Idaho’s 2024 Legislative Session appears to be in its final days. Lawmakers plan to conclude major business today and then recess until April 10. They would then return to consider any veto override votes. While this is the current plan, as noted by the Idaho Capital Sun: "While it is possible House Concurrent Resolution 51 sets up April 10 as the final day of the 2024 legislative session, legislators will not be obligated to adjourn when they return April 10. They could adjourn, or they could simply keep going or take another recess. There is no legal requirement to adjourn the legislative session by a certain date." If today marks the end of consideration of major bills, there were several exciting reforms advanced, a few disappointing roadblocks hit, and a couple of head-scratching moments this year. Before the session started, we provided lawmakers with our top policy recommendations. We are happy to report that several of them made it across the finish line. Here is a quick review of some of the proposals we were tracking this year and the outcome. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more With a unanimous vote, the Idaho Legislature adopted our recommendation to close the state’s unconstitutional loophole that could allow home equity theft to occur. When ruling against this egregious practice in 2023, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more." (HB 444 - adopted) Tax relief here we come Among the provisions of the school facilities funding reform is an additional reduction in Idaho’s income tax rate. With this change, Idaho is now in between our friends in Utah who just reduced their income tax rate to 4.55%, and Montana with its two rates of 4.7% and 5.9%. The combined corporate and personal income tax relief is estimated to be around $59.1 million for Fiscal Year 2025. According to the Tax Foundation, moving from a 5.8% to a 5.695% individual income tax rate will help improve Idaho’s ranking from 33 to 29 for all states and from 24 to 20 for those states where wage income is taxable. (SB 521 – adopted) Also, by a vote of 69-1 in the House and 35-0 in the Senate, the Idaho legislature enacted a 20% reduction in Unemployment Insurance taxes for businesses. From Unemployment Insurance tax reductions to additional income tax relief, Idaho continues to put out the “Open for Business” sign. (HB 428 - adopted) Another positive development was ending the practice of political messages on taxpayer refund checks. Thanks to the unanimous adoption of HB 618 this reform is now the law in Idaho. Government officials should be commended for prioritizing tax refund checks when taxpayers overpay. The refund checks speak for themselves, however, without turning them into a government-funded political advertisement. (HB 618 - adopted) Education bright spots Although there were a couple of education reform roadblocks this year (we’ll discuss later), lawmakers did adopt several bills to help improve the existing public school system. The approval of the school facilities bill (HB 521) should help address the safety of school buildings for students. The overwhelming adoption of “The Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act” will remove some of the administrative handcuffs on high-performing charter schools so they can focus on student outcomes instead of paperwork. It is very exciting to see Idaho continue to embrace charter schools and act to enhance their ability to meet the needs of students and families who are looking for alternative education opportunities. (HB 422 - adopted) Dam proud With the approval of SJM 103, Idaho lawmakers made it clear that the state is dam proud and strongly supports the clean renewable hydro baseload power, navigation, and irrigation provided by the Snake River dams. The Legislature declared: “the State of Idaho opposes any actions to degrade the functionality, in whole or in part, to remove or breach any dams on the Columbia-Snake River System or its tributaries…” Last year we teamed up with U.S. Senator Jim Risch to write an op-ed discussing the importance of the Snake River dams. (SJM 103 – adopted) Putting taxpayers on equal footing with government agencies In a positive development for Idaho, lawmakers signaled their intent and desire to stop agency end-runs around the legislative process with the strong approval of HB 626. As noted by the statement of purpose for the bill, “reviewing courts must rule, where an interpretation is in relative doubt, to limit agency power in favor of individual liberty.” This reform will help put citizens on an equal footing with government agencies if a legal dispute occurs. Administrative agencies need to be kept in check and this new law will help end judicial deference on agency rules. (HB 626 - adopted) Falling behind on education choice options Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) believes that education choice means an all of the above approach – traditional public schools, charter schools, magnet schools, micro-schools, homeschooling, and more. While there are several education choices available for Idaho families, the state is one of the few in the West (along with California, Oregon, and Washington) that doesn’t provide the option for an Education Savings Account (ESA) or education choice tax credit. These types of education choice options currently exist in 29 states including neighboring Utah, Montana, and Wyoming). Unfortunately, lawmakers this year failed to advance an education choice tax credit proposal. (HB 447 – failed House committee) It was also surprising to see a proposal to increase K-12 accountability and transparency with a Public School Transparency Act not even receive a public hearing. MSPC’s recent Idaho Poll showed more than 80% of citizens support this transparency concept. Idaho's top education official has also endorsed the idea. “It’s a positive for our schools if the communities they serve understand how tax dollars are being spent," said Superintendent Debbie Critchfield said. "Let’s face it, school budgets tend to be complex and [the Public School Transparency Act] is a step that helps simplify the way they’re communicated publicly.” (HB 718 – not heard) Public notice and good lawmaking can co-exist One thing that became clear during the 2024 Legislative Session, additional transparency reforms are needed. Unless you are camping at the capitol building, it is very difficult to know when a public hearing will occur, what bills are under consideration, and even if a bill has been adopted. Illustrating this problem, one of the stakeholder email updates I received this year had this note about action on a bill: “We will get little to almost no notice if that takes place.” Another example is a committee agenda email notice on a bill that I was invited to testify on that didn’t arrive until 1:15 a.m. on the same day as the 8 a.m. public hearing. While this type of format may work for lobbyists, it is not structured to enhance public participation in the legislative process. This is why we believe there should be at least a three-day notice for public hearings, remote testimony options provided for all public hearings, and legislative bill pages should be updated in real-time when a roll call vote occurs so you don’t have to be actively watching floor action to know if a bill was adopted. Better luck next year Along with the previously discussed failure of the education choice tax credit and Public School Transparency Act, other worthwhile proposals also didn’t get adopted this year. Among them: Providing a statewide voters’ guide (SB 1273 – passed Senate; not heard in House); Ending taxpayer subsidies for teacher unions (HB 602 – failed House floor); Using performance outcomes for education spending (HB 595 – passed House; not heard in Senate); Authorizing an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council (HB 568 – passed House; not heard in Senate); and Helping Congress adopt a balanced budget (SCR 112/SCR 115 not voted on by the full Senate). We’re hopeful that these policies will be considered again next year by lawmakers. In summary, the 2024 Legislative Session saw additional tax relief adopted, closed the home equity theft loophole, removed some of the administrative burden on charter schools, reformed school facilities funding, put Idaho on the record again supporting the Snake River dams, and ended judicial deference on agency rules. Among those reforms that failed to advance were providing additional education choice options for families, enacting additional public school budget transparency, providing a statewide voters’ guide, ending taxpayer subsidies for teacher unions, and moving towards performance-based funding for schools. Along with working to improve the legislative process to enhance citizen involvement, we look forward to next year and being a resource for lawmakers with these and other policy reforms.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote Thursday to reinstate net neutrality rules for the internet, even though the web has been doing just fine without them. It's a classic case of fixing a problem that doesn't seem to exist. Net neutrality rules were first adopted in 2015 under the Obama Administration. The rules allow the government to regulate broadband access under the guise of protecting consumers. Net neutrality was supposed to prevent internet service providers (ISP's) from favoring or limiting internet traffic. It sounded good - in fact, large national companies and celebrities alike supported the idea - and predicted doom and gloom when it was repealed by the FCC in 2017. But we now have the data to prove that the internet speed was improving before 2015 (pre-net neutrality), and continues to increase in this post net neutrality world. Average broadband speeds in the United States have increased dramatically over the past six years. Average mobile internet speeds are up more than 300%. Research by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity notes the gains in internet speed and cost decreases that occurred in the wake of repealing the net neutrality rules. Both median internet download speeds and wireless speeds increased - and the U.S. rose in international rankings of download speeds from 45th to 16th. Prices, too, declined by as much as 28%. And we see very few - if any - examples of ISP's blocking any content. Unfortunately, the biggest factor that determines your internet speed is the place you live. Typically, more rural areas experience slower internet speeds. This is why we need more innovation - and less regulation.

Should a city be able to enforce civil or criminal restrictions on homeless people who sleep or camp on public property? That was the question before the United States Supreme Court on Monday, as justices heard arguments in the case of the City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson. The case has the potential to reshape any municipality's ability to adopt laws that would prevent homeless camping, especially in areas where there are beds available in nearby shelters. At issue Monday was a law passed by Grants Pass, Oregon, that prevented camping or sleeping on public property or in city parks. Camping was defined as any place where bedding, sleeping bags, or any stove or fire is placed. The Ninth Circuit, which covers nine states including Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana, ruled against Grants Pass, again limiting what cities in those states can do to prevent homeless encampments. In 2019, the court declined to hear Boise vs. Martin, another case that dealt with the issue. In Grants Pass, Justices grappled with whether preventing camping on public property constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In addition, is homelessness a status or an action? The distinction is important, because court precedent has said the government may not make it a crime simply to be something. Sleeping, some have contended, is a necessity and therefore cannot be regulated via a camping ordinance. The argument went sideways at several points: "Suppose the city decided it was going to execute homeless people," Justice Jackson posited. Justice Sotomayor later asked, "if homeless people aren't allowed to sleep anywhere, are they supposed to just kill themselves?" Putting the hyperbole aside, if a city cannot prevent sleeping in a public park because sleeping is a necessity of life, what else could be considered a necessity? Can cities prevent public urination or defecation? What about criminalizing lighting a fire to stay warm? Justices asked if someone could steal food, simply because eating it is a necessity of life. The policy questions are endless. It took a while for justices to actually reach one of the most important parts of the case - whether cities have alternatives and whether homeless citizens are even willing to use those alternatives. JUSTICE GORSUCH: It's an Eighth Amendment violation to require people to access available beds in the jurisdiction in which they live because of their mental health problems? MR. KNEEDLER: If -- if going there would -- would -- JUSTICE GORSUCH: How about if they have a substance abuse problem and they can't use those substances in the shelter? Is that an Eighth Amendment -- MR. KNEEDLER: That is -- that is not a -- that is not a sufficient -- JUSTICE GORSUCH: Why? Why? They're addicted to drugs, they cannot use them in the shelter. That's one of the rules. MR. KNEEDLER: Well, if they -- if they -- if it's the shelter's rule, then they have no -- they -- they -- they can't go there if they're -- if they're addicted. That's not -- that's not -- JUSTICE GORSUCH: So that's an Eighth -- that's an Eighth Amendment violation? MR. KNEEDLER: Well, no, the -- the -- the Eighth Amendment violation is prohibiting sleeping outside because the only shelter that is available -- JUSTICE GORSUCH: Is not really available to that person? MR. KNEEDLER: -- won't take them -- won't take them, yes. And that's an individualized determination. JUSTICE GORSUCH: Same thing with the alcoholic? MR. KNEEDLER: Yes. JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay. So the alcoholic has an Eighth Amendment right to sleep outside even though there's a bed available? MR. KNEEDLER: If -- if the only shelter in town won't take him, then I think he's in exactly -- he's in the same -- he's in the same condition. And there can be all sorts of reasons, and the City doesn't want normally JUSTICE GORSUCH: And judges across the country are now going to superintend this under the Eighth Amendment? One thing the court seemed to agree on is that the issue of homeless policy is probably not best decided by judges, but rather local elected officials. This likely means an overturning of the Ninth Circuit's decision, but the ruling could be narrow. The more broad solution to this problem will not be found in the courts, but rather housing policy and the regulations that prevent an expansion in affordable housing.

Sometimes the story of a legislative session can be told in two simple stats: the number of bills introduced, and the number of bills completed. As we watched the legislative sessions in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming unfold this year (Montana didn't have a session in 2024), there were unmistakable trends: Idaho legislators are introducing more legislation, Washington legislators are introducing fewer bills, and Wyoming is just about status quo. Whether any of that is good or bad news might depend on your interests. Let's start our analysis in Idaho. In blue are the number of bills introduced. In orange, the number completed. It appears to be about the same as previous years. But in reality, lawmakers this year introduced 718 bills - the most since 2021 and the highest amount in the past 15 years. About 51% were adopted, slightly lower than last year's 53%. Overall, there's a clear trend in Idaho - more bills are being introduced and fewer are actually being completed. In Washington state, the opposite is true. State lawmakers in the Evergreen State work on a biennium (two sessions). Total introductions for the most recent biennium hit 3090, the lowest amount of any year (minus COVID) in at least a decade. But lawmakers in Olympia also completed 1050 bills, the highest number in at least 15 years. The trend is clear - fewer bills, but more passing. Finally in Wyoming, the only discernible trend is no trend at all. The number of bills being introduced in both budget (even) and regular (odd) years seems fairly consistent, with 2019 being the year that lawmakers introduced and completed the most. One interesting note from Wyoming: "Only 69% of committee bills passed introduction in the just-completed session — an all-time low since 2000 when the LSO began keeping track of the statistics. The previous low was 83% in 2008." Whether bills actually make it through the process or not, the introduction of a bill takes time and taxpayer resources. It can also lay the groundwork for future legislative proposals. So, take a break from watching the legislative calendars for now, but stay tuned.

BOISE - Mountain States Policy Center is excited to announce the release of "The Lemonade Stand in the Middle of Nowhere" - a children's book written by Senior Policy Analyst Madilynne Clark. This is the first installment of "The Common Sense Climb," a series of children’s books that is being published by MSPC to teach children about the power of free markets. "As a mom, small business owner, and a policy analyst, I saw a need to convince families that free markets are for everyone, including them," Clark said. Clark's first book chronicles the story of her four young sons who attempted to open their lemonade stand in the middle of nowhere. As the four kids sit watching a few cars drive past at top speed, they wonder how they will ever make money. Scheming up solutions, the kids decide that the mayor and town council can solve all their problems. From government purchases, subsidies, regulatory burdens, anti-competitive efforts, and labor regulations the kids have a solution all mapped out. Thankfully, someone steps in to convince them that the path of more government has more problems than answers. With a lot of hard work and determination to make things work, the kids learn that the path of free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty is the most prosperous course. "This entertaining and adorable children’s book will help the youngest of citizens (and even their parents) learn that free markets and hard work should be our first choice, not government intervention," Chris Cargill, the President of MSPC said. Written in verse and illustrated with the power of AI by Clark, "The Lemonade Stand in the Middle of Nowhere" is sure to make readers laugh and also learn something new. The book can be purchased on Amazon. Ida the Mountain Bluebird, a new installment of the series, will be released on October 4th at Mountain States Policy Center’s Fall Dinner and Anniversary Celebration in Boise. ###

Mountain States Policy Center has released a new video exploring problems with Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Ranked choice voting continues to be extremely controversial across the country. In 2020, 50.55% of voters in Alaska adopted a Top 4 and RCV ballot measure. The new process has been so unpopular, however, Alaska voters will now have the opportunity this fall to repeal it with the certification of a new ballot measure: “With thousands of names to spare, Alaskans for Honest Elections has won the right to have its repeal of ranked-choice voting on the ballot this year.” A proposed ballot measure currently gathering signatures in Idaho is being portrayed as an effort to bring the state open primaries, but it is joined at the hip with also imposing RCV. It is possible, however, to have open primaries without using ranked-choice voting. For example, Washington State has had experience both with an open primary and with local voters in Pierce County adopting and then quickly repealing ranked-choice voting. We had the opportunity last year to interview Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to discuss his opposition to RCV. Here is what Secretary Hobbs told us: “Ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process. This includes people living with developmental disabilities – such as my son – for whom choosing one candidate is more straightforward than figuring out how to rank a list of them. Additionally, it can be a challenge for newly-naturalized citizens to adapt to American elections. Converting some elections to ranked-choice voting would increase the obstacles to exercising their rights as Americans. Top-two primaries present none of these challenges. You pick your favorite, then you send in your ballot. That’s something people can easily grasp. I stand firmly behind Top Two and encourage other states to learn from our usage of it.” Secretary Hobbs also recently told Crosscut: “Oh, I have lots of feelings about ranked-choice voting. I’m completely against ranked-choice voting; I used to be for it. But when you occupy this office, you have to take a step back and look at how elections affect everyone. Right? You know, the top three things, transparency, accessibility and security is what I look at. And then just with my own personal situation, my mom came to this country, she didn’t know any English. You know, we both learned by watching Sesame Street. And then my middle son is a child with special needs. So imagine, if you will, a naturalized citizen where English is not their first language, receiving a ballot, where they have to vote by ranked choice? How are they going to do that? They don’t know how to do that . . . And that’s why I am no longer for ranked-choice voting because you will disenfranchise people. They will not take full advantage of their vote because they don’t understand what they’re doing.” A recent Boise State University poll found support for an open primary but not for ranked-choice voting. There is a big difference between open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Moving to a clean open primary is a debate worth having (preferably a Top Two). Adopting open primaries, however, need not be limited to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition tied to the controversy of ranked-choice voting. Learn more about the problems with RCV in our new video. Additional Information Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting: A Conversation with WA’s Secretary of State

The number of states providing parents and students with the option for Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), education choice tax credits, or an education tax scholarship has now grown to 29. Several states are also in the process of expanding their existing education choice programs to cover even more students. Here is the current map of the 29 states with these education choice options: 18 states with ESAs: Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, and New Hampshire. 4 states with education choice tax credits: Oklahoma, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio. 7 states with education tax scholarships: Nevada, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. 1 state pending: Kentucky (education choice constitutional amendment passed legislature; pending voter approval) Texas may be the next in line to join these states according to a recent statement by Governor Abbott. Although a proposed education choice tax credit did not clear committee in the Idaho House this year, Speaker Moyle has proposed a new bill that could receive a vote soon. According to Idaho Education News: “A new bill, very similar to legislation that a House committee recently rejected, would allow the full House to vote on private school tax credits less than two months before the primary election. ‘School choice’ — a catchall term describing proposals directing taxpayer funds to private education in the form of tax credits, education savings accounts or school vouchers — likely will feature prominently in May’s GOP primary election. But many lawmakers haven’t had an opportunity to stake out their position. That’s because previous bills have failed to clear committee. Earlier this month, the House Revenue and Taxation Committee narrowly rejected the most recent proposal, House Bill 447. A new bill from Moyle similarly would create a refundable tax credit for private school tuition but expand the program cap from $50 million to $70 million — $60 million would cover tax credits and $10 million would go toward grants for low-income families. Moyle said the bill ‘probably is not going to go anywhere,’ but House members want to vote on a school choice measure. ‘It’s an issue that’s not going to go away and I want it resolved,’ Moyle said. ‘I want to make it clear that I support school choice'" With Wyoming's approval of a new Education Savings Accounts law this year, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California are now the only states in the West not providing either an ESA, education choice tax credit, or education tax scholarship option for families.

A sold-out crowd will pack the Coeur d'Alene Resort Friday night to hear from former White House Press Secretary, author, and current FOX News host Kayleigh McEnany. The Harvard Law School grad is the keynote speaker at Mountain States Policy Center's Annual Spring Dinner, which begins at 7:00pm. “This will be an incredible treat for our friends and supporters,” MSPC President Chris Cargill said. “During the busy 2024 campaign, it is important to hear about Kayleigh’s experience in D.C., the role of the media and her view on free market public policy going forward.” Before jumping into public service, Kayleigh worked as a political commentator at CNN. She graduated from Harvard Law School with a Juris Doctor and Georgetown University School of Foreign Services with a degree in international politics. She also studied politics and international relations at Oxford University. She is currently a Fox News Host and the author of three books. In addition to McEnany's speech, MSPC will honor its 2024 Elevation Award recipients - the legislative champions of education reform. Mountain States Policy Center is the nation's fastest-growing 501(c)3 non-profit think tank. MSPC focuses its research on free market ideas and solutions to topics including education reform, budget and tax, health care, agriculture, environment, and transportation. The organization's annual Spring and Fall dinners are some of its largest fundraisers. MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government. ### MEDIA NOTE: The event is open to the media. We do ask that you email your intent to cover the event to info@mountainstatespolicy.org.

Government officials have been placed on notice by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) concerning undue impact fees. Before this most recent court ruling, if you wanted to build your family home, there was the possibility that impact mitigation fees could require you to pay thousands of dollars to local governments for the mere privilege of acquiring the proper permit. This fee was a preset figure by the legislature who believed they were exempt from proving the fees they were charging were reasonable. However, SCOTUS held in a unanimous decision on April 12 that conditions placed on building permits are subject to heightened scrutiny and that fees must match the public’s goals. In January of 2024, the Court heard oral arguments in Sheetz v. El Dorado County. Despite this case originating in California, the legal impacts will be felt nationwide. The individual who brought this case, George Sheetz, argued that these impact mitigation fees violate the long-standing unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which, in sum, states the government cannot place a condition of receiving a public benefit on releasing a constitutional right. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides more than the commonly known right to remain silent—it is also where a limit on the government’s ability to take property without justly compensating the property owner can be found. This case arose because Mr. Sheetz wanted to use his land located in El Dorado County to its highest utility by building a home where he and his family could reside. Sheetz sought a residential building permit from the defendant county, and while they obliged by providing a permit, it was on the condition he pay $23,420—a fee set by the state legislature to compensate for the alleged burdens the new construction would have on the county’s traffic levels. Mr. Sheetz paid the fee yet sought to actively fight what he argues is an unconstitutional taking. His position was clearly stated in his writ of mandate: "Mr. Sheetz ‘construction of one manufactured house on his property did not cause public impacts that justify imposition of the $23,420 fee demanded by and paid to the County.” SCOTUS precedent, Nollan and Dollan, established the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements between a permit fee imposed by a government body and the impact on the public. This means government bodies charging these types of fees should be required to prove the connection between the costs the individual homebuilder is incurring and what exactly the public is being compensated for. After all, how does a county know a home will impact the public to an exact dollar amount? Especially, when counties are not addressing individual building plans and are setting fee schedules based on the homebuilder’s proposed square footage and location. These “impact fees” that Sheetz encountered are intended to mitigate the negative consequences of building in highly populated and wealthy areas. Proponents of the fees believe it to be a vital regulation tool to fund infrastructure such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. However, the impact fees, sometimes known as “exaction fees,” quickly became a contested subject under the Fifth Amendment because builders, architects, and developers believed this to be an unduly burdensome barrier to performing work. The California Building Industry Assoc. and the National Assoc. of Home Builders filed a brief in support of Sheetz because “The decision would approve the imposition of 'the full cost' of county-wide improvements solely on applicants for new building permits…” California is not the only place this practice has drawn controversy. Wyoming’s impact fee schedules have also received backlash. Jackson and Teton counties have recently been scrutinized for their cost of building new homes and businesses. For instance, to build a 4,000-square-foot home in either of these quickly populating counties, the homebuilders incur $31,000 in fees demanded by the county. Due to Sheetz’s success, these fees cannot be imposed unless the government can prove that this individual Wyoming resident’s building plan has a direct $31,000 impact on the public. SCOTUS provided a narrow opinion. Justice Barrett, the author of the opinion said, “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.” This holding leaves other arguments Sheetz raised, unanswered, such as the validity of the fees and whether the counties duties to impose fees alter if the fee is charged to a class of development or an individual parcel of property. The concurring opinions in this case by Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh highlight the questions left unanswered. The remaining issues on appeal were sent back to the state court to decide. While questions remain, Sheetz secured a win for property owners and builders across the country—counties are now subject to the two-part fairness test for the fees that they are imposing in the name of the public good. The impact for all from this ruling is the protection of important constitutional rights.

I had the opportunity to join the Idaho Reports Podcast this week to discuss options for legislative transparency reforms to help citizens better engage in the process. While there are several good resources available after action is taken on a bill, it is difficult to know ahead of time what lawmakers are working on. This is why we believe there should be at least a three-day notice for public hearings, remote testimony options provided for all public hearings, and legislative bill pages should be updated in real-time when a roll call vote occurs so you don’t have to be actively watching floor action to know if a bill was adopted. On the positive side, we also discussed how Idaho's legislative budget process is very transparent and could become a model for other states. You can listen to the full conversation with Idaho Reports by clicking on the image below.

The Tax Foundation has released its latest comparison of taxes across the country. Their new report is called “Facts & Figures 2024: How Does Your State Compare?” Realizing that states often compete against each other for people, capital, and entrepreneurs, here is how Western states rank nationally on certain taxes. For just state tax collections, Arizona ($3,292) collects the least amount of taxes per capita in the West, while California ($7,200) has the highest overall take in the country. When including local tax collections, Idaho ($4,541) takes the top spot in the West with the lowest taxes paid per capita, while California ($9,229) is still the highest regionally. Income-tax-free Nevada and Wyoming lead the West with no income tax burden (Washington has a 7% tax on capital gains income above $250,000). Arizona has the lowest flat income tax rate regionally at 2.5%, while the Golden State (California) continues to take the most personal gold with a top rate of 13.3%. When it comes to state and local sales tax collections per capita, shoppers in Montana and Oregon face no sales tax burden. For those states with sales taxes, Idaho ($1,317) pays the least in the West, while consumers in Washington ($3,147) face the highest tax burden nationally. With continued tax reduction efforts occurring across the country this year, these numbers are likely to change in next year’s report. For details on other state tax rankings for gas taxes, death taxes, sin taxes, and more, you can view the full Tax Foundation report here.

We’re still a few months away from the start of Idaho’s 2024 Legislative Session in January, but there is one rule change that we’d like to see lawmakers make to improve public participation in the legislative process. To help maximize public involvement in their governance, lawmakers should amend their rules to require at least 3-day public notice of the bills to be heard at public hearings. Providing advance notice of bills scheduled for public hearings is a standard practice among neighboring states. This type of public notice is necessary to allow for meaningful involvement by citizens in the bill hearing process. The presumption for meaningful public participation in the legislative process is called for in the state constitution. Idaho’s constitution declares: “All political power is inherent in the people.” Idaho’s open meetings law says: “No less than a five (5) calendar day meeting notice and a forty-eight (48) hour agenda notice shall be given unless otherwise provided by statute.” Though the legislature is currently exempt from this requirement, Idaho’s Legislative Services Office told me earlier this year: “While State of Idaho open meeting laws do not apply to the Legislature, both chambers strive to meet those standards (agendas posted 24-48 hours prior to meetings) whenever possible.” To help facilitate the maximum ability of citizens to participate in the legislative process, the rules should be amended to provide at least 3-day notice of not only a public hearing but also the bills to be considered at the hearing. This will help provide busy Idahoans with the time needed to adjust schedules if they wish to provide comments on pending legislation. Here are examples from neighboring states of legislative rules requiring advance notice of bills scheduled for public hearings. Washington 5-day notice: “1. At least five days’ notice shall be given of all public hearings held by any committee other than the rules committee. Such notice shall contain the date, time and place of such hearing together with the title and number of each bill, or identification of the subject matter, to be considered at such hearing. By a majority vote of the committee members present at any committee meeting such notice may be dispensed with. The reason for such action shall be set forth in a written statement preserved in the records of the meeting. 2. No committee may hold a public hearing during a regular or extraordinary session on a proposal identified as a draft unless the draft has been made available to the public at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing. This rule does not apply during the five days prior to any cutoff established by concurrent resolution nor does it apply to any measure exempted from the resolution.” Montana 3-day notice: “Notice of a committee hearing must be made by posting the date, time, and subject of the hearing online and in a conspicuous public place not less than 3 legislative days in advance of the hearing.” Wyoming 1-day notice: “No Standing Committee shall meet to consider any bill referred to it unless notice of the date, time and place of the meeting and the bills to be considered has been posted in the State Capitol at the place designated for posting of meeting notices by 3:00 p.m. on the day before the meeting is to be held. For a meeting to be held on a Monday, the notice shall be posted by 3:00 p.m. on the first legislative day preceding that Monday.” Several state constitutions also require the text of bills to be publicly available for several days to avoid quick passage toward the end of a session without the opportunity for public involvement. For example: Michigan constitution: “No bill shall be passed or become a law at any regular session of the legislature until it has been printed or reproduced and in the possession of each house for at least five days.” Washington constitution: “No bill shall be considered in either house unless the time of its introduction shall have been at least ten days before the final adjournment of the legislature, unless the legislature shall otherwise direct by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, said vote to be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the journal, or unless the same be at a special session.” Whether we are entrepreneurs, parents, students, members of a trade group, or even a lawmaker, it is important to have meaningful public notice of when a bill is going to be available for a public hearing and what the actual text of that proposal is. Only then can we rearrange our schedules, review, and prepare to provide the testimony lawmakers need to help advance good policy for the state. Requiring at least a 3-day notice of bills scheduled for a public hearing will help improve the information available not only for citizens but also lawmakers, as bills advance through the legislative process. Additional Information Lawmaking in Idaho – How the Gem State’s Legislative Process Works Details on Montana’s legislative process and how citizens can participate An overview of the legislative process in Washington state Understanding the Wyoming legislative process

I’ve jokingly told my husband many times we went into the wrong side of farming because our farm is missing cows. We both grew up on and around dairy farms and have the mud boots and stories to prove it. But our farming plans are very black-and-white, my husband loves baling hay more than milking cows, so our farm remains cow-free. Unfortunately, for family farmers in Sonoma County California, their farming plans are no longer black-and-white, as they may be forced into cow-free operations and pushed out of business. Sonoma County California residents may ban animal agriculture this November, when a ballot initiative comes before voters. Pushed by the animal activist organization, Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), known for trespassing on and damaging farms and livestock, the signatures have been obtained by a misunderstood fear of factory farming. The goal of DxE is to end animal agriculture. Some citizens who submitted signatures are even calling the county registrar in an attempt to remove their names because they felt they had been duped by scare tactics. As of Wednesday, March 27th, enough signatures (15,000) have been received to allow the initiative to be in front of voters in November. In a county with over 487,000 residents, only 30% of the total population lives outside of the city limit and only 3,097 farms exist within the county. These farms employ just over 11,000 people, meaning that only 2.2% of the county is directly involved in agriculture. In November, 98% of Sonoma County citizens far removed from agriculture could destroy the remaining family-owned animal farming operations in their county, increase unemployment among farmworkers, and hurt local food manufacturers. The ballot initiative would ban all Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) within the county boundaries, limiting dairies to 700 cows and poultry operations to 30,000 birds. To anyone not involved in agriculture, these numbers sound huge but let’s consider the cost and challenges of farming. Average prices of a new tractor in 2023 were $491,800 up from $363,700 in 2020. Land rental costs are over $10,000 per acre. Feed costs have soared right along with milk prices, keeping the net profit margin thin to non-existent. Labor is harder to find and more expensive and the alternative is installing multiple robotic milkers between $150,000 to $200,000 each. Costs are a major reason driving farmers to expand their operations. Dairy farm production data show farms with over 1,000 cows will be much more profitable than those with less than 250 cows. Farms with 1,000 to 5,000 cows have more opportunity to distribute these high operational costs over more cows and protect already narrow margins from inflation and price challenges. Regulatory costs are also part of every dairy farm operation. CAFO dairy farms are required by law to protect water resources and “not discharge toxic manure directly into public waterways, including protected wetlands” (as claimed by the activist organization). California’s regional water quality boards and California EPA already actively prosecute and enforce the stringent water protection guidelines for dairies. Dairy farmers aren’t milking this sob story about costs, because if the ballot initiative passes, consumers will be the ones crying over spilled milk. When large dairies are forced out of business that tightens the supply of milk and increases the costs. Immediate consequences may not be seen because one county prohibiting milk and egg production will not cause a large supply ripple. However, when other counties and states follow Sonoma County, the compounding impact of ending animal agriculture will increase the prices of milk and eggs at the grocery store. I have been on many dairy farms, both small and large. Small operations don’t always equate to better care, nor do large operations neglect livestock. Some of the best care I see animals receive is on larger operations. On large operations farms can afford better waste management systems, more labor to care for cows, better feed, more herd health management, and better milking systems. The same is true for many poultry farms. Small operations are idyllic but rarely feasible in this economic era. Pushing farm businesses out to pasture, only because they’ve grown to keep up with expenses is an unfair solution. Come November we’ll see if the 98% of non-agricultural residents in Sonoma County will overcome fear and see farmers as people too.

On July 13, 2012, President Obama was giving a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, and said this: “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” Those three sentences sparked a brushfire in that year’s presidential election that he spent the next few weeks trying to walk back. “Of course, Americans build their own businesses,” he said on camera four days later. But while the third sentence tried to take credit away from entrepreneurs, and the second sentence tried to give that credit to the government because of roads and bridges, President Obama’s first sentence was 100% true. Twelve years later, that “unbelievable American system” he lauded is under assault. I’m a very blessed person. I’ve had the opportunity to work with an amazing team of people to build an incredible wealth tech company. Thanks to all their hard work, we created a massive ripple effect of wealth creation — everyone had more. Why is the United States home to so many of these incredible stories? How did we, after only 248 years, manage to create nearly a quarter of the world’s wealth, even though we’re only about 5% of the world’s population? It’s because of that unbelievable free-market system we created, and its two foundational elements. The rule of law — I knew that if we played by the rules, we’d be allowed to prosper. Private property rights — the teachers’ pension funds were willing to trade their hard-earned capital for our stock certificates, because they knew the system would protect their rights to that value. Of course, there was a basic governmental framework in place as well. We need police and prosecutors to enforce the law. We need roads and bridges. We need a fire department. We need a military to defend us. But let’s be clear — China has police, roads, bridges, and a military. So does Russia. So does Cuba. So does Venezuela, and every other country where poverty is starving people to death. What they don’t have is a system that uses the rule of law and private property rights to create wealth for their people. And on the spectrum of systems from capitalism and communism, every country that slides closer to communism slides further down the GDP-per-capita chart of less prosperity for their citizens. The math doesn’t lie. Despite all this, the 2020s have borne witness to a withering assault on the foundations of our free-market system. The aggressors seek to tear down the rule of law, private property rights, abundant resources, reliable energy, the pursuit of knowledge, technological innovation, and growth in productivity. It’s systematic — and it’s not an accident. We are shutting down perfectly good power plants and refusing to replace them with reliable sources of energy. Several universities (and many big corporations) have swapped “equality” for “equity of outcomes,” creating an army of bureaucrats to systematically erase actual diversity and inclusion. We’ve created a web of laws, rules, reviews, permits, taxes and fees that make it insanely expensive to build anything great. California has spent $10 billion building precisely zero operational miles of its high-speed rail system. Many in Congress want to tax “unrealized” paper gains in stock market value, which would force any growing business to be sold to a big corporation, just to cover taxes. Whether the activists working against our country’s free-market foundation label themselves socialists, communists, collectivists or totalitarians, their assault on our system will destroy the future prosperity of my kids and yours — and we can’t allow them to succeed. This is one of the reasons I recently joined the board of Mountain States Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank helping to make sure the best free-market policy ideas take root in the mountain states. The bottom line? It’s time to just say no to these de-growth activists who want to tear down the progress of Western civilization. If we truly want to pay it forward to future generations, it’s the only course we can take. Aaron Klein co-founded and serves on the board of Nitrogen, a wealth tech software company. He is also a board member at Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.

It appears Idaho legislators will adjourn their legislative session unable to pass any expansion in education choice options for families. The failure couldn't come at a worse time. Idaho Education News has highlighted a special state investigation that found dozens of complaints that school districts across Idaho have inadequate special education services and "were not completely fulfilling their obligations toward all children with disabilities." From the report: "Even when students are correctly identified as having a disability, dozens are not getting the services they need, according to state investigation reports from 2023 that EdNews obtained via public records request. More than 400 pages of documents shed light on how schools have foundered their federal responsibility to appropriately educate students with disabilities, a failure pockmarked with a frequent disregard for parents’ concerns, requests, and opinions. Violations have been on the rise since the 2019-20 school year, when the pandemic shuttered schools, according to state data. That year, investigation reports identifying violations jumped from 16 cases to 23. Since then — from 2019 to 2023 — there have been an average of 25 findings of noncompliance each school year." Perhaps most damning is that four Idaho school districts, according to the report, had a half-dozen violations or more. Teachers changed student grades, indicating "they were negotiable," some districts changed IEP's without the knowledge of parents or an IEP team meeting, some teachers were "often absent or left early." As we have repeatedly encouraged lawmakers to think outside the box and provide more education options for families, Mountain States Policy Center has particularly highlighted the needs of our special ed students, who often need more assistance in the classroom, or more tutoring and therapies outside the classroom setting. Unfortunately, lawmakers in Idaho this session again failed to advance a parental choice tax credit that would have particularly helped those families who needed it most. Special needs families would have had more access to educational opportunity had legislators passed the reform. Montana, on the other hand, has passed education savings accounts for special needs students, as have dozens of other states. In Washington, another report highlights the urgency of helping special needs children: "54% of graduates with intellectual disabilities are not engaging in employment or higher education within a year, and 41% of those with autism fall into the same category." School districts, and some lawmakers, may contend that they are trying to fix the problem. But these kids will never get those educational years back. Offering more opportunities - especially for special needs kids - is the least we can do.

Earlier this year MSPC encouraged Idaho lawmakers to end the practice of including political messages on taxpayer refund checks. Thanks to the unanimous adoption of HB 618 and the signature of Governor Little, this reform is now the law in Idaho. This is from the text of the newly enacted HB 618: “Except for the state controller as the issuing officer, neither the name of any elected public official, nor any electioneering message shall appear on any warrant, including in any remittance advice or remittance memo, unless acting as an endorser or otherwise necessary for the proper execution of a warrant. For the purposes of this subsection, ‘electioneering message’ shall include statements regarding, expressing support for, or soliciting support for any government program or initiative or non-profit corporation, including any program or initiative of a nonprofit corporation.” MSPC received this comment from the Idaho Controller’s office in response to our recommendation to keep political messages off tax rebate checks: “We support your efforts to educate people on this issue, and the need to keep electioneering types of communication out of financial payments.” Receiving a refund for overpaid taxes is good. Having those checks include political messaging, however, is not. For example, here is language that was previously included on Idaho taxpayer refund checks. While this may be a worthwhile project, including this type of unrelated language on a taxpayer refund check is an example of the government unduly tipping the scales and should be avoided. HB 618 will now stop this practice from occurring in the future for Idaho. Other states should follow the good example set by this new Idaho law. Consider the following controversy in neighboring Washington state. As reported by Center Square back in January: “Last month, the AGO sent out $40 million worth of checks in the amounts of $50 and $120 to state residents considered ‘low-income’ derived from a lawsuit settlement against chicken and tune companies that had engaged in price-fixing. However, many of the checks ended up mailed to residents who are not low-income, wrongly addressed, or to people who are deceased. Yet, the biggest complaint among critics of the checks, which were signed by Ferguson and included a personal message touting his office’s successes, is that it was an inappropriate use of public money at a time when he is actively campaigning to be Washington's next governor.” Government officials should be commended for prioritizing tax refund checks when taxpayers overpay. The refund checks speak for themselves, however, without turning them into a government-funded political advertisement. Thanks to the action of Idaho lawmakers this session, taxpayer refund checks will no longer include political messages.

Photo and Data provided by 'Govtech.com' GovTech is providing each state with an individualized recommendation for their personal Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation needs. From their blog post: "While Government Technology would typically interview industry experts and thought leaders about this topic, we decided to try something different for this piece: We turned to generative AI itself." Here is what Gemini AI recommended for Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. Idaho: "Implement an AI-powered platform for wildfire risk assessment and resource allocation, in collaboration with the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) and the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) . . . Improve wildfire risk assessment. Analyze historical data, weather patterns, and environmental factors to predict areas with high wildfire risk with greater accuracy. Optimize resource allocation. Identify areas most likely to be affected by wildfires and strategically allocate firefighting resources, including personnel, equipment, and aerial support. Enhance evacuation planning. Provide timely information to residents in at-risk areas, facilitating informed decision-making and facilitating efficient evacuation planning." Montana: "Implement an AI-powered platform for wildfire risk assessment and mitigation planning, in collaboration with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and local communities . . . Improved wildfire risk assessment. Analyze data on weather patterns, vegetation types, historical fire data, and topography to identify areas at high risk of wildfires. Enhanced mitigation planning. Support data-driven planning for fuel reduction efforts, prescribed burns, and emergency response strategies based on predicted wildfire risk zones. Increased public awareness and preparedness. Provide residents with timely and targeted information about wildfire risks, mitigation strategies, and preparedness measures through the platform or integrated communication channels." Washington: "Implement an AI-powered platform for wildfire risk prediction and prevention, in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR), fire agencies, and relevant stakeholders . . . Enhanced wildfire risk prediction. Analyze data on weather patterns, vegetation conditions, and historical fire occurrence to identify areas at high risk of wildfires, allowing for targeted prevention strategies. Improved resource allocation and emergency response. Optimize resource allocation for fire prevention, early detection, and response efforts based on predicted risk zones and real-time data analysis. Promoting public awareness and preparedness. Provide the public with real-time information on wildfire risks, evacuation zones, and safety measures, enhancing community preparedness and resilience." Wyoming: "Implement an AI-powered platform for precision agriculture and environmental monitoring, in collaboration with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA), the University of Wyoming (UW), and agricultural stakeholders . . . Improved precision agriculture. Analyze data on soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health to recommend optimal irrigation strategies, fertilizer application rates, and customized planting schedules. Enhanced environmental monitoring. Utilize AI for analyzing data from sensors, satellites, and drones to monitor air and water quality, detect potential threats like wildfires or invasive species outbreaks, and inform proactive environmental management strategies. Promoted resource conservation and sustainability. Analyze data to identify areas for water conservation, optimize land management practices, and support informed decision-making for long-term environmental sustainability. Every day we are asked the question "How can we use Artificial Intelligence to our benefit?" While this is a loaded question because of the vastness of AI's capabilities, GovTech has gone straight to the source in finding solutions to problems we may have been overlooking. Predicting wildfire risks, enhancing agricultural systems, and improving emergency response efforts are problems we have always been aware of, but we may have missed the cost-saving opportunities that are available. Artificial Intelligence is a tool and should be used as such. Each day new and revolutionary systems are being developed that will move both the public and private sector leaps and bounds into the future of innovation. Harnessing the power of AI is something that can not only fill the holes of inefficiencies but could provide opportunities for tax saving opportunities. Auditors and public finance departments are also exploring the possibility of using AI to lower the cost of monitoring and oversight, reduce risks, and streamline administrative processes. One recent report by Route Fifty's Public Finance Update estimated that AI could boost productivity by $519 billion a year across all U.S. governments. You don't need AI to tell you that's a lot of money that could be returned to taxpayers or reallocated for important services.

Hundreds of thousands of voters helped shape the just concluded 2024 Legislative Session and the upcoming November general election in Washington by qualifying six ballot measures. A citizen group called “Let’s Go Washington” is behind the successful effort to qualify these ballot measures to the legislature: I-2081: Establishing the parents’ bill of rights (ADOPTED); I-2109: Repealing the state’s new capital gains income tax (NOT ACTED ON); I-2111: Banning state or local income taxes (ADOPTED); I-2113: Restoring the authority for law enforcement to engage in vehicle pursuits (ADOPTED); I-2117: Repealing the environmental cap and trade gas taxes (NOT ACTED ON); and I-2124: Allowing more Washingtonians to opt-out of the state’s long-term care tax (NOT ACTED ON). Under Washington’s constitution, there are three possible options with ballot measures submitted to the legislature: The legislature can vote to enact without change (this can’t be vetoed by the Governor); The legislature can do nothing in which case the proposal is placed on the November ballot; or The legislature can propose an alternative in which case the alternative and original proposal are both placed on the November ballot. The Washington Legislature (eventually) held public hearings and voted to approve three of the ballot measures: I-2081: Establishing the parents’ bill of rights (House 82-15; Senate 49-0); I-2111:  Banning state or local income taxes (House 76-21; Senate 38-11); and I-2113: Restoring the authority for law enforcement to engage in vehicle pursuits (House 77-20; Senate 36-13). Mountain States Policy Center received an invitation from lawmakers to testify on the state and local income tax ban (I-2111). We told lawmakers before the proposal was adopted: "I-2111 would implement the clear and consistent intent of Washington voters to stop income taxes from being imposed. Although some believe the state constitution prohibits an income tax, government officials can currently impose up to a 1% tax if uniform. I-2111 would fully close this door and prohibit a state or local income tax of any kind, assuming of course the plain meaning of words is honored (unlike what occurred with the recent capital gains income tax). For years, the state Department of Commerce advertised the lack of an income tax as being a ‘competitive advantage’ for Washington. To further protect this advantage, along with acting on I-2111, lawmakers should also take the next step and adopt this policy as a constitutional amendment. This is something that Texas and Tennessee recently did to signal to residents and businesses that an income tax is fully off the table. With Washington voters rejecting 10 straight ballot measures to impose an income tax and now qualifying I-2111, it is time for state officials to finally prohibit income taxes." The legislative supermajority vote in favor of I-2111 indicates there should be enough support to forward voters a constitutional amendment to make sure future games don’t occur on income taxes in Washington. That is of course, if the lawmakers voting for I-2111 truly don’t have plans to propose future income taxes. The legislative approval of these ballot measures attracted national attention. The Wall Street Journal wrote on March 7: “Washington state lawmakers pulled off a hat trick Monday, approving three initiatives that push back the progressive policy tide in the state. The new laws will ban a state income tax, make it easier for police to chase suspects, and enshrine a bill of rights for parents whose children attend public school . . . The initiatives are half of a slate of six that were initiated by citizens who gathered signatures and had the measures certified by the secretary of state in January. Under Washington state rules, when a voter initiative is approved by the Legislature, it is enacted without requiring approval from the Governor. The remaining three, including efforts to repeal the capital-gains tax and end cap-and-trade climate regulation, will go before voters in November.” Despite the fact the state constitution clearly says that ballot measures to the legislature “shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills,” no public hearing or vote was held on these proposals: I-2109: Repealing the state’s new capital gains income tax. Note - Washington is the only state that refers to a capital gains income tax as an ‘excise tax.' I-2117: Repealing the environmental cap and trade gas taxes. Note - According to the Washington Policy Center, "The average tax on CO2 in 2023 ended up at $54.74 per metric ton, which equates to about 43 cents per gallon of gasoline and 53 cents per gallon for diesel." I-2124: Allowing more Washingtonians to opt-out of the state’s long-term care tax. Note - Most Washington workers are currently required to pay 0.58% of their wages in taxes under the state’s requirement to have a long-term care policy. By exercising their right of initiative, Washington voters successfully set the tone for 2024 with three of their proposed ballot measures already being enacted into law. The remaining three proposals will appear on the November general election ballot for state voters to act on directly.

As a safety-net for the poor, Congress started a drug rebate program in Medicaid in 1990 to provide pharmaceuticals to the most vulnerable enrollees. Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act requires drug companies that participate in the Medicaid entitlement to sell outpatient pharmaceuticals to various medical facilities that provide care to low-income patients. The program began in 1992 and was essentially an extension of the original drug rebate plan. Drug companies give outpatient medicines at a discounted price to facilities called “covered entities” that serve the poor or uninsured. However, covered entities can sell the drugs to anyone, not just the poor, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. In other words, these facilities obtain drugs at a mandated discount price through the 340B program, sell them at higher prices to insured and paying patients and then collect the profits between the full retail price and their discounted price. Bottom line, the program has changed from assistance to the poor into a money-maker for these facilities and an additional cost, or tax, for the drug manufacturers. The definition of a covered entity has expanded several times since 1992, but Congress and newly passed laws, such as the Affordable Care Act, increased the number of qualified facilities dramatically. Obamacare added outpatient cancer clinics, rural clinics, sole community hospitals, and critical access hospitals to the list. Plus, the ACA increased Medicaid significantly. No surprise, the American Hospital Association has lobbied extensively for a continuation and expansion of the program. As of 2021, the 340B program accounted for 7.2 percent (approximately $44 billion) of all prescription drugs sold in the U.S. By 2022, the amount increased to $54 billion. A total of 53,000 medical facilities participate in the 340B plan, which is almost double the number of facilities in the program in 2014. The average profit margin on the sale of prescription drugs not obtained in the 340B program for medical facilities is 23 percent, compared to profits of 72 percent for drugs obtained in the 340B program. Over 40 percent of all insured patients in the United States are in the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid, both of which began in 1965. Since the 1980s, provider payments have gradually, but relentlessly, gone down. This has caused doctor and hospital consolidation so that medical providers could survive financially. Unfortunately, medical facilities use the 340B program as another income source. Elected officials argue that the money comes from drug manufacturers and not taxpayers, so why not expand the program. Although it began with the goal of helping the poor, the 340B program has morphed into a supplemental income plan for the participating medical facilities. The poor are not being helped as originally intended. The other untoward consequence of the program is the financial burden placed on the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Instead of more money for the research and development of life extending and life saving drugs, the companies are subsidizing medical facilities that the government can’t financially support. The 340B program either needs serious reform to actually support the most vulnerable patients or it should be closed. It definitely should not be expanded in its present form. Dr. Roger Stark is a visiting fellow with Mountain States Policy Center. A retired surgeon, Dr. Stark has authored three books including “Healthcare Policy Simplified: Understanding a Complex Issue,” and “The Patient-Centered Solution: Our Health Care Crisis, How It Happened, and How We Can Fix It.”

In the ongoing battle to protect the autonomy of the private sector and champion limited regulation in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) development, several Attorneys General (AGs) have emerged as steadfast advocates. As reported by Route Fifty: "...Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and 19 other Republican state AGs sent a letter to Secretary Gina Raimondo in response to the Commerce Department’s request for information on developing guidelines to enable deployment of safe, secure and trustworthy systems. The AGs objected primarily to Biden’s AI executive order, which they said was the basis for the RFI saying it 'moves in the wrong direction.'" Notably, our Mountain States AGs from Idaho and Montana, signed the letter alongside their peers. The AG's wrote: "As attorneys general, we have substantial experience enforcing consumer protection, competition, and civil rights laws. We also have been leaders in litigation involving Big Tech. We are cognizant of how technology can affect our citizens, and we are vigilant about enforcing laws to protect them. Artificial Intelligence ('AI') has the potential to transform industries ranging from internet search to social media, education, law, and health care. It also will undoubtedly impact critical business processes that affect every industry, including hiring, lending, investing, and underwriting. There is broad, bipartisan agreement that, like other significant advancements in human history, AI carries not only the promise of substantial economic benefits but also brings risks that should be understood and addressed. . . . As the chief law-enforcement officers of our states, we share the goal of safe, trustworthy AI. The issues related to AI are complex and important, but they must be addressed by our constitutional, democratic process, not by executive fiat. The administration should work with Congress and states across the political spectrum to find bipartisan solutions that can help our country harness the power of AI and use it for the good of all, rather than only for one political party or specific groups of people." The collaborative effort among these AGs reflects a shared commitment to upholding the pillars of free market capitalism and individual liberty. By voicing concerns over centralized control and potential political influence in AI development, these AGs are sending a clear message: the private sector must be allowed to innovate and thrive without undue interference from governmental entities. The Mountain States is not immune to federal government overreach, and having the AGs from two of our states lends further weight to this collective stance, demonstrating a unified front in safeguarding economic freedom and entrepreneurship. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (Upper Photo), Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (Lower Photo) By advocating for a regulatory environment that strikes a balance between innovation and oversight, the AGs seek to unleash the full potential of AI technology while ensuring equitable access and opportunity for all. Together with their counterparts, they form a formidable coalition in the fight against federal overreach, advocating for policies that foster entrepreneurship, drive economic growth, and benefit communities across the nation. As we navigate the complexities of AI's potential, the collaborative efforts of these AGs, including those from Idaho and Montana, serve as a beacon of hope for defenders of free market principles. By standing firm against undue governmental interference and championing limited regulation, they pave the way for a future where innovation thrives, businesses prosper, and economic opportunity abounds.