This week, Congressman Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin is expected to introduce the "STUDENT" act - a measure that seeks to reform the federal charter of the National Education Association (the country's largest teachers' union). The "Stopping Teachers Unions from Damaging Education Needs Today" (or STUDENT) act would update the NEA's charter - originally adopted in 1906 - to require more transparency and concentration on educational purposes. Most of the 94 federally chartered corporations are considered noncontroversial, with a unifying and civic purpose. But the NEA is much different. It has almost 2.5 million working members and more than $600 million in revenue in 2022. It's the only labor union with a federal charter. In 2019, the NEA voted against a business item that called on the organization to "rededicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning," while voting in favor of endorsements of controversial social issues that are far removed from the ABC's of educating. The federally chartered Boy Scouts of America on the other hand explicitly avoid the appearance of partisan politics. For example: "The BSA might be the most patriotic organization in the U.S. But we don’t endorse any one political party. You could say that rather than being pro-left or pro-right, the BSA is pro-America. The same applies to your pack, troop, post, ship or crew. You and your Scouts should Do Your Duty to Country but not by endorsing any one candidate." The STUDENT act makes several key updates to the NEA's federal charter: Prohibits the NEA from engaging in electoral politics and lobbying. Prohibits the NEA from engaging in discrimination or employing quotas based on protected characteristics like race. Establishes requirements for the maintenance and inspection of NEA’s corporate records. Requires the NEA to submit an annual report to Congress. Fully repeals the NEA’s D.C. property tax exemption. Requires NEA officers to be U.S. citizens. Requires the NEA to maintain tax-exempt status. Requires the NEA’s governance structure to be representative of its membership. Clarifies the liability of NEA’s corporate officers. Establishes the service of process upon the NEA. Prohibits the NEA from collecting dues from a public employee unless the employee has been notified of their right to refuse, and has affirmatively consented, and require the NEA to collect dues without the use of government payroll systems. Prohibits taxpayer-funded release time for NEA officers. Bars the NEA from incorporating the core tenets of Critical Race Theory into its governance, operations, and advocacy. Subjects the NEA and its affiliates to the financial transparency requirements and union democracy protections of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Requires the NEA to refrain from initiating, and to actively intervene to prevent, any strikes or work stoppages by its affiliates. Provides a mechanism to enforce the requirements of NEA’s charter. Specifies the distribution of the NEA’s assets in the event of its dissolution. In the 117th Congress, bills were introduced to repeal NEA's federal charter in its entirety. They did not advance. Rather than repeal the NEA’s federal charter, Congress should amend the NEA’s charter to make the NEA less focused on partisan politics and help return it back to a focus on education. As the NEA's original charter says, its purpose is supposed to "elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching; and promote the cause of education in the United States." The STUDENT Act may just be what the NEA needs to get its focus back on the chalkboard.

Take a glance at tax policy across the nation and you'll notice an unmistakable trend - states are lowering or doing away with their state income taxes altogether. There are currently seven no income tax states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nevada, Alaska and Wyoming. New Hampshire will make eight when its income tax on interest and dividends is phased out in just about 15 months. Washington State lost its spot on this list. As we've previously reported, Washington decided to get rid of its no-income-tax advantage with the adoption of an income tax on capital gains. Idaho and Montana are going in the other direction. Idaho has reduced its income tax rate to a flat 5.8%. Montana lowered its rate to 5.9%. Could Idaho or Montana join the list of states with no income tax at all? At the moment, it seems unlikely. But as we previously recommended, lawmakers could take the next step and adopt triggers to further lower rates. Arizona, meantime, just lowered its income tax to 2.5%. Some lawmakers there want to get rid of the tax altogether. Kentucky is another state worth watching. Lawmakers there have adopted a policy that reduces the income tax up to .5% each year that certain revenue triggers are met. Kentucky's income tax rate goes down to 4.0% at the beginning of 2024. Even some Democratic states are getting into the income tax cut action. Connecticut, for example, is implementing major income tax cuts as well.

Today, I am joining nearly 100 other free market leaders from across the nation in signing a statement of principles for American Conservatism. These are principles enshrined in our Constitution and Declaration. It is a statement of what we are for, not what we're against. I join others in offering real solutions - not dreams or authoritarian schemes. These principles affirm our commitment to free enterprise, free trade, free speech, strong families, balanced budgets, and the rule of law. Those who have signed the document represent a range of disciplines, roles, and philosophies. Some are journalists, authors, and public intellectuals. Others have worked in federal, state, or local government, or on political campaigns. Still others teach at schools or universities, or litigate cases, or have enjoyed success in business or other professions and serve the conservative movement primarily as donors, board members, and advisors. This is what we believe. On September 11, 1960, a group of young conservatives gathered in the home of William F. Buckley, Jr., in Sharon, Connecticut. For decades, the timeless ideals embodied in the document they produced animated the American conservative movement. Today’s public policy challenges are different than the ones faced by the Sharon Statement signatories in 1960. Authoritarianism is on the rise both at home and abroad. More and more people on the left and right reject the distinctive creed that made America great: that individual liberty is essential to the moral and physical strength of the nation. In order to ensure that America’s best days are ahead, we affirm the following principles: Liberty. Among Americans’ most fundamental rights is the right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force: a right that, in turn, derives from the inseparability of free will from what it means to be human. Liberty is indivisible, and political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom. The pursuit of happiness. Most individuals are happiest in loving families, and within stable and prosperous communities in which parents are free to engage in meaningful work, and to raise and educate their children according to their values. The foundation of prosperity. The free enterprise system is the foundation of prosperity. Americans can only prosper in an economy in which they can afford the basics of everyday life: food, shelter, health care, and energy. A corrosive combination of government intervention and private cronyism is making these basics unaffordable to many Americans. We commit to reducing the cost of living through competitive markets, greater individual choice, and free trade with free people, while upholding the rule of law, freedom of contract, and freedom of association. Full faith and credit. The skyrocketing federal debt—which now exceeds the annual economic output of the United States—is an existential threat to the future prosperity, liberty, and happiness of Americans. We commit to building a constructive reform agenda that can restore America’s fiscal sustainability, ensuring that future generations inherit a more prosperous and secure nation than the one we now inhabit. A nation of laws, not men. Equality under the law is a foundational principle of American liberty. Unfortunately, today this principle is under attack from those who believe that the rule of law does not apply to them. One manifestation of this problem is the explosion of unaccountable and unelected regulators who routinely exceed their statutory authority and abridge Americans’ constitutional rights. The President should only nominate policymakers and judges who are committed to upholding these rights. Americans by choice. Immigration is a principal driver of American prosperity and achievement. America is exceptional because anyone—from any corner of the earth—can seek to live in America and become an American. Nearly all American citizens descend from someone who came here from somewhere else, and we must treat all citizens equally under the law. To this end, the United States, as a sovereign nation, has the right to secure its borders and design a rational immigration policy—built on the rule of law—that advances the interests and values of American citizens. Out of many, one. The best way to unify a large and diverse nation like the United States is to transfer as many public policy choices as possible to families and communities. Much of the discord in America today comes from the fact that too many decisions are made for us by centralized authorities. The Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for granting government the just authority to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power. America’s promissory note. Martin Luther King, Jr. described the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as containing “magnificent words…a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” Prior to 1964, however, slavery and segregation were enforced by state governments and, in many cases, by the federal government. Many who descend from victims of this system now face economic and personal hurdles that are the direct result of this legacy. We commit to expanding opportunity for those who face challenges due to past government restrictions on individual and economic freedom. We adamantly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms, either against or for any person or group of people. The shining city on a hill. American foreign policy must be judged by one criterion above all: its service to the just interests of the United States. Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world, led by the United States, in which other nations uphold individual liberty and the sovereignty of their neighbors. Freedom of conscience. Essential to a free society is the freedom to say and think what one believes to be true. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, federal and state governments have a legal obligation to uphold and protect these freedoms. Private institutions have a moral obligation to do the same. Note: Signatories to this statement speak only for themselves as individuals, and not for any institutions with which they are affiliated. Institutional affiliations listed below are for informational purposes only. Ian Adams • @IAtheTeapot International Center for Law and Economics Sara Albrecht • @SaraWynne Liberty Justice Center Tim Andrews • @Tim_Andrews Americans for Tax Reform Richard K. Armey • @DickArmey Former U.S. House Majority Leader Benji Backer • @BenjiBacker American Conservation Coalition David L. Bahnsen • @DavidBahnsen National Review Institute / Acton Institute Jeffrey Bailey • @JeffreyBaileyMA Grace Baptist Christian Academy Ashley Baker • @AndAshleySays Committee for Justice Ashley Baker • @AndAshleySays Committee for Justice Garrett Ballengee • @GBalleng Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy André Béliveau • @TheRealBeliveau National Taxpayers Union Foundation / John Locke Foundation Ralph Benko • @TheWebster The Capitalist League Brian Blase • @Brian_Blase Paragon Health Institute Drew Bond • @BondDrewBond Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions Donald Boudreaux Mercatus Center at George Mason University Adam Brandon • @Adam_Brandon FreedomWorks Buzz Brockway • @BuzzBrockway Georgia Center for Opportunity Matthew Brouillette • @MattBrouillette Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs Donald Bryson • @DonaldBryson John Locke Foundation Jeb Bush • @JebBush Foundation for Excellence in Education / Former Governor of Florida Jack Butler • @JackButler4815 National Review John Byrnes • @JohnByrnes13 Concerned Veterans for America Chris Cargill • @MtnStatesPolicy Mountain States Policy Center Douglas Carswell • @DouglasCarswell Mississippi Center for Public Policy Cindy Cerquitella America’s Future Alejandro Chafuen • @Chafuen Chase Foundation of Virginia Mona Charen • @MonaCharen The Bulwark Lanhee Chen • @LanheeChen Hoover Institution at Stanford University Neil Chilson • @Neil_Chilson Center for Growth and Opportunity Akash Chougule • @AkashJC Americans for Prosperity Andrew Cline • @DrewHampshire Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy John Colman Ave Maria University Carrie Conko • @CConko State Policy Network Charles C.W. Cooke • @CharlesCWCooke National Review James R. Copland • @JamesRCopland Manhattan Institute Kurt Couchman • @KurtCouchman Americans for Prosperity Johnny B. Davis Helms School of Government, Liberty University Soren Dayton • @SorenDayton Niskanen Center Ben DeGrow • @BenDeGrow Foundation for Excellence in Education Donald Devine • @DonaldDevineCo1 The Fund for American Studies Daniel Di Martino • @DanielDiMartino Manhattan Institute / Dissident Project Trey Dimsdale • @TreyDimsdale Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy Claire Kittle Dixon • @TalentMarket Talent Market Tiana Lowe Doescher • @TianaTheFirst Washington Examiner John Dodd North Carolina Center-Right Coalition Rick Esenberg • @RickEsenberg Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty Williamson Evers Independent Institute Michael Franc The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity James Franko Kansas Policy Institute Caleb Fuller • @CalebSFuller Grove City College Brian Garst • @BrianGarst Center for Freedom & Prosperity Peter Gattuso • @PhilliesGattuso Connecticut College Rick Geddes Cornell University Vance Ginn • @VanceGinn Pelican Center for Public Policy James K. Glassman • @JamesKGlassman1 Former U.S. Under Secretary of State Judge Glock • @JudgeGlock Manhattan Institute Jonah Goldberg • @JonahDispatch The Dispatch / American Enterprise Institute Francisco Gonzalez • @FGonzalez1978 Economic Club of Miami Andrew D. Graham Alliance Defending Freedom Dan Greenberg Competitive Enterprise Institute Russ Greene • @GreenPlusAnE Stand Together Trust Samuel Gregg • @DrSamuelGregg American Institute for Economic Research Alyssa Farah Griffin • @AlyssaFarah The View / CNN Joel Griffith • @JoelGriffith Heritage Foundation James Gwartney Florida State University David Harsanyi • @DavidHarsanyi The Federalist / National Review John Hart • @JohnHart333 Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions Jon Hartley • @Jon_Hartley_ The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity / Stanford University Kevin Hassett Hoover Institution at Stanford University Steven F. Hayward • @StevenFHayward University of California, Berkeley Christie Herrera Philanthropy Roundtable Todd Hester Yorktown Foundation for Public Policy Randy Hicks Georgia Center for Opportunity Quin Hillyer • @QuinHillyer The Washington Examiner Charles Hilu • @CharlesHilu73 Intercollegiate Studies Institute / Washington Free Beacon G. William Hoagland • @BillHoagland Bipartisan Policy Center Stacy Hock • @SAWHock Texas Public Policy Foundation / UATX Kim Holmes • @KimSmithHolmes Former Assistant Secretary of State John Hood • @JohnHoodNC John William Pope Foundation Alexandra Hudson • @LexiOHudson Civic Renaissance Scott Immergut • @ScottImmergut Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson & Good Fellows Paul Johnson • @OptAmerican The Optimistic American • Former Mayor of Phoenix Gordon Jones Mount Liberty College Pete Kaliner • @PeteKaliner The Pete Kaliner Show Daniel Klein George Mason University Andrew Langer Institute for Liberty Kent Lassman • @KentatCEI Competitive Enterprise Institute Russ Latino • @RussLatino Magnolia Tribune Institute Bill Laub Nevada Policy Research Institute Frank Lavin • @HelloFrankLavin Hoover Institution at Stanford University Joseph G. Lehman Mackinac Center for Public Policy Eli Lehrer • @EliLehrerDC R Street Institute Matt Lewis • @MattKLewis The Daily Beast Carol Platt Liebau • @CPLiebau Yankee Institute for Public Policy Dan Lips • @DanLips The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity / Foundation for American Innovation Mario H. Lopez • @MarioHLopez Hispanic Leadership Fund Richard Lorenc • @RLorenc Iron Light Rachel Lu • @RCLu Liberty Fund Carrie Lukas • @CarrieLukas Independent Women’s Forum James Manley College of Central Florida Bethany Marcum Alaska Policy Forum Casey Mattox • @CaseyMattox_ Americans for Prosperity Derrick Max • @DerrickAMax Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Heath Mayo • @HeathMayo Principles First Wilfred McClay Hillsdale College Brooke Medina • @Brooke_Medina_ John Locke Foundation Annette Meeks • @MeeksGOP Freedom Foundation of Minnesota Adam Meyerson Stand Together Mark Miller Pacific Legal Foundation Adam Millsap • @AA_Millsap Stand Together Trust Daniel J. Mitchell • @DanielJMitchell Center for Freedom and Prosperity Lorenzo Montanari • @LorenzMontanari Tholos Foundation / Property Rights Alliance Buckley Morlot Leaders on the Rise Jon Murphy • @JMurphy8289 Nicholls State University Iain Murray • @ISMurray Competitive Enterprise Institute Todd Myers • @WAPolicyGreen Washington Policy Center Grover Norquist • @GroverNorquist Americans for Tax Reform Brent Orrell • @OrrellAEI American Enterprise Institute Catherine R. Pakaluk • @CRPakaluk Catholic University Mike Palicz • @Mike_Palicz Americans for Tax Reform James Patterson • @McGillPatterson Ave Maria University Dan Peters Philanthropy Partners John Phelan • @Minnesotanomics Center of the American Experiment Andrea Picciotti-Bayer • @BayerPicciotti The Conscience Project Juliana Geran Pilon The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization Danielle Pletka • @DPletka American Enterprise Institute Ramesh Ponnuru • @RameshPonnuru National Review / American Enterprise Institute Art Pope John William Pope Foundation Phillip Prange • @PhilPrange Bradley Impact Fund Jason Pye • @Pye Due Process Institute Roger Ream • @RogerRReam The Fund for American Studies Vikrant Reddy • @VPReddy Stand Together Richard M. Reinsch II • @Reinsch84 Law & Liberty Tim Rice • @TimERice1 Washington Free Beacon Jay Richards • @DrJayRichards Discovery Institute McKenzie Richards • @McK_Richards Pacific Research Institute Victor Riches Goldwater Institute Kevin Riffe • @Kevin_Riffe West Virginia Center-Right Coalition Jenna A. Robinson • @JARobinson1 James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal Dalibor Roháč • @DaliborRohac American Enterprise Institute Noah Rothman • @NoahCRothman National Review Benjamin Rothove • @BenjaminRothove Keep Nine Coalition Karl Rove • @KarlRove The Wall Street Journal Avik Roy • @Avik The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity / Forbes Lucca Ruggieri • @Lucca_Ruggieri Keep Nine Coalition Peter St. Onge • @ProfStOnge Heritage Foundation Jack Salmon • @_JackSalmon_ Philanthropy Roundtable Alexander Salter Rawls College of Business and Free Market Institute, Texas Tech University Jeff Sandefer ED Foundation Christina Sandefur • @CMSandefur Goldwater Institute Gabriel Scheinmann • @GabeScheinmann Alexander Hamilton Society Christian Schneider • @Schneider_CM National Review Ilya Shapiro • @IShapiro Manhattan Institute Colin Sharkey • @ColinAAE Association of American Educators Steven Sheffrin • @SSheffrin Tulane University Timothy R. Snowball • @LibertyLaw1776 Freedom Foundation Andrew Spiropoulos Oklahoma City University School of Law Justin Stapley • @JustinWStapley Freemen Foundation Michael Steele • @MichaelSteele U.S. Vote Foundation Jim Stergios • @JimStergios Pioneer Institute Aaron Stover • @ADStover Heartland Institute Will Swaim • @WillSwaim California Policy Center Tyler Syck • @TylerSyck University of Pikeville / The Vital Center Charlie Sykes • @SykesCharlie The Bulwark Ed Tarnowski • @EdTarnowski EdChoice Andrew J. Taylor • @AJTFOSP Free & Open Societies Project, North Carolina State University Fernando Tesón • @FTeson Florida State University College of Law Wayne Thorburn Former Executive Director, Young Americans for Freedom John Toedtman Caesar Rodney Institute John Tillman • @JohnMTillman American Culture Project Mark Tooley • @MarkDTooley Institute on Religion & Democracy John Tsarpalas • @JTsarpalas Nevada Policy Research Institute Jim Vokal • @Jim_Vokal Platte Institute Joe Walsh • @WalshFreedom White Flag with Joe Walsh Jim Waters • @JimWatersBIPPS Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions Devon Westhill • @DevonWesthill Center for Equal Opportunity Joel C. White • @JWhite_Health Council for Affordable Health Coverage George F. Will • @GeorgeWill The Washington Post Kevin Williamson The Dispatch Paul Winfree • @PaulWinfree Economic Policy Innovation Center Scott Winship • @SWinshi American Enterprise Institute Dan Winslow New England Legal Foundation Aaron Withe • @AaronWithe Freedom Foundation Ryan Wolfe • @RyanWolfeTFAS The Fund for American Studies Tony Woodlief • @TonyWoodlief State Policy Network Kenny Xu • @KennyMXu Color Us United

Who is responsible for Idaho’s water supply? A generic answer would be ‘everyone.’ A more thoughtful answer would specify policymakers, cities, developers, tribes, and agriculture and resemble the group which discussed Idaho’s water situation on Monday, August 7th. Water interests from across Idaho met this week for Governor Brad Little’s Water Summit. Many representatives presented challenges and concerns for Idaho’s growing population. The messages overwhelmingly spoke of a decline in water resources across Idaho, with every region concerned about the historical downward trend in water resources. But Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke pointed towards the 98% of water used for farming and the remaining 2% for everything else, saying that the burden of sustainability falls on agriculture. So what are Idaho farmers doing to mitigate the water concerns, specifically on the Eastern Snake Plains Aquifer? Individual farmers across Idaho are adopting less water consumptive crops, new irrigation technologies, and better water management practices. But collectively, as water appropriation groups, the actions of agriculture seem more blame appropriating than water conserving. The ongoing dispute between water users in the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer was a major part of the Water Summit’s presentations. Twin Falls Canal Company, Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Bingham Ground Water District, and Minidoka Irrigation District presented their concerns for the water supply and the actions they’re all taking to conserve water. The four water groups respectfully discussed the challenging issue. Marc Gibbs, representing surface water users in the Twin Falls Canal company, shared the conservation practices their farmers are adopting and the historically low ground water levels their farmers face each year. He said he is kept awake at night because 2023 is expected to be one of the lowest groundwater years on record, leaving farmers in his district short on water. Jaxon Higgs, a hydrogeologist for the Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, explained that aquifer stabilization has not been done in the west and that this problem will take years to fix, with hard work not just words and plans. He also shared that the aquifer stabilization target keeps moving as new estimates are made on the size of the aquifer. Alan Jackson, from Bingham Ground Water District reiterated the many challenges groundwater users will face if water allotments for groundwater users are decreased, hurting the economies of farmers and rural communities. Scott Pugard, from Mininidoka Irrigation District, shared about the historical challenges in many water districts along the Idaho/Utah border, and reiterated the basic need for ongoing metering at all points in the process. All four parties care for the Eastern Snake Plains Aquifer but determining how to remediate this valuable resource is a challenging proposition. Farmers, rural communities, and the future growth of Idaho depends on the vitality of this $10 billion resource. The next steps forward to improve the aquifer need to fairly balance the responsibility of all farmers and water appropriation groups with the scientific reality of how much change is really possible in slowing a depleting aquifer. Governor Little said at this week’s meeting, “We really need to put a lot of our differences behind, and let’s take advantage of what we learned today. Our policies in Idaho demonstrate that we are true conservationists. These people are moving here because of what Idaho looks like, and how we manage water is going to be incredibly important going forward.”

They predicted the internet would slow down. Some said the internet would end. Neither has happened. This fall marks the six year anniversary of the end of "net neutrality" - a policy adopted in 2015 under the Obama Administration that seemed to target a problem that didn't exist. 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. The problem is it was a heavy-handed, government regulatory approach that actually would stifle competition and the freedom of the internet. And, to the extent that there was any issue in the first place, it would have been better dealt with using current laws that encourage and enforce competition. Meantime, 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%. And we see very few - if any - examples of ISP's blocking any content. Ironically, the only reports of that happening are coming from the companies that actually supported net neutrality regulations in the first place. 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 - to expand and improve access. Like critical infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewer and water) government can play a limited role in expanding access. But at what expense? Under the 2021 federal infrastructure law, states will be receiving hundreds of millions of dollars to connect more rural areas to broadband. The funds being sent to the Mountain States include: Idaho: $583,256,250 Montana: $628,973,799 Washington: $1,227,742,066 Wyoming: $347,877,921 The $42 billion total aims to expand access to 8.5 million people and businesses by 2030, meaning the government will spend just under $5,000 per hookup to get folks broadband in seven years.

Social media platforms have become an essential part of most of our lives, connecting people from across the globe and shaping the way we communicate. Two prominent figures in the tech world, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have launched their own social media brands— with the most recent by Zuckerberg, Threads, to be a direct competitor against Twitter. In this blog post, we will compare these two platforms and explore how they impact the concept of free market practice. Twitter: A newly reorganized "Free Speech" giant Twitter, founded by Jack Dorsey and now owned by Elon Musk after a $44 Billion purchase, is known for its short phrased posting and real-time updates. It has become a powerful tool for sharing thoughts, news, and engaging in public discourse. The platform's focus on freedom of expression has made it a hub for diverse opinions, breaking news, and viral trends. Twitter's impact on free market practice lies in its ability to facilitate direct communication between consumers and businesses, providing a platform for market feedback, customer service, and influencer marketing. Elon Musk's association with Twitter has further elevated its significance. Musk's influential presence on the platform has brought attention to various issues, including cryptocurrency, space exploration, and renewable energy. His ability to directly communicate with his followers and make announcements has sometimes caused market fluctuations, raising debates about the ethics and regulations surrounding CEOs' social media influence. Threads: Zuckerberg's Take on Private Conversations Threads, launched by Mark Zuckerberg, represents a different approach to social media. Positioned as a messaging app, Threads aims to foster more intimate and private conversations among users. The platform focuses on close connections, allowing users to share updates and communicate with their close friends and family in a dedicated space. Threads integrates with Instagram and prioritizes the user's inner circle over a broader audience. In terms of free market practice, Threads enables users to build smaller, more targeted communities for niche interests and market segments. Businesses can leverage this platform to foster deeper connections with their most loyal customers, providing personalized experiences and gathering valuable insights. By emphasizing privacy and limiting the reach of content, Threads also raises questions about the balance between user engagement and advertising revenue generation, challenging the traditional ad-driven business models of social media platforms. Impact on Free Market Practice Consumer Engagement: Both Twitter and Threads offer unique opportunities for businesses to engage with their audience. Twitter's open and public nature allows for real-time feedback, brand advocacy, and viral marketing. Threads, on the other hand, focuses on more personal conversations, enabling businesses to establish deeper connections with their customers and cultivate brand loyalty. Market Feedback and Research: Twitter's real-time updates and broad user base make it a valuable resource for businesses to gather market feedback, conduct surveys, and monitor trends. Threads, the newer of the two, has an emphasis on close connections, which can provide businesses with valuable insights into the preferences and behaviors of their most engaged customers. Influence on Market Sentiment: Both platforms, particularly due to the high-profile CEOs, have the potential to influence market sentiment. Elon Musk's tweets about Tesla, cryptocurrencies, and other ventures have sparked significant market movements, prompting debates about the role and responsibility of corporate leaders in influencing financial markets. While Threads may have a more limited impact, the influence of highly engaged communities should not be underestimated, especially when considering where the platform could be user wise a year from now. Where does that leave us? In essence, the creation of the platform Threads creates a free market approach in itself, by eliminating the arguable monopoly hold Twitter has been accused of having. Both platforms offer unique opportunities for individuals and businesses to express their opinions whether we like or agree with them or not. As these platforms continue to evolve, we will be able to see the in real-time, the effects these tech giants have on freedom of expression, privacy concerns, and the influence of powerful figures to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace. Everyone grab their popcorn, and enjoy the show! If you enjoy staying up-to-date on the latest fact-based information, please like, subscribe, and follow us on our social media platforms. Please see below: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mountainstatespolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mountainstatespolicy/ Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mountainstatespolicy Twitter: https://twitter.com/MtnStatesPolicy LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mountain-states-policy-center Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOvgqx1MWWAWHdoOlnJbsNg

Call it the state of education in the United States. A comprehensive, yearly public opinion survey by Braun Research and researchers at EdChoice asks adults their opinions on everything from traditional K-12 public schooling to education choice, what should be taught in the classroom and more. It's the 11th straight year the survey has been conducted. Overall, the public's view of K-12 remains low. Parents express slightly more optimism, but the number who say K-12 is heading in the wrong direction remains over 50%. When compared to charter, private and homeschool, parental satisfaction in public schools remains low. Most of the public is aware of charter schools, but only a third are familiar with education savings accounts and vouchers. Overall, ESA's are the most popular education choice policy. Most Americans strongly or somewhat favor open enrollment. The research also found Americans are much less likely to say their state’s funding is “low too” when shown a publicly recorded funding statistic, indicating that most Americans don't know how much funding actually goes to public schools.

As the summer heat intensifies, peak fire season is migrating north, but the critical practice of prescribed burning continues to avoid the western states. Oregon (4), Idaho (5), Montana (9) and Washington (10) suffered more acres burned than most of the United States in 2022, all ranking in the top ten states of acreage burned in 2020 to 2022 (rank refers to 2022). Utah (21) and Wyoming (22) trailed slightly behind. Despite the ongoing fire danger and consequences, prescribed burns are used sparingly on federal lands in the mountain states. In 2022, with millions of acres burning, Montana (32), Washington (35), Idaho (36), Oregon (37), Utah (42) and Wyoming (45) ranked in the bottom half of the United States for prescribed burning on public lands, average 0.08% of public lands treated with prescribed burning. On the other hand, states in the Southeast like Alabama and Georgia, treated over 40% of public lands with prescribed burning and experienced a much milder wildland fire season, ranking 19th and 24th respectively for total acres burned. Prescribed burning is underutilized in the mountain states because the federal government owns the majority of public lands. Tribal and state agencies in the mountain states are increasing the funding for prescribed burns, but the area managed by these authorities is much smaller compared to federal lands. For example, 61.6% of Idaho lands are owned by the federal government and only 8.8% are owned by the state. On the other hand, the Southeast has very little public land, and the states own the majority of the public land. This has allowed the southern states and tribal governments to quickly adopt necessary prescribed burning practices. The federal government’s feet dragging on prescribed burning keeps the mountain states from many positive benefits. Historically, Native American tribes worked with nature to encourage fires where they were needed, managing fuel loads and deterring extreme fire behavior. However, a century of fire suppression tactics has increased the fuel load and combined with hotter and drier weather to create the extreme fire seasons the mountain states experience annually. Despite the southern area of the United States burning more acres than the ten-year average in 2022, there were no significant fire incidents in Alabama and Georgia. Significant fire incidents are fires that burn over 40,000 acres and are common in the western states and Alaska. In fact, from 2018 through 2022, Georgia and Alabama had no serious wildfires resulting in death or serious injury or causing property damage. During this time California experienced 83 serious fires, Washington 43, and Idaho 27. The southern United States and tribal communities were the first to re-adopt prescribed fires to manage fuel loads and prevent significant fires. Tribes have been able to work within their smaller government systems to adopt prescribed burning practices and the results have returned once high-risk forests to healthier, historically correct states. This widespread adoption of prescribed fires was not passively attained in the Southeastern United States. In the 1990s, the southern states experienced repeated seasons of extreme wildfires. Lawmakers passed legislation to increase training and ease permitting for burns. Residents of the southeast tolerate the smoke from prescribed burns, understanding the resulting benefits and fire prevention. But for federal owned lands the battle is more cumbersome. Overwhelmed by red tape, lacking in generational knowledge of prescribed burns, and inundated with complaints of smoke inhalation and fire risk, federal lands still pursue mostly a fire suppression strategy. Fire resource budgets are almost entirely dedicated to suppressing fires no matter location or cause, and prescribed fires are rarely budgeted. Frustrating matters, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule this spring for the Clean Air Act that would further regulate smoke particles. The rule could add additional complications to the use of prescribed burning throughout the country. California legislators have urged the EPA to support prescribed burning, not further the difficulty. Federal lands in the mountain states have a long way to go before they catch up on the long list of unhealthy forests. Millions of acres need treated but only thousands of acres are treated annually. It will take years of prescribed burns and harvesting to restore the western lands. The Biden Administration’s delegation of $2 billion for prescribed burning practices in 2022, will not go far enough to remediate the situation. Estimated prescribed fire costs are between $100 and $1,000 per acre. In California there are an estimated 10-30 million acres that would benefit from prescribed burning, not to mention the millions of acres throughout the other western states. Federal officials need to act now to adopt prescribed fire practices on a scale that can provide an actual solution to the growing pressure of unhealthy forests and excessive fuel loads. Policies that would improve the use of prescribed fires include: Encouraging federal land agencies to request federal funding for sufficient fuel reduction projects and dedicating state-level funding Ensure the EPA’s proposed Clean Air Act rule will not hinder the use of prescribed burns Easing the permitting process so burn permits can be issued quickly (Idaho and Wyoming require longer than a day for authorization) Offer prescribed burn manager certification (only Washington offers it at this time) Adopt a right-to-burn act, allowing private landowners to burn on their own land (only permitted in Oregon and Utah). U.S. Senator Jim Risch, R-Idaho said in 2021, “The time has long passed to slowly chip away at our forest health issues and hope the problem will improve by next year. Idaho is 40% forestland, the vast majority of which is managed by government entities, and decades of insufficient forest management have left millions of these acres vulnerable to the kinds of catastrophic fires that have increasingly become the norm in the West.” Unlike wildfire, new policies are difficult to move uphill, but prescribed burning is worth the push. Western legislators have submitted multiple policies to remediate the western landscape, but progress has been sparse. The iconic forests of the mountain states need healthy, well managed fire to thrive. Prescribed burning needs rapid and significant adoption to be beneficial to the mountain states’ scenic region.

Representative Newhouse offers amendment to the subcommittee regarding BLM proposed rule. Picture Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw_FxL__frk&t=77s On July 19th, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a well-deserved check from the legislative branch on their attempt to expand the definition of a codified law. Under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLMPA) of 1976 the BLM is tasked to “manage the public lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.” “Principal or major uses” are specified as “domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.” Not once is conservation mentioned as a major use. But the BLM’s newly proposed “Landscape and Conservation Health” rule attempts to expand the definition of multiple use as “restoration and protective actions.” Mountain States Policy Center wrote on the problems of this rule and why actual conservation leases are a good theory, but this rule change is a bad proposal. Circumnavigating the authority of the legislative branch, the proposed rule attempts to give authority to the BLM, where none exists by law. The outrage and opposition from the western United States is understandable as the proposed rule would limit access to public lands and endanger many livelihoods and communities. Last week, Representative Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) offered an amendment to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill which would block funds from being used to finalize and implement the BLM’s proposed rule. Representative Newhouse said: “As Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I believe in the multiple-use mandate to produce sustainable yield—not lock up our lands from accessing the bountiful resources and beautiful views our public lands offer. “In the midst of record-high energy prices and food costs, this Administration wants to exacerbate the problem by proposing a regulation that would reduce resource development—including renewable energy—and ranching on public lands. “The BLM is confusing conservation for preservation by sidestepping Congress. They do not have the authority for this proposed rule and I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back.” Newhouse along with many others are protecting a vital resource of the western United States. More than 90% of the BLM’s 245 million acres are located in the West and Newhouse wants to protect access to those lands for their constituents. As the US Chamber of Commerce said, “Since federal law already allows the government to conserve land, the rule is not necessary. However, it’s implementation could threaten energy development and mining and grazing on public lands, which in turn could increase prices on food and energy for all Americans.” The states are also voicing their opposition. The Attorney Generals of Idaho, Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah all requested for the BLM to immediately withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety. The Attorney Generals cite that the “grave concerns for states…would inflict immediate injuries on State, public, and small business interests.” The Newhouse Amendment, adopted by the subcommittee via voice vote, provides a needed check on the overreach of the executive branch, protecting the future of the western United States. Federal lands are critical to the economic health of the west, and the damaging overreach of the executive branch needs to be stopped to protect the livelihoods and communities that depend on access to these public lands.

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with U.S. Senator Jim Risch (Idaho) Hydropower is an important source of reliable and clean energy for everyone in the Northwest, especially Idahoans. However, with the recent debate surrounding the Snake River dams concentrated on the benefits for and support in Washington State, we want to emphasize just how significant an effect these dams have on Idaho and why we must continue to protect them. As a U.S. Senator and the leader of an independent free-market research organization, we are unified in our effort to protect the Snake River dams and maintain their economic and environmental benefits for our region. Beyond us, there is strong, widespread support for the dams, including from Idaho officials and trade groups. The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation is on record, having written that the dams “produce a significant amount of affordable and environmentally friendly hydroelectric power to the region” while allowing farmers to “export their product to the world.” Additionally, the Idaho Legislature passed a resolution in 2021, stating it “supports the international competitiveness, multi-modal transportation, and economic development benefits provided by the Port of Lewiston and the Columbia-Snake River System.” But Scott Corbitt, General Manager of the Port of Lewiston, perhaps demonstrates the importance of the dams to Idahoans best. “The culture, business, and lifestyle of Lewiston revolve around the Clearwater and Snake rivers and the slack water, or pool created by the Lower Snake River Dams (LSRD),” Corbitt testified. “That Pool has developed opportunities for the Lewis Clark Valley that now serve as the lifeblood and supports an economy for around 65,000 people.” During a congressional field hearing last month, the Environmental Director for the Washington Policy Center, Todd Myers, summarized the severe damage that would result from eliminating the dams: “Spending $35 billion – or more — to destroy the four Lower Snake River dams would be counterproductive, not just for the climate, energy reliability, and the economy, but for salmon by misallocating resources that could do so much good across the region.” We could not agree more. But don’t just take our word for it. Look at the result of the only comprehensive, scientific, and public process: the Columbia River System Operations Record of Decision. This multi-year process, which was undertaken by both a Democrat and Republican administration, made one thing abundantly clear: dam breaching on the lower Snake River is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. Moreover, there is one salient point that is often overlooked in the debate about the Snake River dams: Congress authorized these dams, and only Congress has the power to remove them. Thankfully, many of the congressional members elected to the areas surrounding the Snake River dams are working to protect the economic and environmental benefits they provide. The Northwest Energy Security Act, which I, Senator Risch, introduced with Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and U.S. Reps. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), and Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) is a key part of this effort. While the lower Snake River dams are congressionally protected, our bill goes one step further by explicitly securing the energy, transportation, agriculture, and irrigation benefits the dams provide. Protecting the Snake River dams and other federal water infrastructure is pivotal to both Washington and Idaho. Together we’ll remain dam strong for the benefit of our region. U.S. Senator Jim Risch is currently serving his third term as Idaho's 28th Senator and previously served as Idaho’s 31st Governor. Risch represents Idaho’s interests on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Jason Mercier is Vice President and Director of Research for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free-market research organization based in Idaho.

Governor Brad Little has announced that the Idaho “Empowering Parents” program has received more than 14,000 applications. This is a remarkable accomplishment and show the desire by parents to have more options and more choices. The program provides eligible families with grand funds that they can use toward education expenses to help students recover from learning loss caused during the pandemic. Results show pandemic shutdowns erased two decades of progress in math and reading. “Eligible purchases include computers and technology, internet access, instructional materials, tutoring services, and educational services and therapies through approved vendors in the Empowering Parents online marketplace,” the Idaho state Board of Education says. While not technically a school choice program, it is very much an education freedom option. Each eligible family will have access to $1,000 per eligible student, with a maximum award of $3,000 per family. Parents and families want and need options that can supplement their child’s education. This is especially true for special needs kids who seemed to suffer the greatest learning loss during the pandemic. The popularity of the program – as well as education freedom advancements in other states – should get the attention of state lawmakers.

Call it one of the few good things to come out of the pandemic. Government agencies have finally figured out how to make their meetings more accessible to the public. Long before the COVID shutdowns, various state legislatures offered remote testimony. In fact, several states were a model for how to involve the public without requiring them to travel the long distances to the capital. But during the pandemic, even the smallest government agencies had to figure out a way to make the public meeting, well, public. This is especially difficult, it would seem, if you don’t let citizens into the room. Thus, the livestream meetings were born. Okay, they had been born long before COVID, but during COVID, they had their day in the sun. It wasn’t necessarily must-see TV, but it was a must. What happens now that, according to the president, the pandemic is "over?" Opinion writer Scott McIntosh at the Idaho Statesman reports that some Idaho state agencies are “dropping the practice now that we’re coming out of the pandemic.” McIntosh reports “the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole, for example, will stop livestreaming its meetings as of November.” It seems most agencies are going back to in-person meetings, which is a good thing. But that’s no excuse to stop the livestream as well. There is no legal requirement for government agencies in Idaho to livestream their meetings – but perhaps there should be. Legislators might want to consider the requirement in the next session. Families are busy. They don’t always have the time to show up to a council or government agency meeting and spend four hours sitting through a long agenda. Furthermore, livestream meetings that are recorded provide citizens with an archive of what happened at the latest meeting. It is another way to hold elected officials accountable. There is little cost associated with livestreaming a meeting – in fact, it can be as easy as getting a Zoom membership for $12 per month. Like it or not, we live in a world run by technology. Any government agency or elected official committed to transparency should welcome the livestreaming and recording of meetings.

Idaho and Montana are two of the fastest growing states in the country. Stop us if you’ve heard that before. The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s “American Community Survey” data again shows what most of us already knew. Between 2020 to 2021, Idaho saw a population increase of 3.4%, while Montana saw a jump of 1.8%. Washington and Wyoming, however, saw only 0.4% and 0.3% increases respectively. The American Community Survey is different from the Census in that the ACS surveys about 3.5 million households each year, rather than a complete count of the entire country. Given the attractiveness of Idaho and Montana, population increases are not surprising. Idaho and Montana’s regulatory burden remains low, and its tax structure is fairly competitive. Income tax rates, however, remain a concern and possible impediment to growth. Montana’s top individual tax rate is 6.75%. Idaho’s has been lowered to 5.8% but is still relatively high. Arizona, for example, just lowered its income tax to 2.5%. Utah’s income tax rate is 4.5%. While the population increases are interesting, perhaps the most surprising number is the amount of people working from home. That number tripled from 5.7% in 2019, to 27.6 million last year, or 17.9% - not surprising given the COVID pandemic. The ability to work anywhere has been attractive to workers, many of whom have relocated to states that might be different from their employer. The highest percentage of home-based workers is Washington state – with 24.2%. The national number of home-based workers is the highest since the data began to be reported in 2005.

It's as if COVID never happened. At least in some states. The latest estimates from Pew’s Fiscal 50 project show that, following the end of the first quarter of 2022, tax receipts since the start of the COVID pandemic were even higher than expected before COVID. This is remarkable considering the economic strain that the COVID lockdowns placed on the country. From the Pew Trusts report: “According to Pew estimates, Idaho led all states, with 16% more cumulative tax revenue than it would have collected under its pre-pandemic growth rate. New Mexico was second at 15.5% above the trend. Nationally, combined tax revenue at the end of the first quarter of 2022 was 3% above estimates of what might have been collected had the pandemic not occurred.” So, Idaho is doing well, and so is Montana at 6.2%. Wyoming and Washington, however, are not seeing results as positive. Still, Washington’s tax revenues continue to surge so fast that many are calling for major tax cuts. In Idaho, the legislature and Governor have already approved a reduction in the state income tax to a flat rate of 5.8% as well as one-time tax rebates. As we approach the 2023 legislative session in Idaho and Montana, policymakers should look for ways to further reduce the state’s income tax. Both Montana and Idaho’s income tax rates are still relatively high. Utah, for example, collects at 4.5%.

This fall, voters in Idaho will be considering Senate Joint Resolution 102. The measure would amend Idaho’s constitution to allow for the legislature to call itself into session if 60% of members agree. Currently, Idaho is one of only 14 states where only the governor can call the legislature into special, or “extraordinary” session. Most other states allow for the legislature – as a separate and co-equal branch of government – to make that determination, subject to some level of supermajority agreement (three-fifths or two-thirds). The National Conference of State Legislatures has a good resource here to review how other states handle the process. Senate Pro Tempore Chuck Winder has said the issue came to a head during the COVID pandemic. “We just though the legislature ought to have a roll in things like should you close a business, should you take the ability and persons right to make a living away. It shouldn’t all just be on one person’s shoulder,” Winder told KTVB. Idaho currently has a part-time legislature, and most citizens want to keep it that way. There has been concern that amending the constitution to allow for the legislature to call itself into session would lead a quasi-full time legislature, and therefore a burden on taxpayers. However, there are few examples of that happening. In Washington state, the legislature has the power to call itself into session and has never done so. Oregon passed a constitutional amendment in 1976 allowing the legislature to convene if it so chooses. The debate in Idaho seems to be more about the fear of the unknown versus the impact of the policy. Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center is one of the leading legislative experts in the nation. He says: “The authority of the co-equal legislative branch to call itself into a special session is standard practice for the majority of states across the country. To ensure that these “extraordinary” sessions of the legislature don’t lead to legislative transparency abuses nor limit public involvement, they should follow the same public notice and hearing requirements of regular sessions. One-day special sessions should be avoided to maximize the opportunity for citizens to meaningfully weigh in on the “extraordinary” reason for the legislature to be meeting.” Any legislative body – and co-equal branch of government – should have a constitutional right to convene when it so chooses. If the citizens believe the power is being abused, they can seek to remove those who abuse it.

The city of Boise lost its Major League Baseball affiliation in 2020 after the MLB restructured minor league baseball and aimed to cut facilities that it didn’t consider adequate. Boise’s Memorial Stadium was one of those facilities. Major League Baseball wants its remaining teams to improve their stadiums, and if they don’t, they’ll start moving teams. The threats are playing out in Spokane, where the Spokane Indians baseball team says it needs millions of dollars in stadium renovations. Originally built in the 1950s, the Indians' ballpark at the Spokane County Fairgrounds has proved useful at minimal cost to taxpayers. The original construction cost was less than $600,000. Now, the Indians want millions in cash from county taxpayers to cover a major portion of the $23 million-plus stadium renovations. Avista Stadium has been renovated and upgraded many times. Team officials told Spokane County Commissioners this week that they want the county to pledge to fund a certain dollar amount now, even though they cannot guarantee the stadium will operate in the black once its renovated. That means taxpayers paying now, and potentially later. Spokane County Commissioner Josh Kerns repeatedly asked for assurances that the facility wouldn’t continue to cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Team officials couldn’t give that guarantee. The loss of MLB-affiliation in Boise hasn’t removed baseball from the city landscape. After the MLB left, Boise joined the Pioneer League and increased the number of games it hosts each year. The team’s president told the Idaho Press “the talent level of the Pioneer League will be significantly better than what we experienced in the Northwest League over the last 30 years. It’s a different brand of baseball, it’s set up to be a higher level of baseball.” Taxpayers should not be held hostage by major league sports. Baseball is not a core function of government, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. Every dollar spent on stadiums and sports teams are dollars that can't be spent on public safety and true public needs. Boise hasn’t given in to MLB demands, and neither should Spokane. At the very least, taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill.

‘Help Wanted’ signs are reaching their full yield potential this time of year. An on-going labor shortage exists on most farms, packing sheds, and factories, intensifying during harvest season. Almost all industries are facing this challenge, but the agricultural labor shortage is more personal, impacting grocery shopping. A recent study by Texas A&M found, when farmers can’t hire workers, expect to see a continued rise in inflation, increasing food prices, and more empty shelves at the grocery store. This article sets aside immigration as a much larger federal issue and focuses on state efforts impacting the ag workforce. Less regulations, lower taxation, and avoiding agricultural overtime mandates will help farmers and ag businesses find and keep these valuable employees, which make harvest successful. The shortage of agricultural labor is nothing new. Pre- and post-pandemic, farms struggled to find willing workers. From 1950 to 2000, hired farmworkers declined by 52% and family farmworkers declined by 73%. The stressful and strenuous nature of the job, volatility of commodity prices, high start-up costs, and immigration all contribute to fewer farmworkers. State efforts can also negatively impact the employment environment, as in the case of Washington. Washington far outranks Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming in their number of agricultural workers. Unfortunately for Washington farmers, their state burdens them with more complications. Washington state requires multiple layers of regulation to hire H-2A workers, wastes tax dollars to hire uninterested local workers, and recently removed the agricultural overtime exemption. From 2002 to 2017, Washington saw the 2nd highest loss of agricultural employers in the nation, a 23% decrease. How is this different than other western States? Look at the border of Oregon and Idaho as an example. Oregon, following Washington’s lead, has enacted challenging ag labor legislation. The result urged some farms along the border to jump ship and move packing houses to the more friendly state of Idaho. Or even more sadly, small family farms gave up and the ground has been taken over by larger corporations that can more efficiently handle the staffing complexities. From 2002-2017, Oregon experienced a 6% loss in operations hiring workers, while Idaho increased their farm operations by 3%. Western states should avoid the bad examples of Washington and Oregon and focus on policies which ease farmers’ burdens and improve employment opportunities for agricultural workers. Idaho is doing this by keeping regulations low, and Utah (1% decrease) is helping their citizens by lowering tax rates. All families will benefit from these efforts every shopping trip, experiencing lower prices and better stocked shelves.

In just a few years, the United States will celebrate its 250th birthday. Through ups and downs, our struggle to make a more perfect union has continued. Each generation has dealt with major threats to the union, but perhaps the biggest threat facing the country today is the attack on speech – not only your freedom of speech, but language itself. In this upside-down universe, you can be “fact checked” if you don’t use government-approved language. You can be ridiculed if you dare say “pregnant woman” instead of “pregnant person.” And you can lose your job if you say what you really think about any current event. What has happened to our country? The editorial board of the New York Times recently ran a headline that read “America has a free speech problem.” The newspaper pointed to a survey that showed only 34 percent of Americans believe that they enjoy freedom of speech completely. And 84 percent say it’s a very serious or somewhat serious problem that Americans don’t or can’t speak freely without fear of retaliation. The stifling of speech and language eventually means the stifling of ideas. In 2019, when a debate on taxation was held at Gonzaga University, more than 80 percent of students said they had never before heard the free market argument on campus. Attempts to limit speech and the exchange of ideas are unacceptable and disgraceful. Elected officials must have the integrity to stand up and defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Public institutions and private businesses should not be telling workers or users what they can and cannot say, or what they can or shouldn’t think. The larger problem, however, may be the manipulation of language. In his dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, the late Justice Antonin Scalia declared that words, it seemed, “no longer had meaning.” Remember President Bill Clinton’s debate over the “meaning of the word is?” And consider the latest political dispute over the “Inflation Control Act” passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. The CBO analysis shows it would actually increase inflation. The bill does not do what the title says it would do. Yet, we are told the “Inflation Control Act” is an answer to rising costs. Words, speech, ideas – they all matter. And in a free country, they are critical. Because, as President George Washington once said, “if the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The citizens of the city of Spokane have reason to be upset. After nearly 80% of voters approved a city charter change demanding collective bargaining talks be open and transparent, it seems few in charge want to follow the law that citizens overwhelmingly demanded. Collective bargaining talks are the negotiations government unions have with government officials over salaries, benefits and working conditions. Because they involve millions of dollars of taxpayer money, they should be open and transparent. This doesn’t mean the public participates in the negotiations, but the public should be allowed to observe the process. This kind of process is not only good for taxpayers, but also for union members who are able to see how their union leadership is representing them at the bargaining table. As government transparency expert Jason Mercier writes: "The people have a right to know how public spending decisions are made on their behalf. Ending collective bargaining secrecy and opening government union contract negotiations to the public, as other states and cities have done, is a practical and ethical way to achieve that standard." The state of Idaho knows this. The city of Coeur d’Alene knows this. Coeur d’Alene has negotiated in public, and the union leadership has claimed that “no one shows up and it’s not a problem.” In fact, Idaho law prevents cities and unions from negotiation any contracts in secret. Democrats and Republicans passed the law unanimously and it was signed into law by former Governor Butch Otter in 2015. Washington state, however, is a different story. While numerous attempts have been made to bring sunshine to the secretive process, government unions have resisted every step of the way. The latest saga comes from Spokane, where unions have been suing the citizens since a 2019 charter change passed. The city of Spokane, for its part, hasn’t been pushing the issue. When the union lawsuit went before a district court judge, the city gave a weak defense, and the district court judge didn’t seem interested in knowing about the process or the need for transparency. Fast forward to this week’s Supreme Court appeal, and again lawyers for the city of Spokane gave a weak defense, essentially claiming there was no need for a lawsuit because the city wasn’t following the law to begin with. This blatant disregard for the will of the voters shakes the faith citizens have in government and government leaders. A Spokane City Councilmember told me he watched this week’s arguments with “dismay.” It is likely the Washington Supreme Court will rule in favor of the unions and overturn the Spokane requirement for transparent government-union talks. When it does, the citizens of Spokane can lay much of the blame at the feet of city leaders. Meantime, various forms of open, transparent negotiations continue in more than half the states – including Idaho - and taxpayers and union members are all the better for it.

Cities, towns and some states across the country have adopted various plastic bag bans. Some environmental activists and politicians in the Mountain States have also suggested bringing a similar policy here. The National Conference of State Legislatures has highlighted the trend. In Washington, the state legislature has already banned the bags and required consumers pay more – or bring their own bags – to any store. In Montana, legislators have considered something similar. In 2019, the city of Jackson Hole, Wyoming adopted a ban. The question is whether banning plastic bags makes sense and can help the environment? The answer is likely no. In fact, much of the research shows plastic bags can actually be one of the most environmentally friendly options. There are numerous reasons for this. First, plastic bags are reusable. Think about how many times you’ve reused a plastic bag to take a lunch to work, to clean up after your dog, or to fill a trash container in your bathroom. Without those bags available, consumers look for alternatives and end up buying more plastic bags. The school of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia released a study earlier this year: The study found California communities with bag policies saw sales of 4-gallon trash bags increase by 55% to 75%, and sales of 8-gallon trash bags increase 87% to 110%. These results echo earlier studies that also showed increases in sales of smaller plastic trash bags. Second, the plastic bag alternatives are not much better. The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a report in 2011 that highlighted the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic, and cotton bags is higher than single-use plastic bags. In fact, scientists said you’d need to reuse a cotton bag more than 130 times to have an impact on the environment. Danish researchers had similar findings. Environmental policy expert Todd Myers wrote this for RealClearScience: One of the most commonly heard claims is that plastic bags, and other plastic, have created the “Pacific Garbage Patch.” Some claim it is twice the size of Texas. This is simply false. Last year, Oregon State University reported that the actual amount is less than one percent the size of Texas. Oceanography professor Angel White sent out a release last year saying, “There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists.” Third, there are sanitation concerns. Most people who carry around reusable, cloth bags do not necessarily take care to make sure the bag is clean. Some may keep the bag in their backseat or the trunk of their vehicle. Others might only wash the bag once a month. The concern about sanitation was especially high during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a number of states that had adopted bans decided to hold off because of hygiene concerns. So, while plastic bag bans may make policymakers feel good, the research shows they are a very ineffective way to protect the environment, and can actually do more harm than good.