates, and college graduation rates. The lesson here is that improvements in teacher and school quality come from more than just funding increases, and that a fundamental part of a child’s education quality is their teacher. Research on teacher quality, comparing the spending and outcomes in our region, and case studies from New Orleans, give compelling evidence that academic performance can be improved by giving schools greater autonomy over who they hire and fire. It is also clear from the research that teacher quality is not improved merely by increases in teacher education levels or a one-size-fits-all salary model that doesn’t focus on rewarding excellence. Yet this continues to be the dominant formula that determines how teacher pay is determined. Policymakers should make decisions centered around improving school autonomy to manage their staff and reward high-performing teachers rather than flooding the system with greater funds if student performance is waning.

Idaho Governor Brad Little is known for being a rancher . He was raised on his family’s sheep and cattle ranching operation and worked in the ranching industry for his professional life. Realizing this background, it should come as no surprise that he’s happy to wrangle up fleeing taxpayers from high-tax states. During his recent speech at the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho (ATI) conference, Governor Little noted how “C.O.W.s” are one of the state’s current challenges, but also an opportunity.   Little told ATI, “Our tax climate is a significant draw for people across the nation. In fact, Idaho’s real challenge today is the number of ‘C.O.W.s’ — newcomers from California, Oregon, and Washington. We joke about it, but it reflects something real --- Idaho has become a victim of our own success.” The Governor continued, “Our focus on common sense policies continues to make Idaho a desirable place to relocate. And our state is evolving, almost a third of our population is new to the state in the past 10 years. It is now up to all of us to ensure we preserve the enduring values that make this state so special — including a government that lives within the people’s means.” So what exactly are the fiscal policies leading to this continued economic opportunity for the Gem State? As noted by Governor Little, the state is allowing “Idahoans to keep more of what they earn. No state in the nation has delivered more tax relief per capita than Idaho: $6.1 billion since 2019 . . . Tax cuts undeniably contribute to economic growth --- that is a proven principle of conservative budgeting.” In contrast, Little told ATI, “It is worth noting every state is dealing with fluctuations in revenue --- how you deal with those fluctuations depends on the values of the elected leaders. Washington State just enacted its largest tax increase in history to address a budget shortfall. Not in Idaho.” Based on the current talk coming out of neighboring Washington, policymakers there aren’t content to graze on the largest tax increase in state history  imposed this year and instead are looking to further fatten Idaho’s C.O.W. problem with even more tax increases. Responding to the latest proposal in the Evergreen State for a new $3 billion tax increase (on top of the $9 billion imposed earlier this year), the Seattle Chamber’s Interim President Gabriella Buono wrote,  “For years, Washington has repeated a damaging cycle: rising costs push employers to pull back or leave, shrinking the tax base, shrinking jobs, and the state responds by raising taxes again instead of improving outcomes. Despite record-high revenues and a decade of unprecedented spending growth, results have not improved – not in education, not in housing, and not in homelessness.” Perhaps one day, Washington lawmakers will realize their poor tax and regulatory policies are putting the state’s businesses and taxpayers on the menu for relocation. One can almost imagine Washington officials recreating the old Wendy’s commercial and asking about its shrinking tax base, “Where’s the beef?” Those taxpayers and businesses are continuing to move to greener pastures in Idaho. With a promise like this from Governor Little, it isn’t hard to see why, “In Idaho, we right-size government to match the people’s means. We always have.”

What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, or so the saying goes. But this adage never seems to hold true for the federal land discussion, even when an alliance could benefit both sides of the debate. The current federal efforts to prioritize the energy independence of the United States may finally ruffle enough feathers to embolden an agreement on the necessity of local and state-level influence on federal projects.   For years, Idahoans have objected to the federal Lava Ridge Wind Energy  project due to environmental, historical, and economic concerns. But the prior administration was obstinate in its fixation on choosing environmental interests over local community desires, attempting to greenlight this project in its waning days in office. The locally opposed wind farm was stopped via executive order  on day one of the current administration.   But the threat of federal overreach still lingers. Why? Special interests are unwilling to give local communities and states a long-lasting legislative authority to oppose unwanted federal projects. Too many groups continue to place their trust in the future possibility of an agreeable omnipotence in Washington, D.C., and naïvely believe public land in federal hands will protect natural resources.    But when has the federal government been a better judge of America’s environmental and economic future than the local communities affected by these decisions? The answer is rarely.   The communities affected by the federally attempted Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project would agree. After years of battling the project, Idahoans have a temporary stay if the next administration doesn’t resume the campaign. Now, many communities and businesses near northern Minnesota’s Boundary Waters may also agree. Local and state-level voices need a final say in their regions, instead of subjection to the political ping-pong of administrations.    Minnesota’s Boundary Waters are familiar with the political back and forth of administrations. Twin-Metals Minnesota , a subsidiary of Chilean-based mining company Antofagasta, applied for and were denied permits under Obama , were granted permits and leases under the first Trump Administration, and then were subjected to a moratorium on mining in the Superior National Forest under Biden. Now, the second Trump Administration  is attempting to reopen avenues allowing the mining operation to begin.   In June, Secretary Brooke Rollins tweeted , “ Today, @USDA is proud to announce that we are initiating the process to cancel the mineral withdrawal in the Rainey River watershed on the Superior National Forest.”   But should this national voice overwhelm the local perspectives on both sides of an issue?   Congressman Pete Stauber (MN-08) said , “The Biden administration’s mineral withdrawal in the Superior National Forest two years ago was a direct attack on our way of life in northern Minnesota and threatened our nation’s strategic national security.” Or as Ingrid Lyons, Executive Director of Save the Boundary Waters said , “The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) is America’s most-visited wilderness area and the crown jewel of Minnesota. It contains 1.1 million acres of clean water and intact woodlands. 70% of Minnesotans across all political backgrounds want to see the Boundary Waters permanently protected.”   Throughout the vacillating, these local voices and communities were never granted the legal authority to accept or deny the project, but were only left vulnerable to the federal government’s reigning purview. For Minnesota, only 6.8 percent of land is under federal control. Imagine how states with large amounts of federally-owned land  like Nevada (80.1%), Utah (63.1%), and Idaho (61.90%), navigate economic and environmental futures when the federal government plays a dominant role in their development and/or conservation potential.   Idaho attempted the “ Don’t Do It Act ,” by Senator Jim Risch, to block the Lava Ridge Wind Energy. Minnesota proposed the “ Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act ” sponsored by Rep. Betty McCollum. But neither of these efforts made it past an introduction.   States need a legal say on what happens to the federal lands within their borders, regardless of the administration. The “Don’t Do It Act” is a great place to start. Instead of limiting the scope to wind and solar, the legislation should be expanded. All natural resource projects would be denied “if the Secretary has received from the Governor of the State in which the proposed project is located notice that the State legislature has enacted legislation disapproving the proposed project.”    Perpetual lawsuits and disjointed legislative attempts to block undesirable federal projects are economically stifling and environmentally threatening. A policy honoring local say on federal land development might be the means to finally get two differing viewpoints to flock together.

In less than five years, Montana voters will decide whether to have a convention to propose either an updated state constitution or amendments to the existing one.   This will be a momentous decision, so it is not too early to begin public discussion now. Moreover, Montanans are entitled to hear all sides of the issue: All too often, opinion makers have celebrated the existing state constitution without admitting that it has flaws.   This is the first in a series of articles that will discuss those flaws—while still acknowledging the document’s strengths.   One clue that the constitution needs updating is the number of times the voters have amended it. It became effective in 1972, and in the ensuing 53 years, the voters have changed it an astonishing 38 times . The number would be even higher, except that the state supreme court has overturned some of the voter-approved amendments, including an important tax limitation amendment.   By contrast, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 17 times  since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Illinois constitution—two years older than Montana’s charter—has been amended 15 times .   If someone tells you that the Montana constitution is just fine, you might respond by asking why so many amendments have been necessary.   Other Problems   There are other issues, too—all of which will be covered in future columns. Here is a glimpse ahead:   The constitution was advertised as “populist,” but in some ways, it actually shifted power away from the people and toward the bureaucracy and the courts. Eminently reasonable decisions made through the democratic process often are blocked by courts and bureaucrats using poorly drafted sections of the state constitution. The courts even used the state constitution to prevent the legislature from moving the voter registration deadline back by a single day! The courts have applied some parts of the document very differently from how they were presented to the voters. In other states, a constitutional amendment is a viable remedy for this. But in Montana, the state supreme court has made corrective amendments almost impossible. Much of the document is well written, but important parts are ambiguous, otherwise vague, or even contradictory. I’ll discuss examples in subsequent articles in this series. At least one provision violates the U.S. Constitution  (the “non-sectarian” clause) and was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ideas considered “enlightened and progressive” in 1972—and therefore inserted in the constitution—have been discredited by later practical experience. Montanans have faced repeated controversies over property taxation and other forms of taxation, partly because the constitution lacks financial safeguards that appear in other state charters.   Doubtful Ratification   There is also the uncomfortable fact that the 1972 constitution may not have been validly ratified, because of the way the election was held and because the number of “yes” votes fell short of what was required. Although the state supreme court upheld the ratification by a bare 3-2 majority, serious questions about the entire procedure remain . I’ll discuss this in detail in a later column.   Justifiably or not, the 1972 constitution’s ratification is under a cloud. Montanans are entitled to a constitution that everyone can be proud of, and that was ratified without controversy.   Finally, if Montanans do summon a convention, it will have no power  other than proposing either amendments or a new document to the voters. Nothing changes unless the voters approve. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

The Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit is a new refundable tax credit program that allows parents to apply for a tax credit of up to $5,000 for each eligible student, and up to $7,500 for each eligible special needs student, for qualified education expenses. The Idaho Tax Commission has been tasked with administering the program and is responsible for registration, verifying eligibility, and prioritizing applicants based on the receipt of a 2024 Form 40 Idaho Individual Income Tax Return. In order to apply for the program and receive the credit, parents must create an individual Taxpayer Access Point (TAP) account. The Tax Commission recommends setting up this account by December 1, 2025, as it may take 10–14 days if identity verification must be done through the postal mail. However, if the Tax Commission has already processed a 2024 return in which tax was owed, parents may qualify for same-day online verification. To begin, visit this page  to request a mailed verification code, register for a TAP account, or verify 2024 tax return data for same-day TAP account access. TAP account registration is free, and all personal information is kept secure. What if I am not required to file a tax return? All parents applying for the 2025 tax credit or the 2026 advance payment must file a 2024 Form 40 and register in advance for a TAP account in order to participate. The Tax Commission provides guidance for individuals who are not required to file a tax return but must do so for the purpose of applying for the tax credit. What if I filed my 2024 tax return in another state? Applicants must be current full-time Idaho residents and must have filed a 2024 Form 40 Individual Income Tax Return to apply for the tax credit program. Can I use my business TAP account to apply? No. A separate individual TAP account must be created using your Social Security number or ITIN. Business TAP accounts created under an employer identification number (EIN) cannot be used for the parental tax credit program. Who can claim the credit? Each eligible student may only have the credit claimed by one parent per year. Applicants must be full-time Idaho residents as determined by filing an Idaho Form 40 Tax Return with dependents with qualifying education expenses. Married parents only need to create one individual TAP account for the household. How will applications be processed? Applications will be accepted from January 15 to March 15, 2026. The $50 million in program funds allocated for 2025 will be prioritized for families with income at or below 300% of the federal poverty line . If funds remain, priority will be based on date of application. In future years, families who received the credit the previous year will be prioritized first, followed by applicants with income at or below 300% of the federal poverty level. Parents with additional program or eligibility questions are invited to attend upcoming town hall events in Moscow (December 3), Nampa (December 4), or Meridian (January 7), where legislators and education experts will be on hand with Mountain States Policy Center staff. Families can also submit questions, find additional information, and RSVP online at https://www.idahokidswin.com/ .

Decades of federal forest managers pursuing suppression-focused tactics led to a logjam of unmanaged forests waiting to ignite. Current federal policies barely chip away at the buildup, with only 0.08% of public lands treated with prescribed fire. A rate far below the accumulation of vulnerable fuels on public lands in the mountain states.   The U.S. Forest Service manages 193 million acres and 80 million acres need to be restored. Accounting for all management practices, like selective logging and prescribed fire, it will take 40 years to restore the forests needing remediated today. This does not account for the millions of acres that will become vulnerable in the future. It is little wonder that catastrophic wildfires continue to burst from this ever-growing logjam.   The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) ( HR 471 and S.1462 ), moving quickly through Congress, has the potential of ending this logjam. The strategy of FOFA, authorizes more forest management tools and accelerates projects, lowering the frequency of deadly forest fires in the western United States. In January, House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (AR) testified on FOFA saying :   “FOFA codifies emergency authorities used by both Democrat and Republican administrations to increase the pace and scale of management. Without these tools, completing a single forest management project takes 3 to 5 years. With them, land managers can act immediately.”   FOFA creates these changes through four titles, attempting to solve this crisis with a solution whose breadth matches the problem. Below are some of FOFA’s policies that could remediate this government-created tinderbox:   Designates Fireshed Management Areas (FMAs), which consist of the top 20% of firesheds for wildfire risk exposure based on threat to communities, municipal watersheds, and vegetation type. Establishes the Wildfire Intelligence Center to assess and predict fire and provide data related to each fireshed and increase public interface to improve community wildfire resilience. Expands collaborative tools to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health by extending stewardship contracts from 10 to 20 years, increasing project scale from 3,000 to 10,000 acres, and utilizing grazing. Reforms and streamlines the litigation process. Prioritizes prescribed fire as a management tool and expedites the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Adopts vegetation management and reforestation efforts that improve wildfire resiliency.   2024 saw more acres burned than the 5- and 10-year averages, with large fires (100+ acres in timber and 300+ acres in grass) accounting for less than 2% of fires nationally. However, 37 of these large fires were over 40,000 acres. Averaging over 136,000 acres per fire, these 37 large fires accounted for more than 50% of the almost 9 million acres burned in 2024. The complexity and threat of large fires will never be treated by the small efforts of 3,000 acres. Increasing the project scale of expedited projects to 10,000 acres may be enough to control the deluge.    The federal government’s slothfulness in managing fuels on federal land extends beyond potential wildfire threats. In post-fire landscapes, fire remediation on federal lands is minimal and hindered by litigation. Oregon’s  2020 Labor Day wildfires burned more than 1 million acres, consuming about 280,000 acres of federally managed lands. Less than 3% of this federal land received treatment to remove snags to improve safety from falling trees and prevent future reburns, which sterilize the land.   FOFA’s efforts to increase the size and scope of projects are only possible because the legislation reins in the litigious abuse of special interest groups. Without changing existing environmental protections, FOFA will provide much-needed flexibility, expediting projects through the review processes. No longer will special interest groups be able to assert unilateral control over the process when fire-threatened communities are begging for prevention tools.   Our forests have outgrown small management projects and the weaponization of litigation to stop needed projects. Millions of acres of overgrown forests need a policy of this magnitude. Expanding the size and length of stewardship contracts and increasing the ease with which projects can be approved are needed steps in collaborating with private industry to increase the resiliency of American forests.

The Wyoming Supreme Court made the right decision earlier this month to pause education mandates from Laramie District Judge Peter Froelicher that seemed more like royal decrees. Legislators can now wait until the appeal to his February 26 order is decided in the Wyoming Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on November 12. Some of the requirements included higher teacher pay, a new computer for every student, a rethinking of the cost of education, school resource officers, elementary school mental health counselors, and more money for school lunches. His decision makes one wonder what the point of legislators is when a judge is so knowledgeable about policy that he can do the job for them. And this is before consideration of the facts of the case, which clearly establish how Wyoming more than adequately funds education and is one of the most generous in the nation. As the state argued in its appeal, “The suggestion that Wyoming is somehow shortchanging or harming students through inadequate funding is a premise detached from reality.” Federal statistics show that Wyoming spends more on K-12 education than regional neighbors Idaho, Montana, and Washington, and ranks 11th among the 50 states. The Wyoming Education Association didn’t take this context into its argument, however. It instead has argued that vague criteria like the need for “appropriate funding” and “competitive salaries”— without defining the terms—demand sweeping changes and has not explained how the money would improve student outcomes. As the state also noted, “Appellees did not retain a single outside expert to support their claims, and offered virtually no evidence of measurable harm or system-wide impacts from alleged underfunding. Their case consisted almost entirely of their own employees’ personal perspectives on recruiting challenges, tightening budgets, things they thought would be helpful to students, and policy preferences for increased school funding.” Feelings, however, shouldn’t commandeer facts. More money doesn’t guarantee student outcomes, as a forthcoming study from Mountain States Policy Center shows about the region and national statistics have shown for decades. A cursory look at the region shows that Wyoming outperforms Idaho, Montana and Washington in 4th grade reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test. But by 8th grade, students have fallen behind all of their mountain state peers in reading and drop to second place in math. Nationally, NAEP scores have hit some of their lowest in decades despite ever-increasing spending. In fact, the U.S. spends more than every other OECD country in total dollars and as a percentage of GDP – with mixed results. The Wyoming Constitution secures “the right of citizens to opportunities for education.” And through a series of court cases since 1980, the state has refined its funding criteria to meet constitutional approval. Legislators deserve the chance to hash out within already well-established guidelines, what meets student and school system needs without one judge usurping its legislative authority. As the state wrote in its conclusion, the courts are not justified in “substituting their judgment for that of the legislature in pursuit of whatever districts or advocates may rationalize as beneficial for students.” The Wyoming Supreme Court should reverse Judge Froelicher’s decision and reaffirm objective standards rather than personal feelings as the path to evaluating appropriate K-12 school funding. In addition, all financial decisions surrounding education spending should be based on what improves outcomes for students. As evidence shows both regionally and nationally, spending more money doesn’t guarantee higher academic achievement.

Our region boasts three states in the top 10 for having the most competitive tax structure, according to the Tax Foundation. The latest numbers show that Wyoming is the most taxpayer-friendly state, Montana is 6th, and Idaho is 9th. While this is impressive, Washington coming in near last at 45th is cause for concern.   The Tax Foundation's  State Competitiveness Index  reveals 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. Wyoming  was the top-ranking state again, 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. It collects $6,264 in state and local tax collections per capita. Although Wyoming's exact tax model can’t be copied, its principles can be applied everywhere.     Although Montana’s ranking slipped due to recent property tax changes, it still scored an impressive 6 th  place. This year, the legislature passed the largest income tax cut in state history. This lowered the top income tax bracket from 6.9% to 5.9% in 2025, then to 5.65% in 2026 and finally to 5.4% in 2027.   Speaker of the House Representative Brandon Ler celebrated , “ I’m proud to say we are delivering on the largest income tax cut in the history of the state. This bill is a firm commitment to the conservative principles we all stand for. We said from the beginning that we wanted to build a tax system that was fairer, flatter, and more focused on growth and that’s what we’ve done.” Montana has a relatively low tax burden with no estate or inheritance tax, and a 33-cent gas tax. Montana collects $5,842 in state and local tax collections per capita. Governor Gianforte also continues to advocate for a flat income tax for the state.   Idaho  improved from its prior ranking of 11th to 9th. This can be attributed to its individual and corporate tax rates declining  from 5.695% to 5.3% this year. This marks the 5 th  session in a row that Idaho has lowered both income tax rates. Idaho has no statewide property tax (local tax only), no estate tax, and a 32-cent gas tax. Idaho currently collects $5,173 in state and local tax collections per capita.   Washington  scored a near last place 45 th  ranking 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 on the first $1 million and increased that tax this year to 9.9% on anything above. S imilarly, while it doesn’t have a corporate income tax, it does have a state gross receipts tax ranging from 0.484% to 2.1%. The Tax Foundation comments   that the  gross receipts tax is “ not just a high rate but is also imposed on a base that includes an unusual share of business inputs, particularly in the digital products space.”   Washington also levies a sales tax, a property tax, and a high gas tax. It already   was tied for the nation’s highest death tax before that was increased this year from 20 to 35 percent. Washington collects $7,431 in state and local collections per capita. It continues down the wrong path as the legislature approved  the largest tax increase in state history this year. To improve its ranking, Washington needs to lower its spending and  avoid additional tax increases. The Tax Foundation study demonstrates that tax competitiveness should be at the forefront of policy decisions for every legislative session across the country. As the report shows, Washington state seriously needs to address its excessive taxation . It should be heading in the opposite direction, instead of inventing new ways to tax its businesses and citizens. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, however, are on the right track and should remain steadfast in their pursuit of limited government, efficient spending, and a low/competitive tax burden.

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

Farmers across the nation are unlikely to be taking a check to the bank at the end of harvest - at least not checks big enough to cover their debt payments. But the government’s so-called remedies are a lesson in contradiction. As statistics refute themselves, regulations harm more than protect, and trade barriers exasperate challenges facing domestic producers, the government’s role in farming is only adding to the red.   Government data ineptly grasps the financial condition facing farmers. On one hand, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) predicts farm income will increase by 21.65 percent for 2025. But at the same time, direct government payments are expected to increase by 354 percent !    The government is confused by its own statistics and tactics. Despite improved net farm income, federal direct farm support is increasing while farms are dwindling. In all but Idaho, the mountain states exceed the national loss  of 8.5% of farms between 2016 and 2024. Data clearly indicates that the numbers and/or tactics are overdrawn.   The only clarification comes for Midwestern farmers. According to the Federal Reserve of Kansas City, midwestern farm lending activity expanded in 2024, with volume of new loans increasing 40%  year-over-year. The story hasn’t brightened in the first quarter of 2025, with weakening agricultural credit conditions, while demand for farm loans continues to grow .   Unfortunately for Western farmers, the Federal Reserve of San Francisco only delivers a one-paragraph qualitative summary alluding to the assumptions of industry contacts. But local voices reiterate that the situation isn’t any better for the mountain states.   Fred Burmester, an Idaho hay farmer, said , “It was a really bad year last year. The commodity prices dropped a lot for us… and our production costs were close to the same.” Regarding an operating loan at 9.2 percent that Burmester took out, he said, “It’s going to take years to pay that back.”   State promulgated regulations also add to this financial difficulty for the mountain state region. In 2022, Washington experienced a 40% increase in farm-related expenses, thanks to the removal of the ag overtime exemption. 29.8% of these costs were attributed to an escalation in labor expenses, which had increased by 52% year-over-year. Another major contributor (10%) was expenses attributed to “marketing, storage, and transportation”, due to the carbon tax .   Tariffs exploit another vulnerability of the mountain states because of our reliance on imported agricultural inputs (like fertilizer) and the global retaliation toward American products. Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming ship their agricultural products across the world, and these markets are not easily reclaimed.   The second Trump Administration’s renewed trade war bounced the check on America’s farm resilience. These recent trade disputes revealed long-existing weaknesses in the agricultural economy. Long-term consolidation and anti-competitive trends among agricultural input suppliers have steadily pinched the agricultural economy. Now, in the face of tighter supply chains and global trade wars, the vulnerability of a low-competition system is apparent.   When 70% of each market space  is controlled by 2-3 suppliers, the companies have less economic incentive to be responsive to one farmer’s needs. A recent Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing even listened to testimony on these trends. Senator Grassley (R-IA, Chairman) said, “America’s farmers are the most productive in the world. They take the risk, put in the work and feed the United States and much of the world. But they also operate on thin profit margins.”   These thin profit margins are quickly giving way to overdrawn farm accounts, despite the USDA’s estimates that the average net farm income was above $80,000 in 2024. For anyone involved in agriculture in the last five years, very few “average” farmers deposited such sums in their bank accounts. Nor is a recovery expected in 2025, with a record corn harvest overflowing the silos and continuing the price decline.    Yet, the government’s efforts for recovery are more like a teenager with a credit card, rather than a responsible party paying down the debt. Poor data collection outside of midwestern farms, increases in state regulations, disregard for anti-competitive behavior, and resumed trade disputes all continue to hurt farm margins. We need policies that improve resiliency and decrease farmer vulnerability to government choices.