Mountain States Policy Center is proud to announce the winner of the 2025 Sawtooth Leadership Academy first-place scholarship, awarded at MSPC’s Fall Dinner & Anniversary Gala in Boise last Thursday. After months of rigorous coursework, mentorship, and public voting, Avery Nichols has been selected as the first-place scholar, earning the $5,000 Tim Hennessey & Holly Harrison Scholarship. The selection reflects both public support through online voting and the MSPC Board of Directors’ evaluation of the finalists’ policy studies. More than 2,000 people cast their votes in MSPC's online forum. About the Contest & Finalists Earlier this fall, MSPC announced four finalists for the 2025 Sawtooth Leadership Academy scholarships. Each finalist authored a policy study addressing a timely issue in the Mountain West region. Gunner Cavener: Improving the Endangered Species Act: A Reform for Our Environment and the Economy Garret Ahlstrom: The Need for an Idaho Strategic Growth Fund Jonas Yengst: Idaho Would Benefit from a State Department of Government Efficiency Avery Nichols: The Case for Repealing Idaho’s Income Tax Winner Profile Avery Nichols is a driven 15-year-old from Meridian, Idaho. He is actively involved in student government, legislative campaigns, and volunteer work. He is a certified community trainer for CATCH My Breath, encouraging young people to make healthy choices. About the Sawtooth Leadership Academy Launched by MSPC, the Sawtooth Leadership Academy is a no-cost, limited-enrollment program for high school and college students from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Eastern Washington. The academy offers six online courses taught by regional business and political leaders, hands-on involvement in MSPC’s Great Debate series, and the opportunity to write and publish a policy study. Scholarship awards are distributed as follows: $5,000 for first place (Tim Hennessey & Holly Harrison Scholarship) $2,000 for second place $1,000 for third place MSPC holds its Fall Dinner & Anniversary Gala each October, during which the scholars are honored publicly. Looking Ahead MSPC will soon be accepting applications for the 2026 Sawtooth Leadership Academy class. Prospective students and partner institutions are encouraged to visit MSPC’s website for application timelines, program requirements, and mentorship opportunities.

Mountain States Policy Center is proud to announce the four finalists for the 2025 Sawtooth Leadership Academy scholarships. Since the spring, Sawtooth students have been participating in a number of interactive classes with industry leaders, gaining practical insight and lessons that teach contributing to their communities as future leaders. In addition, each student is tasked with completing a study on a topic of their choosing. 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. ​ The top study, determined by votes on this page (closes October 9th at noon) and the input of our board of directors, will receive the $5,000 Tim Hennessey and Hollary Harrison first place scholarship, which will be announced at MSPC's Fall Dinner in Boise on October 9th. Here are the finalists: Gunner Cavener - Improving the Endangered Species Act: A reform for our environment and the economy "This research analyzes the relationship between the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and free trade across Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. The central argument of this paper is that through the faults of ESA, restrictions on commerce are imposed without sufficient preservation. The current propositions of reform throughout ESA address only a portion of the broader issues associated with the law. The ESA has and will produce a substantial amount of good. However, it needs reform and change. Throughout the paper, I will use other ecological acts or laws given by different states or the federal law. The ESA is the overarching act needing reform, but these acts/laws need reform as well." Garret Ahlstrom - The need for an Idaho strategic growth fund "Idaho stands at a pivotal moment in its economic development trajectory. With rapidly growing populations, especially in urban and suburban regions, the state faces both the opportunity and the challenge of attracting sustainable, high-wage jobs that match its evolving labor force and infrastructure capacity. To meet this moment, this proposal introduces the Idaho Strategic Growth Fund (ISGF) — a performance-based incentive program designed to attract and retain high-impact businesses across the state." Jonas Yengst - Idaho would benefit from a state department of government efficiency "Adopting a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was and is a hot topic as President Trump entered the Presidency in January of 2025. Elon Musk, our ‘Dogefather,’ took on the unappreciative analysis of uncovering waste of taxpayer dollars in our beast of the federal government, but what about each state? Undoubtedly, every state in the Union should also uncover wasted taxpayer dollars. This paper will provide an overview of DOGE and Idaho’s financial landscape, focusing on its budget trends and income sources, by analyzing financial data from the past five years." Avery Nichols - The case for repealing Idaho's income tax "It is time for Idaho to do away with the antiquated and unethical income tax, but that’s a task much easier said than done. The income tax equates to a lion’s share of general fund revenue, and finding innovative solutions to supplement that revenue is paramount to the success of repealing the income tax. Fortunately, achieving this goal is possible, largely due to the abundance of the Gem State’s natural resources, as well as the ingenuity of other states that have overcome the same challenges."

The future of nuclear power in Idaho is looking strong. The Gem State recently took two important steps demonstrating its commitment to unleashing the potential of nuclear energy. These efforts are  w orking hard alongside other government al and private partners to meet the need and promote Idaho as a viable state to fill the energy demand of the future.   The first step was taken on September 18 as Idaho released the Advanced Nuclear Strategic Framework.   This is a comprehensive plan to guide Idaho in its pursuit of nuclear energy excellence. This means nuclear energy in Idaho that is safe, reliable, affordable, sustainable, and secure. The plan lays out the role that the Idaho National Laboratory can play, the importance of educational partnerships in research and workforce development, and the need for regional partnerships on a governmental and private level. Other points from the plan include creating a State Energy Fund to support nuclear development and using the state’s newly established Strategic Permitting, Efficiency, and Economic Development Council to help streamline project approvals.  It also highlights the inter-governmental collaboration of the framework that was formed by the Governor’s Office of Energy and Mineral Resources ( OEMR) and Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance (ISEA). The second step taken was on September 22, when Governor Little announced the formation of the Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force . This task force’s chief purpose is to “assess, recommend, and support strategies that advance Idaho’s leadership in nuclear energy innovation, deployment, and workforce development.” This includes making recommendations on matters such as “spent nuclear fuel, fuel creation, enhancement, and minimization, opportunities for Idaho to collaborate with other nuclear-advanced states.” The task force will be composed of no more than 20 members appointed by the Governor, including elected officials, government agencies, INL representatives, private sector stakeholders, and educational representatives. This replaces and improves the existing Leadership in Nuclear Energy Commission, or LINE, which was put into place by Governor Butch Otter in 2012. A lot has changed in the industry since then, and this new group helps to prepare Idaho to lead the way. Governor Little commented: “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.” The setting for his announcement was fitting, as it occurred during the Western Governors’ Association’s (WGA)  first workshop of “Energy Superabundance: Unlocking Prosperity in the West.” This meeting was a gathering of government officials, academics, and private sector stakeholders to harness the energy and momentum of the nuclear excitement into plans for tangible progress. INL Director John Wagner stated at the workshop: "We’re seeing an intersection of multiple factors come together that I haven’t seen in my entire career. It’s been more than 50 years since we brought a new reactor online at [INL], that’s all changing. In the past three weeks alone, we’ve seen groundbreakings for three new reactors—two in Idaho and one in Utah with Valar Atomics—and there will be many more.”    The main sentiment taken from the energy summit is that our region is uniquely positioned to propel the country into a nuclear-powered future. States like Idaho have identified and worked with allies on nearly every level of government, private sector stakeholders, and educational partners to efficiently brainstorm the advancement of nuclear energy. One example is a Memorandum of Understanding  signed between Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah to collaborate on building out the nuclear infrastructure in the region.   These steps by Idaho come at a time when the federal government has been promoting and advancing policies that seek to facilitate a nuclear energy boom. The Trump administration is making moves  to speed up nuclear permitting processes and expand funding for scientific and technological studies. It is exciting to see that Idaho is also preparing and planning for the needed workforce, pushing resources towards groundbreaking research, and looking for ways to partner with stakeholders to build the needed infrastructure to unleash nuclear energy in America.

This article was originally published by the Washington Policy Center . It is reposted with permission. Washington state’s ban on thin plastic grocery bags is increasing the amount of plastic used by shoppers and overall environmental harm, contrary to the intent of the law. That is the conclusion of a report from researchers at Washington State University prepared for the Washington State Departments of Commerce and Ecology. The report notes that the law “may not be effective at reducing environmental impacts, as the bags are often not reused, and certainly not reused enough to offset their higher contribution to plastic waste and litter and increased lifecycle costs.” The report found that although shoppers are using about half the number of bags they did previously, the increased thickness of the bags offsets the reduction in use. This echoes the argument we have been making for many years, most recently in March of this year , that plastic bag bans increase environmental damage. Studies have routinely found that plastic bag bans end up doing more harm than good because shoppers switch to bags that use more energy, water, and resources. In spite of science and data repeatedly demonstrating that the bag ban is harmful, staff at the Departments of Commerce and Ecology are not happy. They favor the ban and have gone to great lengths to undermine the WSU report, adding a lengthy rebuttal to the front of the study explaining all the study’s shortcomings and arguing against its recommendations. The excuses provided by Commerce and Ecology staff are wonderfully reminiscent of those offered by Sir Humphrey Appleby from the 1980s British TV satire, “Yes Minister.” Sir Humphrey is a bureaucrat in the British government and in an episode that aired in 1981 , explains all the ways government agencies can discredit a report they don’t like. For example, Sir Humphrey explains that an agency can claim a report does not provide “sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment.” Fittingly, the writers of the preamble written by Commerce and Ecology claim the WSU study’s conclusions are “based upon insufficient data from within Washington State .” Sir Humphrey also explains that bureaucrats can claim that “much of the evidence is inconclusive.” Obligingly, Commerce and Ecology staff write, “the lack of robust available data limits the report’s ability to present a comprehensive view” on how the ban is working. Additionally, a report can fail, explains Sir Humphrey, because “it leaves important questions unanswered.” What kind of questions? Commerce and Ecology staff note that the WSU study fails “to consider larger social, economic, and environmental implications.” What are those implications? The agency staff don’t explain nor how they would be balanced against the conclusions in the report. The fact that the WSU researchers were not asked to examine those considerations is immaterial. Those questions remain unanswered, undermining the utility of the study as a basis for decision-making. The state’s preamble does acknowledge that “Without sufficient reuse, reusable carryout bags made of paper, plastic, or fabric have higher environmental lifecycle costs than their single-use counterparts.” This admission directly contradicts one of the claims made in the intent section of the law that claims, “Alternatives to single-use plastic carryout bags are convenient, functional, widely available, and measure as superior across most environmental performance metrics. Alternatives to single-use plastic carryout bags feature especially superior environmental performance with respect to litter and marine debris, since plastic bags do not biodegrade.” The WSU study (among others) demonstrates that is not accurate and Commerce and Ecology staff seem to agree. Left with a study showing the current policy increases environmental damage, what do agency staff recommend changing? They support keeping the bags at the current thickness but oppose removing the thickness requirements entirely, as was recommended by the WSU researchers. The study shows the current thickness requirement is increasing environmental damage, agency staff say there are other concerns, without quantifying them. Agency staff claim changes in the law should focus on “equity impacts rather than considering only environmental costs.” They do support a total ban on plastic grocery bags, but note that “this policy raises potential equity and environmental justice impacts.” How will the agencies measure equity and environmental justice impacts against the data showing environmental harm? They can’t. They are just vague slogans that can be used to come to any conclusion agency staff prefer. The agencies’ preamble is a perfect example of how government staff can undermine studies they don’t like, instead choosing subjective metrics they can manipulate without having to provide data of their own. Given a choice between incomplete science and purely subjective judgment, agency staff much prefer the freedom of vague metrics like “environmental justice” and “equity.” In the meantime, however, Washington’s law on plastic grocery bags will continue to increase environmental damage – the very opposite of what was claimed when the law was adopted. Todd Myers is the Vice-President for Research at the Washington Policy Center, a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy based on free-market solutions. He can be reached at tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org .

With a federal government shutdown upon us and even more importantly, ballooning national debt jeopardizing the solvency of Social Security and Medicare in less than 10 years and other basic government functions, states must start preparing for changes in federal support. This is especially true in a state like Wyoming, where over 49 percent  of the state budget is derived from federal tax dollars. For context, the national average is about 30 percent, and regionally, it’s higher than in other mountain states: Idaho derives 35.9 percent of its budget from the federal government; Washington, 34.4 percent; and Montana, 42.7 percent. The State Policy Network (SPN), which ranks states by their readiness to handle federal government cuts in its annual Federalism Scorecard, labels Wyoming as “vulnerable” to federal funding shifts. Its number 23 position among the states in its just released 2025 issue  is the same as last year as state legislators did not make changes to improve its ability to navigate shifting national spending priorities. The reason this is so important is that deferring spending on roads or other building projects is one thing, said Steven Johnson, a fellow at SPN’s Center for Practical Federalism, but “what do we do if 60 percent of funding for a veterans’ home comes from the federal government? Would the state kick 60 percent of the people out?” He recommends that state agencies and other government entities create contingency plans for funding reductions at different levels. He also said the state legislature should start overseeing federal grants like in Oregon. And he suggested a 2025 law  in Tennessee requiring state agencies to seek approval from the governor and alert the Joint Committee on Ways and Means prior to accepting federal aid. These reforms would help everyone in the government be more informed about state spending and prepared to manage changes to it, he said. Wyoming legislators don’t have to look far for other strong ideas to increase the state’s readiness for fiscal shock. Back in 2011, our southern neighbor started passing a series of “Financial Ready Utah” laws that have since made it a model for other states to follow and ranked in second place by SPN in its 2025 Federalism Scorecard. Utah requires state agencies to disclose all federal receipts, what percentage of the budget federal funds represent and what they would do if there was a reduction of various percentages. Its Federal Funds Procedures Act requires state agencies to submit a summary of a federal funds request to the governor for approval or rejection before the state is required to participate in a program. And earlier this year the Utah state legislature passed Federalism Amendments , which create a commission to study federalism issues and monitor federal legislation for its potential to infringe on state sovereignty. Among its other provisions, it orders the development of a nonpartisan continuing education program for state and local employees on federalism issues. Rep. Ken Ivory , its sponsor, said all state leaders “should know their roles and power” and that Utah has decided to take fiscal contingency planning to the next level by raising the issue nationally. He plans to work with governance groups across the country in the coming years in order to promote the importance that every state must be prepared. “This is structure, not politics,” he added, emphasizing that “Financial Ready Utah” laws have received wide bipartisan support in the state legislature. Given the precarious state of the national budget, which spends more  on interest payments for debt than on our national defense and Medicare, he said state leaders should feel a heightened sense of urgency. And as John F. Cogan of the Hoover Institution wrote in his 2024 study,   The Budgetary Impact of the Abandonment of Federalism , “All the increase in federal spending as a percentage of GDP since the 1950s, and the budget deficits it has created, is due to rapidly growing spending on activities that Congress originally regarded as state and local.” This means Congress could withdraw that non-Constitutionally mandated funding and require states to pay for items that were long under their purview for most of the country’s history. For all these reasons Wyoming legislators should follow Utah’s lead in enacting reforms that prepare Wyoming to manage effectively through a federal government shutdown or aid and grant withdrawals so that our schools, roads and most vulnerable are protected.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), the region's most trusted free-market think tank, today announced the launch of its new Idaho Kids Win campaign — a statewide initiative to ensure families know about, can access, and can defend the landmark education choice program created by House Bill 93. The campaign will include the launch of a website to answer questions, a robust series of public town hall meetings across the state, a multi-phase media effort, and legal support to protect the law from special interest challenges. “House Bill 93 is a victory for families, for students, and for Idaho’s future,” said Chris Cargill, President & CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “The Idaho Kids Win campaign will ensure parents have the tools they need to take advantage of this tax credit program — and that no outside group can take those opportunities away.” Idaho Kids Win will host at least six town hall meetings in key cities: Coeur d'Alene - October 15th Boise - October 22nd Idaho Falls - November 12th Pocatello - November 13th Moscow - December 3rd Nampa - December 4th Each town hall is open to the public and will feature legislators, legal experts and education choice scholars that will help parents answer questions and prepare to sign up. Idaho Kids Win will also launch a three-phase media campaign, including radio, television, digital advertising, and direct outreach to parents. Finally, MSPC has engaged legal counsel to assist in defending the law and highlighting the needs of parents via court filings with the Idaho Supreme Court. “Education choice in Idaho is here to stay,” Cargill said. “We are committed to making sure this law succeeds, that parents are informed, and that every child has the opportunity to win.” For more information, visit www.IdahoKidsWin.com

Idaho is once again in the national spotlight for its willingness to innovate and modernize. The latest effort? Fighting fires from space. During the 2025 Legislative Session, AI cameras for detecting fires became a "hot" topic of discussion. Ultimately, these revolutionary systems obtained funding from lawmakers, giving nearby firefighters the ability to pinpoint a wildfire in real time. Idaho also recently became the first state to use a satellite-based wildfire detection system over its entire territory. This means Idaho is working cohesively with satellite technology to discover fires deep within the wilderness and Idaho's most remote lands.   As OroraTech described in its announcement : “Idaho is the first state to implement wildfire satellite detection on a statewide level.” That’s not just a milestone for Idaho, but for the entire country. Mountain States Policy Center has been encouraging policymakers to embrace technology to help fight wildfires.   In our blog post last year titled  " Artificial Intelligence can be our first line of defense in limiting the effects of wildfires, " we provided legislators the information needed to consider the possibility that AI may save money by detecting fires sooner and providing valuable data to emergency responders. We also discussed how Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming could apply AI and identify areas most likely to be affected by wildfires and strategically allocate firefighting resources, including personnel, equipment, and aerial support.   It is exciting to see Idaho lead the charge in a bold move not yet taken by any other state in the U.S. By adopting these systems, Idaho is proving that innovation works when states are willing to take action. AI detection cameras and satellite-based systems are tools that deliver faster detection, pinpointed responses, and ultimately lead to safer communities. By adopting these technologies, Idaho is moving the needle for the entire country and proving that government can partner with innovators to solve real problems without overspending taxpayer money. It is now up to other states to follow Idaho’s example. Our neighboring states share the same risks from wildfire, dry summers, vast wilderness stretches, and communities that rely on a quick response. They also have the same potential to apply AI, satellite-based systems, and public-private partnerships in building an innovative fire detection machine. The technology is available, the models are tested, and the price of implementation only increases with each fire season and rising demand to modernize. The rest of the country can learn from Idaho's bold innovation. By building on the Gem State’s example, our region can become a national leader in wildfire resilience, protecting families, communities, and the natural beauty that defines our highly desired way of life.

When the Idaho teachers' union and their allies lost the debate over House Bill 93—the nation’s strongest, most responsible education choice law—they turned to their last refuge: the courts. They couldn’t win in the Legislature. They couldn’t convince the Governor. They couldn’t sway parents. So now, they want judges to do their political work. But here’s the catch: their lawsuit isn’t just about education choice. If they succeed, they could blow up Idaho’s entire tax system. This is a power grab that threatens every family, every small business, and every community in our state. House Bill 93 simply allows families to keep more of their own money - via a tax credit - to cover tutoring, curriculum, or other approved educational costs. It doesn’t “take” anything from public schools, and it doesn’t bust the budget. Those suing claim the tax credit is unconstitutional, simply because of how families may spend the money they get to keep. If that logic holds, it could be open season on any Idaho tax credit. For example, Idaho's grocery tax credit allows families to keep their own money, regardless of whether they spend it at Albertson's or Fred Meyer. Idaho's Launch program could be on the chopping block as well, as it provides tuition credit to institutions of higher education. Idaho's Youth and Rehabilitation charities could see a funding source disappear. Think about that. In their obsession to stop parents from having choices, the unions are willing to risk wiping out Idaho’s most basic tax relief measures. The lawsuit is a Trojan horse—not just to shut down education choice, but to handcuff the Legislature and put special interests in charge of Idaho’s tax code. In addition, the teachers' union claims the parental choice tax credit violates the Constitution's uniformity clause. If justices agree with that, it could call into question the legality of local school district tax levies that provide non-uniform resources across the state. It's worth noting that Idaho's parental choice tax credit is popular. MSPC's 2024 Idaho Poll showed supermajority support across party lines. While they may not be the loudest voices in the room, the vast majority of Idahoans support the concept. This isn’t about protecting schools. It’s about protecting union power. They don’t want parents to have options. They don’t want taxpayers to keep more of their own money. And they don’t trust Idahoans to make decisions for themselves. If the courts adopt the unions’ radical theory, Idaho’s tax code could be turned upside down, creating chaos for families, uncertainty for schools, and higher costs for everyone. That’s not justice—it’s activism at its worst. Idaho voters elected lawmakers to set tax policy. And the Legislature made the right choice when it passed House Bill 93. Families win, schools remain funded, and taxpayers keep control. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. The unions lost in the open arena of debate. They should not be allowed to hijack the courts and threaten the legislature's constitutional role in setting tax policy. Idaho families—and Idaho taxpayers—deserve better.

Idaho’s top real estate agents are not cashing commissions in Boise—they’re writing tax laws in Olympia. Washington legislators keep raising the cost of doing business so fast that they may as well set up a relocation desk for Idaho. Case in point, digital advertising costs are about to jump roughly 10% for Washington businesses thanks to a record tax package rammed through the legislature last spring. In total, the new tax package is expected to generate more than $9 billion to prop up state spending in the current budget. Just over one billion will come from extending the retail sales tax to “advertising services” and several high-tech categories (IT support, custom software and website development, security, temporary staffing, and more). Most kinds of non-digital advertising are notably exempt from the new tax, leaving legacy media like radio, TV, and newspapers as the big winners and internet-based advertising as the biggest loser. In what can only be described as an obvious response, Comcast is suing the state over it. The complaint argues the advertising provision violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which forbids states from imposing taxes that discriminate against “electronic commerce.” Taxing online advertising while exempting most traditional media is a textbook example of what the federal law was designed to preclude. The company is asking the court to declare the law invalid and stop Washington from enforcing it. A similar digital advertising tax in Maryland is in the midst of a multi-year legal battle over its constitutionality. Rulings to date have found the tax unconstitutional. The legal uncertainty and novelty of the tax should have given legislators pause. Relying on a tax that may ultimately be repealed to fund essential services is spectacularly foolish. The ITFA complaint could have been avoided by keeping the tax base broad instead of picking on digital ads, but including legacy media (especially those that write editorials during elections) would have made the politics harder. The new law  taxes services based on where the customer "first uses" them. The Tax Foundation  suggests the plain language of this rule could result in Washington-based businesses paying local sales tax on digital advertising purchased anywhere in the world.   While the Department of Revenue (DOR) may go full metal jacket on state-based enforcement of this tax collection, they’re going to have a much harder time doing so with businesses outside of their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, businesses can and will shift purchasing of these services, putting Washington advertisers at a competitive disadvantage. The state wants digital advertisers to calculate, allocate, and document taxable activity across jurisdictions. But if advertisers could casually charge their clients 10% extra, they’d already be doing it. Work will shift to competitors in jurisdictions where an identical campaign isn’t saddled with Washington sales tax. Ad agencies are not the only businesses that need to worry about complex compliance. The Department of Revenue has already issued eight  different interim guidance statements to help businesses understand the new law. While very large companies like Comcast have the legal and compliance staff to oppose or comply, many small businesses will be caught flat-footed, having provided services that Washington now considers taxable retail sales, but not having collected the sales tax. The penalties are steep. Service providers are not retailers (at least they weren’t before this law) and have no experience implementing destination-based taxation. If this is Washington’s way of improving the Idaho economy, they are doing a bang-up job. One of the “ interim guidance ” statements explains how the DOR will categorize taxable activities into “dissemination” services or “pre-dissemination” (creative) services. Under this digital “creative” tax, almost any activity that results in a digital product is considered taxable, even if the company had no part in hosting or disseminating any ads. Therefore, graphic design, search engine optimization, social media content creation, editing, scriptwriting or assistance are all taxable activities. That means content created for YouTube is likely taxable, but content created for television is not. The so-called digital tax is a shining example of positively byzantine tax favoritism. Meanwhile, this rushed policy is creating more than just advertising chaos. To calm a brushfire of taxpayer confusion, DOR recently affirmed (for now) that professional services like law, accounting, and engineering don’t suddenly become taxable  just because the product is delivered electronically or via a portal. Had the department gone the other way, every accountant or lawyer who emailed a work product would be a de facto retailer on October 1. That’s how precariously this law was written. As it turns out, when you sprint tax policy through the legislative process, you get sloppy definitions, carve-outs for the well-connected, and costly uncertainty for everyone else. Washington should instead focus on funding core functions of government by prioritizing spending without weaponizing the tax code against modern electronic commerce. Comcast’s lawsuit isn’t just corporate pushback—it’s a reminder that Washington lawmakers should stop inventing legally suspect ways to tax businesses. Perhaps it's time they take a break from working to improve neighboring Idaho’s economic outlook and instead prioritize the health of businesses in the Evergreen State for a change.

Too often, the debate over education in Idaho is presented as an either-or proposition: either you support traditional public schools, or you support education choice. That’s a false choice pushed upon us by extremists who have now filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court. Here's the truth: Idaho’s future depends on embracing both. Public schools and education choice are not enemies. They are complementary tools that serve the same purpose: ensuring every child has access to a quality education that fits their needs. Public schools remain the backbone of our system. They are where the majority of Idaho’s children will continue to learn, grow, and prepare for their futures. At the same time, education choice — whether through charter schools, magnet schools, the state's new tax credit, or other innovative models — recognizes that one size does not fit all. Families are diverse. Children have unique strengths, challenges, and circumstances. Policy should reflect that reality. Idaho’s constitution allows for this balance. It requires the state to maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public schools — a responsibility that will always be central. But nowhere does it say that other educational options cannot exist or cannot be supported. The constitutional framework ensures a strong public school system while also leaving room for innovation and flexibility to meet the needs of every family. In fact, several other states with similar constitutional provisions have embraced education choice without undermining their public schools. West Virginia is a perfect example of this. Faced with a similar lawsuit over its new education choice law, justices ruled that "nothing prevents the legislature from doing both things." The key is understanding that healthy competition and diverse options actually strengthen public schools. Just as competition in the marketplace pushes businesses to improve, choice in education encourages schools to be more responsive, innovative, and accountable. Meanwhile, families who choose public schools benefit from a system that is stronger, more focused, and more adaptive to today’s challenges. This is not about abandoning one model for the other. It’s about building an ecosystem of education where public schools thrive and families who need alternatives have them. Idaho doesn’t have to choose between strong public schools and education choice. Our students deserve both. In fact, a majority of Idahoans support the education choice proposal that was passed in the last legislative session - a simple tax credit that gives families more options and flexibility. If we want Idaho to be a state where every child, regardless of income or ZIP code, has access to the best possible education, then we should stop fighting old battles and start embracing a vision that includes everyone. Public schools and education choice, working hand in hand, are not only constitutional — they’re common sense. We can do both things.

Proving yet again that you can’t tax your way to economic prosperity, Washington state's 25-27 budget is now negative by $421 million . According to the state’s September Revenue Forecast, projected revenues have been reduced by more than $400 million, resulting in a budget deficit. This news follows lawmakers enacting the largest tax increase in state history  earlier this year (by more than $9 billion). One of the major components of that tax increase (sales tax on digital ads) is currently being challenged by Comcast for violating the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act . Despite the state's budget now showing a negative balance sheet, it doesn’t sound like Governor Ferguson plans to take any immediate action. K.D. Chapman-See, Director of the Office of Financial Management, said: “We’ve been preparing for the possibility of slowing revenue growth, and today’s forecast will inform our work as we help develop Governor Ferguson’s supplemental budget proposal.” This wait-and-see budget response is in contrast to the immediate action taken by Governor Little to reduce spending after a softening of sales tax collections in Idaho. In August, Governor Little ordered budget holdbacks of three percent while not reducing any K-12 spending . Governor Little said about his decisive budget action : “Idaho’s economy is the strongest in the nation, and we continue to move in the right direction. It’s in our DNA here in Idaho to balance the budget, cut taxes, and right-size government so we can continue to make public schools our top priority.” Here is the summary of today’s revenue forecast in Washington: “U.S. & WA economies are slowing, and uncertainty is elevated due to recent/future policy changes Impacts of tariffs, federal employment/funding, geopolitical conflict and lower spending & higher inflation/interest rates, pose risks to the forecast The revenue forecast is reduced due to lower forecasted retail sales, and reduced real estate excise tax and other agency revenues Total state revenues are expected to grow 10.8% between the 2023-25 and 2025-27 biennia and 7.0% between the 2025-27 and 2027-29 biennia” It is noteworthy that despite the reduction, revenues are still projected to grow overall in Washington, yet there is still a $421 million deficit forecasted. As already occurred in Idaho, the Evergreen State needs to right-size its budget by reducing spending.

Earlier this year, Mountain States Policy Center published details on the tools available for parents to keep their children safe on the internet . That study focused on the value of giving power to families to make choices that are best for them, instead of using government mandates. It discussed the expansive amount of parental controls now integrated into devices like smartphones, tablets, game consoles, and even smart speakers. Technology today has a variety of built-in tools to help parents keep their children safe on the internet. Apple’s Screen Time and Google’s Family Link allow you to set app limits, block adult content, and control when a device can be used. Similarly, gaming consoles like PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch have controls for screen time, spending, and age-appropriate titles. Even smart devices, like Amazon Alexa or Google Nest, have filters, purchase approvals, and time limits, showing that parents already have powerful tools to wield. While that study focused on the tools available for parents, a new report from NetChoice takes the conversation even further for lawmakers. Their “Digital Safety Shield 2025” explains how policymakers can help families without exceeding constitutional boundaries or infringing on free markets.  Key components of the report include funding for law enforcement, digital literacy education in schools, helping parents access existing parental control tools, narrowly targeted regulation of harmful conduct (including misuse of generative AI), and a national data privacy standard for families. Several online safety bills in Congress have been proposed, but some have constitutional concerns. For example, the Kids Online Safety Ac t proclaims to protect kids from harm, but it could create a slippery slope to unintended censorship and government gatekeeping of digital content. In an effort to regulate these standards, the Kids Online Safety Act gives state attorneys general sweeping enforcement powers, which increases the chance that political considerations will dictate which content stays on the internet. To be able to meet those requirements, platforms could end up with intrusive age-verification systems that mandate users, when they are very young, to provide personal data just to establish their age. Trapped between vague definitions and stiff penalties, companies have cautioned on the side of over-removal to stay out of legal liability, which could stifle free expression for children and adults alike. That’s why you need an alternative that funds enforcement as well as education and privacy protections. NetChoice encourages lawmakers to focus on providing law enforcement the resources it needs to investigate and prosecute predators. One option would be advancing the Invest in Child Safety Act, which would also establish a new office to enforce and protect against child sexual exploitation within the Department of Justice to coordinate federal efforts. Another step could be enacting a federal privacy law, ensuring that every American, regardless of where they live has the same basic level of protection. For example, every American has a right to know what information has been collected about them, and then be able to require companies to get consent before they sell personal data, and provide stronger protections for highly sensitive categories such as children’s data. These are sensible solutions that address root problems, and they do so while also respecting parenting choices. Everyone can agree that parents should have the tools and resources needed to safeguard their children online. At the same time, policymakers should strengthen privacy protections, fund enforcement, and increase education on digital tools to avoid mandating policies that take choices out of families’ hands. Digital safety is not about handing over control of our lives to the government. Instead, it is about empowering families and ensuring that the systems in which they operate function well. Parents need practical tools. Lawmakers need principled frameworks. Together, we can create an environment where children are protected, parents have the power to shape their own children's lives accordingly, and constitutional rights are preserved.

As expected, a group of Idaho activists has filed a lawsuit asking the Idaho Supreme Court to block implementation of the state’s new parental choice tax credit. The frivolous legal action is cruel, unnecessary, and filled with factual mistakes and assumptions.   Tellingly, there is no mention of improving outcomes for Idaho children.   Instead, petitioners – which include the Idaho teacher’s union, a sitting state representative, and other activists – spend nearly nine pages of the legal filing arguing they have legal standing to sue. They spend another nine pages asking the court to require taxpayers to reimburse their attorney fees.   This effort is a cynical attempt to punish children by convincing just three judges on the Idaho Supreme Court to overrule the majority of the state legislature and Governor Brad Little and block kids from receiving a high-quality education – wherever they learn.   House Bill 93 is a simple piece of legislation supported by President Trump . It provides a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses, including tutoring, supplies and tuition expenses. Special needs students could qualify for $7,500 tax credits.    It has been called the best education choice bill in the nation, mainly because of its simplicity and the fact that it puts decisions and dollars in the hands of parents.   No bureaucrats. No school administrators. Families decide what’s best. MSPC polling showed Idahoans supported the $5,000 tax credit idea.   Unfortunately, the legal action isn’t a surprise. Every state that has expanded education choice options for families has faced legal challenges from entrenched special interests.   Fortunately for Idaho children, most of those legal attempts have failed. In fact, research shows that no state tax credit legislation like Idaho’s has ever been overturned by a state court. (Note: Idaho’s tax credit is not  a tax credit scholarship, a voucher or an Education Savings Account.) In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn . That case concerned Arizona’s scholarship tax credit. The court ruled the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because tax credits involve personal income, not government money – a critical distinction that serves as an example for other states considering tax credit programs. The Georgia Supreme Court has also dismissed a case challenging the state’s popular tax credit scholarship program. In Gaddy v. Georgia Department of Revenue , plaintiffs took aim at the program that provided scholarships for children to attend private schools, funded by voluntary donations from individuals and corporations. The court ruled those who brought the case had no standing because neither they, nor the state, was hurt by the tax credit. In Magee v. Boyd , the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's two tax credit programs, rejecting several claims made by the plaintiffs under the Alabama Constitution. The court ruled the credits are given to parents or taxpayers, not religious institutions, and do not constitute government appropriations. In Oliver v. Hofmeister , the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program. Justices said because the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and receives the aid in consideration for their not attending the public schools, the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian or private school. The overwhelming legal precedent of cases at the federal and state levels shows that education choice programs are constitutional. Here are some key takeaways from the court filing seeking to overturn Idaho’s new education choice law and block families. Claim: The plain language of Article IX, section 1, prohibits the legislature from establishing and maintaining a parallel system of private education This is not an accurate reading of the state’s Constitution, which says, “the stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a   general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” Such clauses are common in many state constitutions. But nothing in this language prevents the legislature from supplementing that duty or requires parents to send their child to a government school. The constitution simply creates a floor to make sure there is access. It doesn’t create a ceiling – nor should it. Justices on the West Virginia Supreme Court were met with these same arguments when they were recently asked to rule on the constitutionality of the state’s new education choice law. Justices responded by upholding the program, writing “the Constitution allows the legislature to do both of these things.” Claim: HB 93 is “subsidizing private schools within the state of Idaho” Like a broken record, the court filing repeatedly claims private schools in Idaho are “participating” or “under the program.” This is false. There is no program in which private schools can participate. Families can claim a tax credit for money they spent on tuition, or other educational expenses that may have nothing whatsoever to do with private schools. The state does not distribute money to private schools, and no private school in Idaho can sign up for any “program” to receive state money. Only families qualify, and only families benefit. Claim: The $50 million limit to the program “is likely to be expanded by future Legislatures” This may or may not be true, but budgeting is the prerogative of the legislative branch. There is also a chance the program may be suspended, and the funding may be reduced to zero. Whether the program may be expanded or reduced by future legislators is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality. It would be absurd to suggest that policymakers couldn't adopt a higher or lower grocery tax credit, for example, simply because families may buy their groceries at one store or another. Claim: “The Program will reduce state funding for public schools” This is conjecture. The filing says, “many students will withdraw from public schools to take advantage of the tax credit.” But with caps on the program, that is simply not possible. At most, 10,000 students could sign up. But Idaho has more than 310,000 public school students, and another 35,000 private and homeschooling families.  The math simply does not allow for a large impact – if any – on public schools. Still, it is worth noting that, while legislators passed HB 93, they also passed an increase in the state’s K-12 budget in the latest legislative session. And if parents are satisfied with their public school, they are unlikely to leave it. Claim: HB 93 is a major shift in how education is funded in the Gem State This isn’t just wrong, it’s laughable. At $50 million, the allocation for the parental choice tax is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget .  In contrast, the state spends $2,789,717,800 on K-12 public schools. In addition, the state has already been funding private schools with the Launch program . Claim: HB 93 “redirects funds that would otherwise be allocated to public education to private schools and homeschools” This is inaccurate. Not only is the money not directed to private schools, but the statement also suggests that every  dollar in the state’s budget belongs to public schools first. A ruling against the tax credit on these grounds would set the stage for further litigation on any other budget priority the legislature may wish to pursue.    It is worth noting that the lawsuit asks the court to move as quickly as possible to block implementation of Idaho’s HB 93. In fact, activists want the court to rule no later than the day  before the program opens - a move intended to block any family – and the public at large – from experiencing any positive impact. It's a harsh, unnecessary course that proves the legal gamesmanship is more about protecting a system rather than helping children.

The phrase ‘government shutdown’ is younger than most members of Congress. Fifty years ago, government shutdowns didn’t exist. But now, each fall, the nation groans as Congress turns one of its most fundamental duties—passing a budget—into a manufactured crisis. As the deadline approaches, Congress stalls, and shutdown threats dominate the headlines until a stopgap measure is slapped together at the eleventh hour. The calendar is no secret, yet Washington repeats the same frustrating cycle as though the budget deadline appeared out of nowhere. It appears to be high drama, but it’s a failure of legislative responsibility and an executive misstep that traces back to the Carter administration. Shutdowns were never meant to be part of our constitutional system. They emerged in 1980, when a 19th-century law was unilaterally reinterpreted by the Carter Administration to allow distinctions between “essential” and “nonessential” services and require agencies to close when appropriations lapse. For nearly two centuries before that, the federal government continued to function during budget gaps. The founders designed a republic where Congress—through open debate and compromise—would set priorities and authorize spending, not one where the threat of chaos could be wielded as leverage. A proposal is on the table to get us off this embarrassing and costly budget shutdown merry-go-round. The “Prevent Government Shutdowns Act” ( S. 2721 / H.R. 5130 ) would ensure that the government remains open while forcing Congress to stay in session until the budget work is done. This puts budget pressure where it belongs: on Congress, not on families. Services would continue uninterrupted, but no new business would be funded. Worker furloughs and backpay bloat would no longer be an issue. Ending shutdown brinkmanship removes the distraction of manufactured crises and requires lawmakers to fulfill their core duty: deliberate, transparent budgeting on behalf of the people they represent. States have already shown the way. Rhode Island , Wisconsin , and North Carolina  have automatic continuing appropriations that keep last year’s budget rolling until a new one is passed. Just this year, Kansas joined them. If statehouses can manage it, Congress can too. This isn’t just about protecting programs from disruption—it’s about restoring accountability to the branch of government constitutionally charged with the power of the purse. Why does this matter? Because the budget isn’t just another bill. The budget drives all policy. Every decision, from defense to Social Security to small grant programs, flows through the appropriations process. Failure to pass a budget undermines public trust, disrupts services for veterans and families, and rattles the economy. It also leads to “continuing resolutions” that freeze priorities in place instead of encouraging thoughtful decisions about where taxpayer dollars should go. The shutdown prevention bill would restore predictability, protect taxpayers, and reinforce the legislative branch’s constitutional role. It would also remove the leverage small factions currently hold when they threaten shutdowns. For those who value limited government, this is exactly what we should want: a Congress that does its core job of budgeting responsibly. This is why Mountain States Policy Center recently joined an open letter led by Americans for Prosperity urging Congress to pass these reforms. It reads, in part, “Automatic continuing appropriations advance inclusive, effective, legislature-driven budgeting. We urge Congress to enact the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act as soon as possible. It would strengthen America’s fiscal democracy, help Congress succeed, and support a more timely and effective appropriations process. Americans deserve a government that works.” Shutdowns are a modern invention that weaken public trust and create unnecessary turmoil. Theatrics make headlines; statesmanship makes history. It’s time Congress chooses wisely.

The Moscow School District is on the wrong side of history. The district's school board voted Tuesday night to sue the people of Idaho over the state's new education choice tax credit. Later in the day Wednesday, we found out that other groups are involved, including the state teachers union. This lawsuit doesn't stand up for students. Instead, it's standing in the way of parents, punishing taxpayers, and trying to take choices away from Idaho families who need them most. Let’s not sugarcoat it: this lawsuit is about control. The district’s leaders said clearly that they were afraid the law could lead to a reduction in enrollment. Put simply, they are afraid of what happens when families have options. They don’t want parents deciding what’s best for their kids. They want to lock every child into a one-size-fits-all system that has been failing too many for too long. But here’s what they won’t tell you: House Bill 93 is not a voucher. It doesn’t take one dime away from Idaho’s public schools. In fact, lawmakers were deliberate in structuring the program so that public school budgets keep growing — as they have year after year. HB 93 simply gives families a tax credit to help cover private school tuition, tutoring, curriculum, or other educational needs. It’s no different than a grocery tax credit or child tax credit. The money goes to families, not institutions. A ruling against the education choice tax credit would be folly, calling into question the constitutional authority of the legislature to set the state's tax policy. The claim that this is “unconstitutional” is also not accurate. Courts from Arizona to West Virginia to Georgia have already settled this issue. In case after case, judges have ruled that tax credits and scholarship programs are legal, fair, and constitutional — because they help children, not bureaucracies. Parents make the choices, not government officials. So why sue? Because opponents fear competition. They know that when families are given the freedom to choose, public schools have to improve. That means accountability. That means putting students over systems. Instead of rising to that challenge, Moscow’s leaders and the state's union activists are hiding behind lawyers. And who pays for that? You do. Taxpayers in Moscow could be on the hook for lawyers’ fees in a political fight against Idaho families. Instead of investing time and resources into helping students succeed, the board is spending energy trying to shut down opportunity. Worse yet, they’re attacking the very families who could benefit most — working-class and middle-class parents who simply want the same choices that wealthier families already enjoy. The lawsuit sends one message loud and clear: “We don’t trust parents to decide what’s best for their kids. Only we do.” That’s not just arrogant. It’s insulting. Governor Brad Little got it right when he said, “Idaho can have it all — strong public schools AND education freedom.” The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can complement one another. Strong public schools are essential, but so is the right of parents to chart the best path for their children. This lawsuit isn’t about protecting education. It’s about protecting the system. It’s about keeping power in the hands of bureaucrats instead of families. And if they succeed, it won’t be school board members who suffer. It will be Idaho’s children. The bottom line is simple: families win when they have choices. Taxpayers win when dollars are used efficiently. Children win when they have opportunities tailored to their needs. The only ones who lose are the unions, bureaucrats, and administrators who want to control every decision. The lawsuit is a slap in the face to families, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and a cynical attempt to keep parents in their place. Idaho families deserve better.

Across our region, policymakers have been taking action that significantly moves the economic needle: cutting waste and trimming red tape. It’s a key reason Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming regularly show up among the least-regulated states in the country, and is a major draw to families, job creators, and taxpayers alike. Washington has made some permitting upgrades, but still carries one of the heaviest regulatory loads in the nation. Mercatus’ state snapshots for Idaho , Montana , and Washington show that Idaho is the least regulated state in the nation, and Washington is the 8th most regulated.   Now, Virginia has a timely playbook  that can help every state in our region accelerate what’s already working, and help Washington finally get serious. Virginia soon will see AI regulatory reform agents deployed. The goal: “ To carry out what seems like the arduous task of digesting Virginia’s laws and regulations, Vulcan first got regulations, statutes and case law into one central database. AI agents then dig through those thousands of pages of text and the regulatory provisions that stem from them, then map them to see where there is overlap. The agents also determine whether a regulation has been expressly written into law, or been delegated to an agency through that law to determine and implement for themselves. ” Route Fifty detailed how Virginia’s Office of Regulatory Managemen t (ORM) reached and is now surpassing its 25% regulatory reduction goal. Additionally, Virginia is now using agentic AI to supercharge the next round of streamlining. The AI agents review statutes and their implementing regulations, flag mismatches, and compare requirements across states. For example, it identifies irregularities in licensing hours for barbers or cosmetologists, and then the program generates “heat maps” that agencies can use to prioritize reforms. ORM has also launched transparency tools, such as a permit/license tracking dashboard, so that applicants can follow status updates like a FedEx package. This is a great model for other states to follow. For Idaho, reforms should stay the course and add Virginia-style AI tools. Idaho’s current regulatory reforms are a national model. Governor Little’s 2019 Red Tape Reduction Act and Licensing Freedom Act were followed by the 2020 Zero-Based Regulation order . These reforms force routine, line-by-line reviews with roughly 20% of rule chapters scrutinized each year. That approach helped Idaho become, and continue to be, the least-regulated state in the nation. The next step is to integrate Virginia’s toolkit, which includes AI-assisted statute-to-rule traceability, cross-state comparisons to identify outliers/unnecessary regulation, and a public permit tracking dashboard that reports agency performance in real-time. For Montana, the reform momentum is real; now keep it going. Montana’s Red Tape Relief effort, launched by Executive Order 1-2021  and continued via EO 17-2021, has driven a top-to-bottom review of the state’s regulations. State updates and press releases indicate that roughly one-fifth of regulations have been repealed or amended since the initiative began, with reform bills enacted in 2023 and beyond. Montana should now implement rolling reviews and add Virginia-style analytics, AI mapping, cross-state benchmarking, and permit dashboards with shot-clock timelines, so advancements and deregulation persist regardless of who leads the administration. For Wyoming, keep the reform Task Force focused.  Wyoming’s Regulatory Reduction Task  Force has been working issue-by-issue with agencies and stakeholders. The task force’s agendas, minutes, and staff summaries show active bill drafting around permitting timelines and housing/energy reforms. A straightforward next step is to publish a live, user-friendly inventory of rules and before/after changes, and to stand up an AI pilot to surface duplication and statute-rule mismatches. Local moves are already pointing the right way . Laramie County just expanded home-business rights by removing permit and site-plan requirements in unincorporated areas. For Washington, continue to update permitting and modernize the code itself. A positive development is that the Washington Department of Commerce  commissioned an independent evaluation by Beveridge & Diamond on siting and permitting reform. But Washington still sits near the top of the regulator y burden and faces chronic project delays. The fix is to pair those permitting upgrades with a Virginia-style regulatory management system: an ORM-equivalent with measurable reduction targets, AI-assisted statute-to-rule mapping and cross-state comparisons, and public dashboards that track permits and licenses in real time. The “why” to do this now is simple. The accumulation of thousands of rules over decades, usually well-intentioned, raises costs, slows housing and infrastructure, and disadvantages small businesses relative to entrenched corporate giants. When states commit to regulatory discipline, especially now with AI-assisted audits, the result is faster build times, lower compliance costs, and a more responsive government. Most of our region is already proving it can be done.   The next step is to put AI to work, accelerating the common-sense regulatory reforms that will help put our economy into overdrive.

The Treasure State is taking important steps to help control the exploding costs of Medicaid while providing critical care to the neediest. Montana is submitting a 1115 Medicaid Demonstration waiver application to allow experimentation with reform. Other states should follow this good example. As explained by Governor Gianforte, “The safety net of Medicaid should be there for those who truly need it, but if everyone is allowed to climb upon the net, it will collapse. By requiring healthy adults to engage in work-related activities and cost sharing, we can help preserve the long-term sustainability of the Medicaid program and ensure that this critical health coverage remains available for those who need it most.” The state’s Department of Public Health and Human Services Director, Charlie Brereton, said, “Montanans who can find employment and improve or gain new skills while maintaining access to essential health care services are best positioned to support themselves and their families. We are committed to promptly implementing work requirements and premiums for individuals enrolled in Medicaid expansion, as we firmly believe these program elements will foster self-sufficiency and lead to independent, healthier futures for enrollees.” Medicaid began in 1965 as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. It was financially set up as a 50/50 joint state and federal entitlement. Obamacare greatly expanded the program to any lower-income, able-bodied adult ages 18 to 64 years, with the federal government contributing 90 percent of the costs . The original Obamacare law required all states to expand their Medicaid programs. The United States Supreme Court ruled that states had the option of expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. Montana, along with 39 other states, chose to expand their program. The Obamacare law allows states to experiment with innovative Medicaid reforms by using a federal waiver system. After being turned down by the Biden Administration, Montana has reapplied for a waiver that would require “working-age” and “able-bodied adults” in the expansion program to pay a premium and to seek work or community service. As stated by Director Brereton, “the waiver aims to reduce government dependency and encourage self-sufficiency and upward economic mobility for low-income adults.” In inflation-adjusted dollars, Medicaid has exploded from $1 billion in the first year to almost $1 trillion last year and is now one of the top three budget items for every state. Over 20 percent of Americans are now in the entitlement, pushing it to unsustainability in its current form. Common-sense Medicaid reforms are necessary to ensure that the program will continue for those who are the most vulnerable. Like welfare reform in the 1990s, Medicaid should be considered a temporary entitlement. A work requirement and a small co-pay offer a path to responsibility and provide a potential course to not only get recipients off the entitlement but also give them access to a better economic future. Montana officials should be congratulated for their Medicaid waiver application. Let’s hope other states follow their lead.

The fireworks, parades, and barbecues are all ready to celebrate Independence Day this Friday, July 4th. The date of the"4th" has become synonymous with the holiday, with millions of Americans often wishing each other a "Happy 4th!"But if we're going to be 100% accurate, we should probably start wishing each other a Happy 2nd. After all, July 2nd is the true date of American independence—the moment the colonies formally broke from British rule. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress took a momentous step by voting in favor of the resolution declaring the thirteen American colonies free and independent states. The vote passed without opposition, making it the legal and political moment the colonies severed ties with Britain. John Adams, a leading advocate for independence, recognized the significance of this day. In a letter to his wife Abigail dated July 3, 1776, he wrote: “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival.” Adams envisioned future celebrations filled with “Pomp and Parade… from one End of this Continent to the other.” Although the vote for independence happened on July 2, the Continental Congress took two more days to finalize the wording of the Declaration of Independence, primarily penned by Thomas Jefferson. The official document was adopted on July 4, and that date was printed on the first copies that were distributed to the public and newspapers. Over time, the Fourth of July became etched in public memory as the date of independence, largely because it was the day Americans first saw the finished document. It became symbolic, representing the ideals and aspirations laid out in Jefferson’s powerful prose. So history shows us that July 2 was the action; July 4 was the announcement. Understanding this distinction helps us appreciate the courage it took to make that vote. It wasn’t just eloquent words that birthed a nation—it was a political leap into the unknown. While July 4 will always remain a cherished holiday, there’s growing interest in restoring July 2 to its rightful place in history. Some historians, educators, and civic leaders advocate observing July 2 as a complementary moment of reflection—one that honors the bold decision that made the Declaration possible. In doing so, we don’t replace the Fourth—we enrich it. The fireworks of July 4 celebrate the ideals of liberty and equality. But July 2 was when independence truly began—when courage triumphed over fear, and a group of revolutionaries voted to create a new nation. Perhaps it’s time we gave July 2 the recognition it deserves: as the true Independence Day.

Idaho’s latest ISAT results should set off alarms. Despite significant increases in state funding, scores have barely budged — with just 53.2% of students proficient in English, 42.3% in math, and 41.7% in science. Yes, the state technically “met its goals,” but no one should be satisfied with half of Idaho kids struggling to meet watered-down expectations. Top 10 Schools - Math SCHOOL % PROFICIENT North Idaho Stem Charter Academy 91.9% Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy 89.0% Syringa Mountain 81.0% Liberty Charter 79.7% Victory Charter 78.8% Troy 75.5% Legacy Public Charter 74.9% North Star Charter 72.2% Compass Public Charter 71.6% Cottonwood 71.0% See how your school performed here, courtesy of Idaho Education News. Top 10 Schools - Language Arts SCHOOL % PROFICIENT North Idaho Stem Charter Academy 95.6% Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy 93.9% Syringa Mountain 91.1% North Star Charter 85.0% Victory Charter 84.2% Liberty Charter 83.7% Compass Public Charter 81.2% Legacy Public Charter 78.9% Thomas Jefferson Charter 78.7% Mccall-Donnelly 78.3% See how your school performed here, courtesy of Idaho Education News. This isn’t a one-year blip, and Idaho is doing better than many other states. But for years, states have poured more money into the system, only to see flat results. Entire generations of students are moving through our schools without ever mastering the basics. And often time the children falling the furthest behind are those who can least afford it: low-income students, English language learners, and others who are trapped in a system that simply isn’t working for them. Our students deserve better. Families should have the power to choose the learning environment that works best for their child — whether that’s a neighborhood public school, a charter school, private school, online program, or homeschooling. House Bill 93, the Parental Choice Tax Credit, was a major step in that direction. Expanding those kinds of options is one way to raise achievement and close the gaps that plague our system. Because here’s the truth: stagnation is not success. If half our kids are failing to meet grade level, then the system is failing them. We shouldn't lower expectations. Instead, we should empower parents to seek the best for their children. The choice should be obvious.

As we watch the digital revolution of artificial intelligence unfold before our eyes, this technological boom is already creating friction, and not just in politics or economics, but regarding something much more tangible: power. Lots of power. AI is not powered by magic or fairy dust. AI is powered by giant data centers crammed full of servers that consume massive quantities of electricity to train the AI models, stream videos, and move information around in milliseconds directly to your fingertips. The federal government is aware of the pressures. We need more power, but permitting and regulation are delaying these progressions.   The new America's AI Action Plan, issued by the White House last month, notes : "America’s environmental permitting system and other regulations make it almost impossible to build this [energy] infrastructure in the United States with the speed that is required." This is a national problem affecting our region as well. High-growth areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are realizing that this power demand is beginning to pressure aging grids that were not designed for loads like that. The impacts are already being felt by residential energy consumers. Utilities commissions are increasing power bills  to make up for the cost of serving immense data and artificial intelligence centers, as the Idaho Capital Sun recently revealed.   But it’s not all bad news, and the solutions are in sight if we make the right policy decisions. AI data centers will bring jobs, investment, tax revenue, and establish our region as a tech economy player of scale for the future. They also create faster networks, smarter tools, and a more competitive economy for everyday consumers. The cost of powering this digital revolution, however, should not be borne by existing residential customers.  We must consider an option that warrants at least as much attention and arguably more than anything else: allowing for the expedited expansion of power generation development and grid modernization. This requires untangling the regulatory knots that slow or stop innovative energy projects. Excitingly, we are beginning to approach that scale with new, single-purpose power plants around the country, from Idaho National Laboratory efforts to build nuclear alongside AI , to the gas plant with carbon capture in Cheyenne  planned expressly for huge data centers to anchor a revitalization of industry. Making space for these projects can enable new demand to be met while simultaneously providing a buffer for the health of pre-existing grids. Here’s what policymakers should consider: Accelerated Project Approvals : Speed up the review process for new power facilities, regardless of their technology. That way, large energy users can get their own source identified without burdening the existing infrastructure load. Dedicated Power Agreements : Sponsors above a certain scale in the industrial chain, or operators of large-scale AI and internet equipment, should be encouraged to build and operate their own plants. This will allow the data center's power costs to be borne directly and not passed on to residential customers. Transparent Cost Tracking : Make public the portion of utility upgrades and electricity purchases aimed at industrial users, apart from general usage. This will help both officials and citizens to see who pays what in the end. Balanced Growth Partnerships : Innovation should be welcomed, but it should be accompanied by agreements that guarantee reliability and low cost for all others linked into the grid. We don’t need to over-regulate AI or hold ourselves back from our role as a digital pioneer, but we have to build smart. Data centers are unique and necessary to the future tech expansion. The power load is substantial, and the effects are real, especially the impact that it has on rate structure, energy reliability, and long-term capacity; something many in our region are already feeling the effects of. If we fail to plan for the future of this energy need, our region could be left behind in the race for new jobs tied to the digital revolution or unfairly burden residential energy consumers with the costs for this growth. Let’s ensure that the benefits of AI data centers are accompanied by responsibility, transparency, and fairness. Growth can be a good thing, but only if good planning and better decision-making are involved.