If someone were to borrow a cup of sugar to make a cake and doesn’t return a similar amount, is the lender entitled to the cake? The lender would be viewed as excessively greedy to acquire so much in recompense. A fairer outcome would be for the borrower to offer a slice deemed equivalent to the value of the sugar. Yet, prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County in May 2023, governments were allowed to “take the cake” from many citizens through home equity theft. Home equity theft is a method by which governments can remediate property tax debt by acquiring a person’s home, selling it to a third party, and keeping all the money, including any excess above the debt. The equivalent of taking the cake in payment for one cup of sugar. As ruled in 2023 by the U.S. Supreme Court, this practice violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. Legal traditions of our nation and state laws recognize that home equity is private property. When a government confiscates this type of private property and keeps the surplus for public use without compensation, a taking occurs. These takings can and do occur for tax bills of only a few dollars, with many states delivering poor notification to the debtor. The majority of states already recognize the unconstitutional nature of home equity theft, prohibiting the sinister funding method. These states recognize that permitting home equity theft creates a double standard for government and private creditors. In every state, private creditors are required by law to return excess value to debtors after seizure and debt satisfaction have occurred. However, for the twelve states with home equity theft and the nine with loopholes, there is an exception for government lenders. Among the 19 states that still have unconstitutional home equity theft provisions on the books are Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. Idaho is referred to as a loophole home equity theft state. Home equity theft is not permitted within the state unless a government entity gifts the property to another government body. If this occurs, the state law does not require compensation to the debtor. Idaho lawmakers need to remove this exception and require that all property owners and other lien holders be fairly compensated. Montana is a peculiar case because it wholly protects residential property equity but leaves all other classes of property unprotected. As the state law leaves all non-residential property open to equity theft, the law still violates the takings clause. To become compliant with the takings clause, all property, including commercial should be recognized as exempt from home equity theft. Oregon’s use of home equity theft is particularly egregious. Victims of home equity theft include children who have lost parents and were unaware of the property until fines were accumulated and the children had no means of resolving the debt. Oregon lawmakers should ensure that government officials are not allowed to keep the equity above the tax debt owed. Letting home equity theft go unaddressed by state legislatures is a problem for citizens and governments. As home values increase, so does the incentive for equity theft. Property owners already encumbered by rising inflation, high housing costs, and poor wage growth are more at risk for governments to target their equity to fund public budgets. Governments are also at risk if their budgets use home equity theft dollars. Budgets will be exceeded when court fees and repayments come due, to compensate home equity theft victims. It is better for both property owners and governments to abolish the existence of home equity theft laws quickly. Protecting property owners from home equity theft does not mean protecting them from repaying tax debts owed to the government. Ending home equity theft means preventing governments from taking advantage of property owners through nefarious means. Just like taking the whole cake after loaning one cup of sugar is pure greediness on the part of the neighbor, the government taking all the equity for a few dollars in debt is sinister. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more." It is time for Montana, Idaho, and Oregon to fully ban home equity theft and protect the interests of vulnerable property owners from governments seeking to take more than they’re owed.

With all the Black Friday deals behind us it is time to now turn to Santa for those final Christmas presents on our wish list. After comparing the options and reviewing the data on which ones will help bring taxpayers joy in 2024, here are five of the high-demand policy gifts that are sure to delight users of all ages. A Sherlock Holmes tax transparency bundle kit. Enjoy hours of sleuthing and tax mystery-solving with your favorite detective’s personal kit for understanding taxes. Included in the easy-carry leather bag are a magnifying glass and directions to a tax transparency website, taxpayer receipt, Truth in Taxation property tax website, gas tax transparency stickers, and Public School Transparency Act. Understanding your tax liability will become elementary with careful use. A Taylor Swift three-day notice for public hearings sing-along-microphone. Test your civic skills by singing a policy tune with the legislative transparency reform that Swifties have been waiting for. The best way to be heard is to know when to show up and what to sing about. The three-day notice for public hearings sing-along microphone is just what you’ll need to shake off any bad blood from not knowing what is on the legislative agenda. The Game of Life Education Choice edition. Advance through your own personalized and unique experiences in life as you move across the board with the tools needed to help you achieve success. As life throws you curveballs, you’ll be able to craft a path to victory by using the individualized Education Choice cards to help maneuver the Game of Life in the way best suited for you. A Nerf gun income tax trigger target set. Aim your way to an improved economic outlook and increased tax competitiveness with the Nerf gun target set that triggers automatic reductions in income tax rates. As your Nerf ammunition grows, tax rates will automatically fall, increasing the size of the bullseye for economic success. A Marvel superheroes tax restriction Lego set. Build your way through the Marvel-verse with this supersized Lego set that allows you to place your superheroes in a way that blocks any tax increase that doesn’t secure a legislative supermajority vote. More powerful than the Infinity Gauntlet, this in-demand Lego set prevents tax increases from being a snap decision. Realizing that it’s an extremely busy time of year for old Saint Nick, we’re hopeful that lawmakers are already working in the policy workshop to help Santa deliver these hottest reform gifts of the year. We’re also ready to help policymakers wrap up these presents and place them under the tree to help spread the joy they’ll bring.

I had the opportunity to sit down with Melissa Davlin of Idaho Reports on December 8 for an interview about the Mountain States Policy Center’s tax and legislative transparency recommendations for lawmakers. Among the topics we discussed were: Importance of open government laws; Three-day notice for public hearings; Tax transparency website; Taxpayer receipt; Gas tax transparency stickers; Public School Transparency Act; and Performance-based budgeting. The full interview is available by clicking on the image below and Idaho Reports has posted the transcript here. Thank you to Idaho Reports for the interview. I look forward to joining them again in the future for additional policy discussions.

We’re all familiar with the shopping experience of seeing the total amount we owe ring up on the register and then being provided with an itemized receipt showing what we purchased. This simple sheet of paper helps us remember and understand where our shopping dollars went. Now imagine if you were provided with a taxpayer receipt providing the same information for your tax dollars and how it relates to government spending. Utah is doing just this. Adopted by lawmakers in 2013, HB 129 required the Office of Legislative Fiscal Office: “To develop a taxpayer receipt: (i) available to taxpayers through a website; and (ii) that allows a taxpayer to view on the website an estimate of how the taxpayer's tax dollars are expended for government purposes; and to publish or provide other information on taxation and government expenditures that may be accessed by the public.” Utah’s taxpayer receipt (available here) allows users to see what their tax dollars buy by an individual providing information on household size, income, amount of home value or rent, and type of cars and miles driven. The taxpayer receipt site notes: “Your data is not stored or sent to any government entity. Results are illustrative of a typical full-year Utah resident with similar circumstance. Only State of Utah imposed taxes. Does not include local sales or property taxes or federal fuel or income taxes. Does not include fines, fees, or other taxes and charges paid to state government.” Here is an example of what the Utah taxpayer receipt looks like by using these data points: A family of four, with $80,000 in income, a home valued at $300,000, and two midsized cars driven for a combined 40,000 miles a year. According to the Utah taxpayer receipt, our sample family would owe $810 in fuel taxes, pay $2,690 in income taxes, $230 in state property taxes, and $1,320 in sales taxes for a total state tax liability of $5,050. The estimated use for these tax dollars would be for the following: $180 for criminal justice, $70 for economic development, $20 for elected officials, $80 for environmental and natural resources, $50 for general government, $560 for higher education, $1,740 for infrastructure, $1,890 for public education, and $480 for social services ($5,050 in state spending). Users of the Utah taxpayer receipt site are also able to drill down further on the data for additional information. Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf is looking to add a similar feature in the future to the current Transparent Idaho budget transparency portal. Controller Woolf told me: "The taxpayer receipt initiatives in Utah stand as a commendable tool, allowing citizens direct interaction with their government. Aligned with our unwavering commitment to transparency, Idaho is actively enhancing our Transparent Idaho website and looking to introduce a comparable tool in the future. Presently, the site empowers citizens with a firsthand look into the intricate journey of their tax dollars across state and local government. It's about giving our citizens the robust knowledge of how their tax dollars dynamically shape the very fabric of the communities we all call home." By combining a taxpayer receipt with a tax transparency website and state budget transparency resources, policymakers can help put taxpayers in the driver's seat to understand where their tax dollars are going and how much they are paying for those government services. Additional Information Do you know who you are paying taxes to? A tax transparency website would help

Strong open government laws are critical to a well-functioning republic and ensuring public accountability. Two recent shocking stories, one in Washington and one in Idaho, however, sadly illustrate the lengths that some public officials will go to frustrate this important accountability. As a strong supporter of robust public records laws, the details from these stories are truly dismaying. First, consider a KING 5 story in Washington that a state economist was not only threatened to keep important information from the public but was explicitly told not to put anything in writing that could be subject to a public records request: “A state economist says he had to resign after suffering retaliation for his analysis that the state's cap-and-trade policy would significantly increase gas prices . . . State leaders told consumers not to worry: the cap-and-trade system wouldn’t add much to the price of gas. Two months before the policy went into effect, a top official at the Dept. of Ecology said drivers wouldn’t notice . . . In a legal claim filed against WSDOT, the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the Office of the Governor Thursday, Smith alleges he was pressured in January to keep quiet about his calculation that cap-and-trade would lead to a 45- to 50-cent increase on every gallon of gas. He also says he was instructed not to write emails about it to avoid having to turn over the documentation if someone requested public records on the topic.” Todd Myers, the Environmental Policy Director for the Washington Policy Center has been warning since before the state’s new cap and trade program went into effect that a similar price increase would occur. Washington state officials routinely dismissed his analysis saying the costs, if any, would only be “pennies.” Myers told me: “If what is reported is accurate, the Inslee Administration went to significant lengths to hide the evidence that their claims the new tax on CO2 would have a small impact on gas prices. They knew the claim was dishonest and appear to have threatened state employees to hide the truth.” Washington state law states: “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” The second troubling story is in Idaho as reported by BoiseDev: “A Boise State University official said under oath that a senior university official renamed a document to hide it from public scrutiny and skirt Idaho’s Public Records Act, and that senior employees had been told to keep certain things out of public records due to ‘political climate.’ It’s the latest in a series of attempts the school has taken to avoid public scrutiny of its workings. The admissions came from an August deposition of Nicole Nimmons, the school’s associate vice president for campus services. Nimmons was being asked by an attorney for Big City Coffee about records practices in the coffee shop’s lawsuit against the university . . . Big City’s attorney asked Nimmons if it was standard practice to use codes to ‘evade public disclosure.’ ‘I’ve been asked and told not to put things in writing at times because of public records requests and documentation,’ Nimmons replied.” Idaho’s Public Records Law Manual clearly explains: “Open government is the cornerstone of a free society. Both the Washington and Idaho constitutions proclaim: “All political power is inherent in the people.” The foundations for an accountable government can be found in strong citizen oversight, and one of the most critical tools to achieve this is open government laws. Willful efforts by government officials to thwart public records and open government requirements are a threat to the republic and an insult to the people’s constitutional right to be informed, hold elected officials accountable, and direct their governance.

Is the cost of college worth it? Has the political environment at large universities driven students away? The data shows dramatic declines in student enrollment at public universities and colleges in Washington state, consistent declines at higher education institutions (as a whole) in Montana, and stagnation at those in Idaho. As policymakers determine the budgets and staffing at higher education institutions, it is important to consider the size of the student population. For example, the number of full time students attending college – both university and community – in Idaho is 51,537 this year. Ten years ago, there were 52,621 full time students. Idaho’s largest university remains Boise State, where 18,119 students attend. BSU has seen an increase in enrollment every year since 2013. But both Idaho State University and the University of Idaho have seen consistent drops in attendance. Each institution now serves roughly 9,200 students. More troubling numbers come out of Montana, where the number of students attending college or university has declined eight percent since 2014, to 33,603. Montana State University serves the most students. At its main campus in Bozeman, the number of students attending has actually increased to 14,633. But the number of students attending the University of Montana has fallen to 7,218 – a drop of 29% in less than 10 years. In Washington state, the total number of students in higher education has declined to 204,956. A decade ago, it was 249,330 – representing a decline of nearly 18%. Despite that decline, Washington state has never spent more on higher ed. The number of students at the University of Washington has increased over the past decade to 48,501. But all other universities have seen a decline – and in some cases, a dramatic decline. Why do these numbers matter? Policymakers determine the budgets and staffing at higher education institutions, so it is important to consider the size of the student population. Additionally, in the last Idaho legislative session, proposals were floated to freeze tuition and create a working group to consider a new funding formula. Given the decline in student populations across the region, as well as the heavy burden on taxpayers and students, it may be time to bring back that conversation. Enrollment data is available here: Idaho Montana Washington

As the success of education choice expansion becomes more clear, additional states are stepping up to offer families more options. Joined by Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced this week his plan to expand Education Savings Accounts in the Volunteer State. Under the Governor's plan, each participating student would have access to $7,000 to be used for education expenses, including private school or home school during the 2024-25 year. At first, the expansion would be limited and students would have to meet income requirements. But starting in the 2025-26 school year, "the program would be open to students regardless of income. Income and enrollment history would be used to prioritize students if demand exceeds capacity." Governor Lee's office put out this outstanding video to highlight the current success of Tennessee's program, and the need for more expansion. Universal education choice is becoming more common. In fact, nine states offer the option to families. As we previously laid out, each state has a different model. But the results always appear to be the same: increased student achievement and parental satisfaction. As lawmakers in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming consider numerous proposals to bring more education choice to their states, Mountain States Policy Center thought it might be helpful to have a guide of the elements that will make the program successful. As we recommended in our study Education Choice Improves Outcomes, policymakers should always focus the policy they are proposing on a simple question: does the policy allow those closest to the child the ability to make the decision? Here are the key elements to a successful education choice plan: Flexibility An education savings account should always contain maximum flexibility, to be used on tutoring, private school tuition, homeschooling, speech or occupational therapy, technology, and that which can help improve a child’s educational experience. Avoid class warfare The socioeconomic background of children shouldn’t matter – investments should be focused on educating all students. Policies should avoid separating children into economic classes. If policymakers ultimately decide to place income limits on the program, it should be indexed to inflation and should also consider the size of the family. Any limits should also have a sunset and require review by future lawmakers. Avoid enrollment caps Placing enrollment caps on any education choice program is unfair and unwise. Policymakers should avoid setting arbitrary limits. Again, if lawmakers initially choose to adopt enrollment caps, they should add a sunsetting provision to allow more students to participate in the future. Avoid prior year school requirement All students should qualify to participate in an education choice program – whether they’ve lived in a state for six months or six years. Students who currently don’t use the public school system should also qualify, as their families pay into public education just the same. Parental requirements Parents should always be required to spend the money on educational expenses and in accordance with rules and requirements set forth by the state. Most states require parents to sign a contract pledging to do so. Oversight and accountability The state should always have oversight and accountability of the program to ensure dollars are being spent wisely. An oversight board can be created and the state Attorney General and/or Treasurer can be tasked with performing random audits. Any funds used inappropriately should be immediately revoked. Funds can roll over An education choice program that includes education savings accounts should always allow funds to roll over and gain interest. Doing so can save resources for taxpayers and families. Can be used for college Policymakers should allow for any unused funds in an education savings account to be spent on in-state college tuition. This can lower the burden for families and also provide incentive to students to get a college degree locally. Furthermore, it can expand the goal of getting more students to stay and work locally. Extra help for special needs children Policymakers should consider either having a supplemental, separate ESA for special needs children, or allow extra funding in a broad ESA for special needs kids who may need extra assistance. Religious freedom No education choice option should ever require a school or parent who takes the funds to forfeit their religious beliefs. This is a violation of the Constitution and recent Supreme Court rulings.

Image: Lehel Kovács In a world where technological advancements are reshaping the employment landscape, staying ahead of the curve is no longer a luxury but a necessity. E-commerce and global tech giant, Amazon, has taken a significant step towards fostering a future-ready workforce through its initiative to provide free Artificial Intelligence (AI) courses to millions by 2025. This move not only underscores the company's commitment to innovation but also raises important questions about the future of employment regarding AI proficiency. Amazon's decision to offer free AI courses is a response to the growing demand for professionals well-versed in artificial intelligence. As AI continues to grow in various industries, the need for a workforce with the skills to navigate and understand its potential becomes increasingly crucial. By providing accessible and free education in AI, Amazon aims to empower individuals from diverse backgrounds, ensuring that the benefits of AI proficiency are not limited to a select few; ultimately benefitting the tech giant and other industry leaders. Workforces around the world are undergoing a paradigm shift, with AI proficiency emerging as an essential workplace skill. As industries embrace automation, especially with AI steering the ship on advancement, the demand for workers capable of leveraging these tools is rising. Traditional job roles are becoming a thing of the past, while positions require an understanding of AI concepts, data analysis, and algorithmic thinking are on the rise. Amazon's initiative signals a broader trend in the employment landscape — one where adaptability and continuous learning are essential. The future workforce will likely be characterized by individuals who can seamlessly integrate AI into their skill sets, enabling them to collaborate with intelligent systems and hone their problem-solving abilities. While the accessibility of AI education is a positive step, it raises questions about the potential impact on job markets. As more individuals acquire AI proficiency, the job market may experience a shift in demand for certain skills. Roles that involve routine and repetitive tasks susceptible to automation may decline, while positions requiring creativity, critical thinking, and a nuanced understanding of AI applications will likely see increased demand. Why pay an employee to itemize inventory, when your AI software is already doing it for you? According to The Hill: "Some 73 percent of employers also said they consider it a priority to hire people with AI skills. However, three in four of those same employers said they can’t find the talent they need, according to the survey." Amazon's endeavor to train millions through free AI courses is a commendable stride toward preparing the global workforce for the challenges and opportunities presented by AI. As we navigate the evolving landscape of employment, it is clear that AI proficiency will be a key driver of success. With that in mind, to ensure a future where all share the benefits of AI, stakeholders must work collaboratively to address challenges, bridge gaps, and create a workforce that is not only technologically adept but also proficient in areas where AI has yet to thrive; human connection. The future of employment will undeniably require knowledge of AI. Initiatives like Amazon's are pivotal in shaping a workforce that is ready to embrace the future with confidence and competence. As Amazon takes the lead, schools should also consider enhancing their computer science programs with a focus on AI to help the future workforce succeed.

The Tax Foundation has released its 2024 State Business Tax Climate Index. The Mountain States led the way with Wyoming ranking 1, Montana 5, and Idaho 16. Washington came in a distant 35. According to the report: “The Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index enables business leaders, government policymakers, and taxpayers to gauge how their states’ tax systems compare. While there are many ways to show how much is collected in taxes by state governments, the Index is designed to show how well states structure their tax systems and provides a road map for improvement.” Here are the Mountain States rankings by tax type: The report highlights recent tax changes in Idaho and Montana: Idaho: “In January 2023, Idaho moved to a flat individual income tax structure, consolidating four brackets with a top marginal rate of 6 percent into a single rate of 5.8 percent while also reducing its corporate income tax rate to 5.8 percent. This was enough to improve Idaho’s individual tax component ranking by two places, but Idaho’s overall ranking fell by one due to Arizona improving from 19th to 14th.” Montana: “Montana was among the states to enact individual income tax cuts in 2021, reducing the top marginal rate from 6.9 percent in 2021 to 6.75 percent in 2022 and scheduling a future reduction, along with bracket consolidation and other structural reforms, for 2024. Originally, the 2021 law converted Montana’s seven marginal rates into two, with rates of 4.7 and 6.5 percent, effective in 2024. However, in March 2023, S.B. 121 was enacted, reducing the top marginal rate even further—to 5.9 percent—beginning in 2024. Although the lowest rate will rise to 4.7 percent in 2024, conforming to the federal standard deduction in 2025 will yield tax savings for lower-income taxpayers. This law also doubles the bracket widths for married filers, thereby removing the marriage penalty that currently exists in the state’s income tax code. These reforms will yield a favorable ranking change.” The Tax Foundation encourages lawmakers to remember two important tax rules: “Taxes matter to business. Business taxes affect business decisions, job creation and retention, plant location, competitiveness, the transparency of the tax system, and the long-term health of a state’s economy. Most importantly, taxes diminish profits. If taxes take a larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to either consumers (through higher prices), employees (through lower wages or fewer jobs), shareholders (through lower dividends or share value), or some combination of the above. Thus, a state with lower tax costs will be more attractive to business investment and more likely to experience economic growth. States do not enact tax changes (increases or cuts) in a vacuum. Every tax law will in some way change a state’s competitive position relative to its immediate neighbors, its region, and even globally. Ultimately, it will affect the state’s national standing as a place to live and to do business. Entrepreneurial states can take advantage of the tax increases of their neighbors to lure businesses out of high-tax states.” Taxes are one of the ways states compete with each other in our federalist system. As evidenced by recent changes in the State Business Tax Climate Index, this competition is alive and well in the Mountain States.

Like it or not, regulations play a role in our everyday lives. Some dictate where and how we can eat. Others place restrictions on what we can sell or how we can operate a business. For example, in Tamarack, Idaho, it was once illegal to buy onions after dark without a permit. Nationally, 18 U.S. Code 2074 makes it a crime to “knowingly issue or publish any counterfeit weather forecast.” Bacon processing plants in California still require a fax machine. Today, we are releasing a new publication: Pillars of regulatory reform and oversight. We hope it will be a tool for lawmakers, media and citizens to ensure the lightest regulatory touch. Whether they be at the local, state, or federal level, all laws and regulations have a cost. In fact, a study by the Journal of Economic Growth concluded that regulations have slowed economic growth by as much as two percent per year. Economists at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found the size of the regulation state significantly slows economic growth and has translated into a $13,000 loss in real income for every American. Rules and regulations come in all shapes and sizes. They can be tallied by pages, words, and even economic significance. Luckily, policymakers in the Mountain States have recognized the need to limit the regulatory burden. Idaho Governor Brad Little has touted his Red Tape Reduction Act – an effort to make Idaho one of the least regulated states in the nation. Numerous national reports give Idaho top marks for the effort. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte has labeled red tape reduction as one of his top priorities. In the most recent Montana legislative session, he signed into law more than 100 bills to eliminate commissions, streamline applications, and do away with burdensome and outdated requirements. These efforts should not be confused with an attempt to do away with every law, rule, and regulation. On the contrary, those that are well-designed and consistently reviewed protect not only business owners and workers but also consumers and citizens. Still, lawmakers in the region and across the nation can and should do more. Thousands of rules and regulations no longer relevant or needed remain on the books. As policymakers consider the rules that govern rules and regulations, they should take care to ensure they are simple, predictable, and reviewable. The fight to reduce ineffective and burdensome regulations has received the most traction at the state level. In 2023 alone, Idaho legislators have reviewed more than 120 new or updated rules from state bureaucracy, on topics including daycare licensing, bail agents, insurance fees, corporate governance, juvenile detention centers, podiatry, physical therapy, invasive species stickers, and more. Idaho started on the path to its low regulatory burden with Governor Brad Little’s Red Tape Reduction Act. It continued its effort with zero-based regulation – an executive order that forces regular reviews of rules and restrictions. In fact, roughly 20% of each of Idaho’s agency rules are reviewed annually. At the state level, policymakers should be doing more to reduce burdensome regulations and take responsibility for those still on the books. Perhaps the best way to accomplish this goal is to be committed to the separation of powers. In too many cases, bureaucrats take on the role of rulemaking and implementation – even though they were never elected to write laws. Legislatures should never delegate sweeping lawmaking authority to regulatory agencies. Executives have the responsibility of signing and implementing laws, and any rule that has the force of law should be signed by the Governor. Far too often, state rules are signed and put into place by unelected bureaucrats who may not need to consider the best interests or concerns of citizens because citizens cannot remove them from office. It is more difficult for a state’s chief executive to claim he or she didn’t know about a controversial rule if they were required to approve the rule before it took effect. Judges are constitutionally required to interpret the law without bias. Unfortunately, many judges have decided to defer their role and responsibilities to agency interpretation. To ensure the judiciary understands and doesn’t skirt its duty, judges should interpret statutes, regulations, and other documents without giving any deference to an agency’s legal interpretation. If the text is still unclear, judges should default to a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty. In other words, the tie should go to the citizen, not the government. Thanks to the separation of powers, ensuring oversight and lessening the regulatory burden are achievable. Each of the three branches has a role and responsibility. As the National Governors Association writes, “well designed regulations protect workers, consumers and the environment while promoting entrepreneurship and economic growth.” Idaho and Montana deserve credit for attempting to reform the regulatory state. But as new policymakers consider the rules that govern rules and regulations, they should take care to ensure they are always simple, predictable, and reviewable. Policymaking is the exclusive prerogative of the legislative branch of our government and should never be delegated to an unelected administrative body. DOWNLOAD PUBLICATION: Pillars of regulatory reform and oversight

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) announced today former Congressman and FOX News host Trey Gowdy will be the keynote speaker at its 2024 Fall Dinner & Anniversary Celebration in Boise on Friday, October 4th. Congressman Gowdy wowed the audience at our Spring Dinner in Coeur d'Alene this year, and we just had to take advantage of the opportunity to bring him to Boise. He will be joined in Boise by a very special guest. MSPC hosts the region's top policy galas. More than 500 turned out for the organization's Fall Dinner this year to hear from former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson. MSPC's Spring Dinner in Coeur d'Alene will be held on Friday, April 12th featuring former White House Press Secretary Kaleigh McEnany. MSPC’s 2024 Fall Dinner & Anniversary Celebration with Trey Gowdy will be held at the Boise Centre on Friday, October 4th. Discounted tickets are currently available by using the coupon code EARLYBIRD24. From 1994-2000, as a federal prosecutor, Gowdy prosecuted the full range of federal crimes including narcotics trafficking, bank robbery, car jacking, kidnapping, child pornography cases, and the murder of a federal witness. He was awarded the Postal Inspector’s Award for the successful prosecution of J. Mark Allen, one of “America’s Most Wanted” suspects. He also received the highest performance rating a federal prosecutor can receive – two years in a row. In 2000, he left the U.S. Attorney's office to run for 7th Circuit Solicitor (District Attorney) in Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties. As 7th Circuit Solicitor, Trey led an office of 25 attorneys and 65 total employees. He started a Violence Against Women Task Force, a Worthless Check Program, enhanced and expanded Drug Court, and implemented a Drug Mother Protocol designed to assist expectant mothers break the cycle of addiction. In 2010, he ran for congress to represent the 4th Congressional District (Greenville and Spartanburg Counties). While in congress he served on the Judiciary Committee, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Intelligence Committee, Education and the Workforce Committee and Ethics Committee. He was also chosen to chair a Select Committee on the events occurring in Libya on September 11-12, 2012. While in Congress he actively participated in numerous congressional investigations, sponsored bills signed into law, and had deep and meaningful relationships with scores of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. After four terms in Congress, he announced he would not seek re-election in 2018 and would leave public service for good; thus ending his career with a flawless record in the courtroom and undefeated in political races. In January of 2019, he returned to his beloved South Carolina to practice law, teach classes with his close friend Senator Tim Scott, and speak on legal issues he considers important to our country. Trey is an author, host of a television show and podcast. Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. 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. MORE INFORMATION: About Mountain States Policy Center High-Resolution Photo of Former Congressman Trey Gowdy REGISTER: MSPC's 2024 Fall Dinner & Anniversary Gala

This Thanksgiving, pile on an extra helping of sweet potatoes and enjoy a third round of turkey because the total cost of the meal is cheaper than last year’s high. The American Farm Bureau released their 38th annual Thanksgiving dinner survey last week, estimating the cost of the meal for 10 people at $61.17. After the last two years of escalating prices, it’s a relief to have a slight downturn, though the meal is still 25% higher than pre-pandemic levels. There are many things other than the just savings to be grateful for this year. As you gather around the table count these blessings: 1 - Households in the United States spend the lowest percentage of their budgets on food compared to other countries, amounting to 6.7 percent. Less developed countries must spend more of their budgets on food, sacrificing other goods and services. In many countries this number ranges above 40 to 50 percent. 2 – Cases of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) have dropped off dramatically in 2023, allowing turkey and all poultry production to recover. The 19-month outbreak starting in January 2022, tightened last year’s supply on turkey, increasing the cost, but this year the market has recovered. 219 million turkeys were raised this year, above 2021 and 2022 production numbers. The biggest driver of the lower cost of Thanksgiving dinner this year is the savings on turkey, which decreased 5.6%. 3 – The cost of food has inflated less than last year with year over year gains of 3.7%. Compared to 2022, consumers have been much better off because the previous year over year increase was 11.2%. The inflation adjusted cost of this year’s Thanksgiving dinner is $19.88, a decrease from last year. 4 – Some of the Mountain States are home to lower grocery costs with consumers in Idaho and Montana finding some of the cheapest groceries in the nation, ranked 48th and 36th. However, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming are more expensive, ranking 17th, 9th and 24th, respectively. 5 – Farmers in the United States are resilient. Over the last three years farmers have faced supply chain issues, high fuel prices, increasing input costs, animal disease outbreaks, and the Ukrainian war disrupting global grain supply. Through it all, farmers have adapted to the challenges and continued to provide a safe and secure food supply to the American people. With each new challenge, our agriculturalists figure out solutions, meeting new demands and recovering supplies quickly. The cost savings on Thanksgiving dinner 2023 is a sweet relief for consumers, but in a country that favors free market solutions it isn’t a surprise. Farmers in the United States have more access to free market options than many other countries. More available resources and fewer regulations allow families to depend upon the reliable and resilient American farmers who can adapt to supply challenges and recover quickly. Continuing to put free market agriculture first, gives farmers the tools they need to create these many blessings for consumers.

Students in Wyoming could be a small step closer to having more education options. The state's Joint Education Committee has approved draft legislation that would create Education Savings Accounts, and one of the primary opponents last time around - House Speaker Albert Sommers - says he now supports the effort. The Wyoming legislation would create $3,000 ESA's, but it would have income restrictions. Only families with a household income that is 250% of the poverty level (or lower) can participate. The draft also allows for the use of the ESA for preschool. The legislation isn't nearly as strong as a previous version that actually passed the Wyoming Senate earlier this year but couldn't get past the Speaker. In fact, it has received the ire of at least one state Senator who has called it a "crap sandwich." Still, it is a small step in the right direction. Education Savings Accounts allow parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. Most credible, major studies have concluded that educational outcomes improve when education choice is permitted - not only for students taking advantage of education choice, but also with those who did not. "A review of the empirical research on private school choice finds evidence that private school choice delivers some benefits to participating students—particularly in the area of educational attainment—and tends to help, albeit to a limited degree, the achievement of students who remain in public schools."​ -Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 91, Issue 4 Overall, Education Savings Accounts remain the favorite education choice policy of parents.

In this month's off-year general election, there's one thing Idaho and Washington had in common - voter turnout was dismal. But there's more to the story: Idaho holds its elections in person, while Washington is entirely vote by mail. And, once again, we've learned that vote by mail does little to increase voter turnout. When all is said and done, it appears voter turnout in Idaho will be roughly 30%. Clearwater county earned top marks with nearly 52% turnout. In Washington, voter turnout is also hovering in the 30 percent range, with the top county being Columbia. Perhaps the biggest misconception about elections is that voter turnout increases and is automatically higher in states that perform elections by mail. As the National Conference of State Legislatures points out, only eight states conduct their elections entirely by mail. They include California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington Idaho allows for some small jurisdictions (fewer than 140 registered voters) to hold mail-only elections, but the state itself has in-person and absentee balloting. Montana is the same – while you can request a ballot to vote absentee, most voters cast ballots in person. Election statistics from Washington tell a story of virtually no impact on the state’s turnout as a result of mail-in voting. In 2019, Washington state policymakers even added postage to ballots, saying they “increased democracy.” A vote by mail system is very different than a system which allows for absentee ballots. Proponents of voting entirely by mail have repeatedly said it would increase voter turnout and allow for easier access to democracy. In the 2020 general election, vote by mail was used extensively due to the COVID pandemic. But research from the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research shows vote by mail had little effect on turnout. As Stanford researchers wrote: “Most people who voted by mail most likely would have voted in person had voting by mail not been an option. In fact, turnout rose by a similar amount in states that didn’t even allow no-excuse absentee voting — the most common form of mail-in balloting and the one the researchers study — in 2020.” Washington state was one of the first states to switch to a complete vote-by-mail system. Yet turnout in many elections remains low. Vote by mail may be a good option for some voters, but the research shows little evidence it increases voter turnout. Policymakers supporting vote by mail should be honest about both the positives and negatives.

In the midst of a housing shortage, permitting delays intensify scarcity and add unneeded costs. Estimates show that delays in permitting exceed 6 months and thousands of dollars in many states. Building Industry Association of Washington estimates that the average building permit delay is 6.5 months costing homebuyers $35,000, pricing thousands of families out of the market. Similar results are seen across the country. The Wharton Index from the University of Pennsylvania measures various tactics of housing regulation in different counties across the country (building permits are one of the regulatory hurdles measured). Three of the four mountain states are above the national average on the Wharton Index: Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Wyoming is below the national average. Even though Wyoming is below the national average on housing regulation, citizens are still frustrated with building permit delays. Last week, draft legislation from Wyoming proposed introducing a remedy to permitting delays. Any city, county, state, or local power providing permits is required to do so in the most expeditious manner possible. Capping the wait time at 180 days for building permit approvals. The draft House Bill would create an 180-day cap on government response to building permits. The bill requires local government entities to publish an approval schedule so applicants will know how long they will be waiting on permit applications and regulators would have fiscal consequences for delays. The bill proposes: If a schedule is not published within 120 days all permit fees are returned to the applicant. If the schedule Is not published within 180 days, the permit is considered approved. After the permit is received notice should be provided every 30 days updating the applicant on the status of the application. All fees will be returned after 60 days if updates are not provided. Applications are considered approved after 120 days if an update is not provided. The draft legislation addresses the delays home builders are facing and may improve the housing shortage. One aspects the draft does not address is the length of the schedule the governing entities can propose and Wyoming can look at efforts in other states to guide the total cap on the permitting approval process. Florida was one of the first states to address building permit delays through bureaucratic penalties, and building permit applications successfully increased. House Bill 1059, signed into law in 2021 creates penalties for enforcement agencies if permits go unapproved within 30 business days for single family units, or if additional information is not requested. A 10 percent reduction per day is then applied to the fee. 120 days is given for master building permit applications and the same 10 percent reduction per day is applied to the fee. The new law is fixing the housing challenges in Florida. The Foundation for Government Accountability found that before the law was passed in October 2021, a suburb of Orlando processed less than half of the permit applications within 30 business days. After the law passed about 80 percent of applications were processed in 30 days. In Santa Rosa County less than half were processed in 30 days before the law but after the law the rate rose to 100 percent for 347 new homes. Housing permits have also grown by nearly half in some counties since October 2021. Texas has also attempted similar changes, with varying levels of success. Instead of enacting bureaucratic penalties, the state is allowing applicants to pursue third party approval of applications. House Bill 14 passed in June 2023 as many commercial developers were reporting months of waiting on basic permits. If a regulatory entity doesn’t act on the building permit within 15 days, the applicant can hire a third party to review the plans and issue the permit. The implementation of this new process has been rocky, with many builders unaware of the new law and governing entities unsure on how to proceed. Wyoming’s proposal to remedy building permit delays follows the successful example of Florida by imposing bureaucratic penalties. The 2024 Wyoming Legislature has the opportunity to address permit delays next year and make it easier for builders in the Cowboy state to meet their housing needs.

Before you head over to the produce department and grab a few tomatoes to hurl in my direction, hear me out: the Albertsons-Kroger merger could be a very good thing for consumers. Why? Because, like it or not, the way we shop has dramatically changed. More Americans are doing their shopping online or at a discount warehouse. Fewer go inside the grocery store. For many, that weekly trip to the market is becoming a thing of the past. Online and warehouse competition has changed everything – and it has helped lower the cost of many goods. Walmart, Amazon and Costco are now the major players in the grocery marketplace. Chances are, you’ve purchased an item at one of the three over the past 30 days. In fact, Walmart/Sam’s Club make up nearly a third – 30 percent – of the U.S. grocery market share. Costco tallies another 7 percent. Amazon is moving quickly and accounts for more than 5 percent. And consider this: Amazon Prime, Walmart+ and Costco have more than 250 million subscriptions. Even if the Albertsons-Kroger merger proceeds, it would account for just 9 percent of nationwide sales, according to the International Center for Law and Economics. But what it would do is get the attention of the big three – increasing competition with their 42% of the current market share. Kroger and Albertsons are cognizant of criticisms of the deal. The chains say they will sell 413 stores and eight distribution centers to address any questions about a monopoly in certain communities. In fact, a review of all of the Albertsons and Kroger locations throughout the country shows very few places where the two stores both have locations. The Federal Trade Commission is now reviewing the proposal and could rule sometime next year. Kroger-Albertsons says its prepared to fight in court to ensure the merger goes through. No supermarket mergers have been litigated since 1988. It is likely the largest dispute will be over what defines the term “supermarket.” Does it have to be a traditional brick and mortar location? Will online supermarkets be counted? If not, why? It is clear that Amazon, Walmart and Costco directly compete with Kroger and Albertsons, so why wouldn’t they be included in any merger analysis? Nearly 30 years ago, supermarkets accounted for 81% of retail sales. That dropped to 61% a decade later, and today, it’s near 50%. Where have all of the customers gone? Online and warehouse stores. An economist with the Strategic Resource Group recently told Yahoo Finance "Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons is the last, best, and final chance to level the playing field." As with any proposal, there is fear of the unknown. But we shouldn't let fear destroy an opportunity to increase competition and improve the outlook for the consumer.

Mountain State's Marketing and Communications coordinator speaking with Idaho's State Broadband Office Manager, Ramón Hobdey-Sanchez In an enlightening one-on-one, Mountain State's Marketing and Communications Coordinator delves into the complex world of federal aid and policy navigation with Ramón Hobdey-Sanchez, Idaho's State Broadband Office Manager. Hobdey-Sanchez articulates the careful considerations that go into selecting broadband expansion projects. He explained how the department prioritizes not just by need, but by sustainability and impact. The office's strategy involves a collaborative effort with local leaders, mapping out underserved areas and projecting the long-term benefits of each proposed project. Discussing the financial aspects, Hobdey-Sanchez revealed the robust framework Idaho uses to allocate funds. Highlighting the multi-million-dollar budget meticulously managed to maximize efficiency and impact. The state uses a combination of forecasting, trend analysis, and historical data to inform its budgetary decisions. Hobdey-Sanchez addressed the complexities of adhering to federal guidelines while trying to maintain state autonomy. He discussed specific strategies for aligning federal aid with state objectives, such as leveraging local policies and advocating for state-level discretion in the application of funds. He doesn't shy away from discussing the challenges, from bureaucratic hurdles to ensuring equitable distribution of resources. Yet, Hobdey-Sanchez proudly speaks about the triumphs, including successful projects that have brought high-speed internet to remote communities, transforming lives and livelihoods. As the interview wraps up, Hobdey-Sanchez shares his vision for Idaho's connected future. His passion for bridging the digital divide is palpable, as is his commitment to navigating the complexities of federal aid with the grace and resolve that has become his signature. This extended blog post provides a deeper dive into the conversations and considerations that shape Idaho's approach to managing federal aid for broadband expansion. You can find the full interview with Ramón Hobdey-Sanchez HERE! Please stay tuned as we near the release of our new research study "Plugged in – Five keys for expanding broadband coverage in a responsible way."

Though an off-year election there were two significant tax votes yesterday that we had our eyes on. The first was a proposed constitutional amendment in Texas to ban a wealth tax. The second was a ballot measure in Colorado that would have reduced the required automatic tax refunds provided if revenue triggers were met. Voters in those states spoke loud and clear on both proposals. 68% of Texas voters approved the wealth tax ban and 60% of Colorado voters told state officials not to mess with the required tax refunds. Here is a summary of the two proposals: Texas Prop 3: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual wealth or net worth tax, including a tax on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.” – 68% yes vote Colorado Prop HH: “Shall the state reduce property taxes for homes and businesses, including expanding property tax relief for seniors, and backfill counties, water districts, fire districts, ambulance and hospital districts, and other local governments and fund school districts by using a portion of the state surplus up to the proposition HH cap as defined in this measure?” – 60% no vote We previously wrote about both of these policies (proactively adding taxpayer protections to the constitution and providing automatic tax refunds) in this blog post. Additional Information Protect taxpayers by putting supermajority for tax increase requirements in state constitution

Utah State Representative Candice Pierucci first took her seat in the Utah Legislature in 2019 - when she was just 27 years old. Four years later, she was front and center during Utah's debate over education choice - and she led the effort to get it passed. It was in the most unusual location that I first heard her story. While poolside in Orlando this past summer, I met Rep. Pierucci and her wonderful family for the first time. Her young son struck up a conversation with my two boys, and we were off and running talking policy. The sweltering Orlando heat may have been nothing compared to what Rep. Pierucci faced during the 2023 Utah Legislative session. As Utah legislators advanced HB 0215 - to increase teacher pay and adopt education choice - all the typical predictions of doom and gloom were put forward. But the bill passed and was signed by Utah's Governor Spencer Cox. I asked Rep. Pierucci about her experience - from the beginning to the end - in hopes that legislators throughout the mountain states can learn how to achieve more education options for all families. Why did you feel it so important to advance education choice in Utah? I firmly believe that supporting education means supporting the best approach for educating each individual child in our state. It was time that we made education more customizable for each child in Utah; one in which parents could tailor their child’s learning experience to better meet the needs of their students. In the wake of COVID-19 and the shutdowns that occurred, it was clear that parents craved additional options for their kids to learn and grow. The Utah Fits All Scholarship empowers families to make the best decisions for their kiddos in providing opportunities to learn in a way that makes sense for them. Even though there is evidence to the contrary, some claim education choice takes away from public schools… how did you address this issue? In 2022, we spent a total of $7.3 Billion for public education, of that amount, $4.7 Billion came directly from state funds. The Utah Fits All program is less than 1% of the entire state budget for education, and less than half a percent of the total education spending. We increased spending on public education, yet again, and didn’t reduce program funding or the WPU to pay for the scholarship. Additionally, additional legislation was run that froze student enrollment and funding for districts for the next five years. Another issue critics pounce on is the impact in rural areas… how was that dealt with? Interestingly, some of our biggest supporters were from rural Utah. Additionally, we had polling to show that rural districts were overwhelmingly supportive of the program. Choice in education is especially important in rural communities as it expands students learning options. Additionally, we made sure the scholarship could be used for travel to get to/from an alternative education choice. Including a historic teacher pay increase was critical in demonstrating the state’s support for both teachers and students, and it increased support for the bill from rural legislators. Are there strong accountability measures in your ed choice law? The program managing entity will be audited annually and required to report back to the Education Interim Committee annually. Additionally, the program managing entity and scholarship program will be audited regularly by the Utah State Auditor. The program managing entity has clear guidelines as to what is an approved educational expense and how to ensure the scholarship goes to approved educational expenses. Scholarship recipients are required to submit a portfolio at the end of the academic year to demonstrate their growth and learning throughout the year. If a parent requests their child take an assessment, that test can replace the portfolio requirement. How did you convince skeptical lawmakers and your governor that this was the right thing to do? Working with the Governor, we made sure to include a historic pay increase for teachers across the state, this increased support for the bill…Additionally, adding the portfolio requirement was helpful from an accountability perspective. Also, having grass roots support from families all over the state was critical. What was something you had to give up in order to get the bill passed? The automatic growth formula. The Executive Appropriations Committee will have to go in each year to increase funding; however, we won’t need to vote on the budget item individually. What surprised you most about the debate and the process? I genuinely was surprised that the education “establishment” and opponents of the bill didn’t want to talk about students, they wanted to talk about the system, and employees of the system. Meeting students’ needs wasn’t something opponents were interested in talking about. What advice would you give to lawmakers in other states considering education choice? No matter the size of your school choice program, whether it be universal or capped, or income-based, you will face the same opposition. So, with that in mind, craft the absolute best policy that will empower the students and families in your state and think big.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) – the region’s top source for free market policy – announced today the launch of its first research center. With a focus on innovation, the William and Elizabeth Junkermier Center for Technology and Innovation officially opens today. “MSPC is committed to bringing a free market perspective to the most challenging issues of our time, and perhaps no topic speaks more to the power of free markets than technology and innovation,” explained MSPC President Chris Cargill. The new center at Mountain States Policy Center commits the organization to research work and recommendations on issues including using artificial intelligence to improve government efficiency and expanding broadband in a responsible way. Sebastian Griffin will lead the MSPC’s efforts. Taylor Barkley of the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University will be a strategic advisor. The Junkermier Center is named for William and Elizabeth Junkiermier of Missoula, Montana – founding supporters of Mountain States Policy Center. William Junkermier is the Vice President at Cerium – a business technology solutions provider with 200+ employees. “We are committed to MSPC’s mission and goal of Free Markets First and are honored to have our names placed atop this effort,” the Junkermiers said. Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. 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.