Sound Transit, the agency in charge of Seattle’s rail program , recently announced a shocking, $35 billion  cost overrun on the ST3 program, bringing total program costs to at least $185 billion - just for light rail. The latest bad news is on top of numerous cost overruns and delays associated with the Sound Move, and ST2 plans. With approximately 3.4 million people in the district, the new cost estimates equate to about $55,000 for every man, woman, and child within the district. This staggering taxpayer cost doesn’t even include long-term debt payments into the 2060’s, where future generations will shoulder the burden for decisions made today. Each of the three ‘phases’ for Sound Transit has involved missed deadlines, cancelled projects, and massive cost inflation. As Charles Prestrud of the Washington Policy Center  put it in August, the continual “underestimating” of costs, “finally caught up to them,” implying that the billions in current tax revenue aren’t enough to absorb the magnitude of cost overruns. The program had already announced runaway costs on its latest program, ST3.  The West Seattle link’s cost estimates have doubled to more than $7 billion, despite only increasing transit use by 1% over the bridge. Officials were far off the mark when they told voters the Ballard Extension would cost $5.2 billion to build, as cost estimates more than doubled   to a whopping $10.1 billion. This is a familiar story across the country as well. In New York, the most expensive subways (per-mile) in the world  are being built, while the rest of the system continues to be plagued by maintenance failures and delays. Estimates to bring the system to a state of good repair surpass $110 billion  alone. And who isn’t familiar with California’s High Speed Rail debacle, which recently had federal funding pulled due to project cost inflation and delays . Some areas are cancelling rail altogether due to the extreme financial burden of not just building rail, but operating it. Near Minneapolis, MN, officials have cancelled the Northstar Commuter Rail Line  because of a staggering $116 subsidy per ticket . Officials plan to replace rail with bus service that will cost 86% less and serve more people. In Portland, one local transportation expert said they should close their WES commuter rail line amid dismal ridership numbers and a $108 per ride taxpayer subsidy, and “admit they made a mistake”  in building the commuter line in the first place. Rail projects across the country continue to see massive cost increases. While Sound Transit did use expert review panels to check the feasibility of their programs, those processes haven’t ensured a well-run rail program. Ultimately, the Washington State Auditor’s Office or JLARC (legislative auditor) should step in and conduct a comprehensive performance audit to examine the causes of the overruns and delays. This is why infrastructure and transit programs should have strong controls in place to ensure financial accountability. Tying funding to performance measures, empowering oversight committees, and making transit board positions directly elected (rather than appointed) would go a long way to ensuring taxpayers receive what they are promised.

Protecting public lands has become the rallying call this year for groups and individuals across the political spectrum. In June, when Utah’s Senator Mike Lee proposed selling three million acres of federal lands, the outcry was overwhelming. The proposal was loose in its oversight, not designating the specific parcels of land. This detail was the match to ignite protests against any  sale or transfer of federal lands.   In fear of federal public lands being sold off to the highest bidder, a constitutional amendment was presented in early August by Idaho state Senator Ben Adams, prohibiting the sale of all future public lands. The proposed amendment reads:   “…all other lands granted to or acquired by the state by or from the general government shall be held in a separate trust as public lands of the state. The trust shall remain inviolable and intact for this and future generations. Such lands shall not be sold. Such lands may be exchanged, except with lands granted, exchanged, purchased, or otherwise acquired…“   The proposed constitutional amendment addresses two competing concerns in the public lands debate. Supporters of a land transfer recognize that the federal government is overwhelmed with western acreage and is a poor manager of public lands.   Those opposed to transferring federal land back to Idaho fear that the state’s constitutional directive to manage lands to maximize financial return will incentivize Idaho to sell off any public lands acquired from the federal government.    The federal government’s history as a manager of public lands is fraught with poor performance. In the West, over half of our states are owned by the federal government, whereas in eastern states ,  the federal government owns less than five percent, and often less than 1-2 percent. As the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, said when asked about Mike Lee’s proposal, “Half of the land in the West is owned by the federal government. Is that really the right solution for the American people?”    Much of the land in the western states is federally owned, with 96% of this land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, or the Department of Defense. The BLM is the largest federal land manager, with 99% of BLM land concentrated in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska. For example, 62% of the land in Idaho is owned by the federal government. This is the third-highest percentage in the country. The national average is 27%.   Source: Congressional Research Service     This inundation of federal acreage in western lands has led to poor management of fuels, pests, and diseases. Staffing shortages, existing before Trump’s second administration, have resulted in wildfires raging  out of control on federal land. Idaho’s Governor Brad Little said , “For too long, millions of acres of national forests in Idaho have remained totally untouched, creating a tinderbox of fuel that threatens communities, air quality, and the environment."    Additionally, projects like the finally canceled Lava Ridge  wind farm will continue to be unfairly shoved into the western states by Washington, D.C. landlords. Western states should be able to have a say in how public lands are managed and utilized within their borders.   But even with the federal government’s bad management and heavy-handedness, groups are still opposed to the transfer of public lands to the states, fearing public lands will be sold to the highest bidder. Section 8  of Idaho’s constitution mandates the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners to manage Idaho state lands “ in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted or to the state if not specifically granted; provided, that no state lands shall be sold for less than the appraised price.”   Idaho hasn’t been in the practice of auctioning off state land indiscriminately. The state acquired 54,000 acres of timber lands in the past nine years, and only sold 324 acres. This ensured that almost 97% of state lands remain open to the public. Should federal land be returned to the state, Idaho would be under scrutiny to maintain this same type of discipline.   In regard to the proposed constitutional amendment, Idaho state Senator Ben Adams said , “I think it changes the discussion. Instead of it being, ‘We have all of this land and we should sell it off.’ The sell-off needs to be off the table and instead ask, ‘Who’s going to manage it and who’s going to benefit?’ And I think the answer to that is the state should manage as much as we can actually manage and the land should benefit the people.”   The proposal has several hurdles to be adopted. First, the amendment must receive a 2/3 vote from the state legislature and then be placed on the ballot in November 2026 and receive a simple majority to be adopted.   In the upcoming public lands debate in the Idaho session, the state legislature needs to discuss whether all  federal land should be off the table. In Idaho, where 17% of the land is managed by the BLM and of that 80% is unappropriated (meaning no intended purpose), there are acres that warrant the question, can a small percentage of land often dominated by tumbleweeds be transformed into affordable housing? For example, a recent proposal by the American Enterprise Institute advocates for auctioning off 0.3% (850 square miles) of BLM land to build 3 million family-sized homes. This already falls within the BLM mandate. " The BLM Act authorizes the Secretary of Interior to auction off land at market value directly to the private sector, when ' disposal of such tract ' will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development.” Idaho’s housing shortage and highest home prices in the nation would be aided by this proposal. The public lands discussion needs to address the fact that the federal government is a poor steward and that a protected transfer back to the state is in Idaho’s best interest. It is important to remember that land will still be public whether it is federal or state-owned. As the legislature considers new constitutional protections for public lands, future flexibility to meet the growing affordable housing needs of Idahoans should also be considered.

The most expensive county in Wyoming to build a house thinks everyone should pay more to build a house. Does that make sense? In Teton County’s twisted logic, forcing residents to pay higher building fees to support “workforce housing” is the solution to its chronic housing shortage for lower-income residents. The fees apply even if those building include plans for rental units that would ease the problem. One Jackson couple is suing in federal court to stop the insanity. Given recent Supreme Court decisions, those who hope to build in Jackson should be optimistic the fees will be overturned. They should also prompt the county to reduce the regulatory burden – that helped to drive the average price per home in the area to $7.4 million earlier this year— and give notice to jurisdictions throughout the country that their unwise and costly housing policies are on the judicial chopping block. First, the back story: Trey and Shelby Scharp purchased five acres of land with a 1,000 square foot cabin in 2021. After navigating the most expensive and unwieldy permitting processes in the state and changing plans multiple times to accommodate requirements that wouldn’t allow them to build a separate rental unit in their basement (single-family code violation), they were told they needed to pay a $25,000 “workforce housing” fee in order to build their proposed modest house. They didn’t dispute it because they didn’t want to delay their project any further. Teton County determined these fees were necessary as a study it commissioned found that new builds produce jobs that don’t necessarily pay enough to live in the county. As Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the pro bono group representing the Scharps, described the situation, “Individual property owners who don’t control market wages or housing costs are forced to pay for broader economic issues they didn’t create.” And to put Teton County’s code and fee process in perspective, a 2023 state legislative study found that code and fee compliance in the locality adds an additional $64,000 per unit for developers building a 10-lot entry-level subdivision. In addition, obtaining all the proper permits averaged 1,034 days. By comparison, the study found that in Sheridan County codes and compliance added an extra $3,150-$6,150 for the same type of subdivision with a time frame of obtaining permits averaging 141-215 days. In Natrona County, compliance cost $4,290-$5,290 with a timeline of 123-125 days. Legally, Teton County’s case is as well built as the proverbial straw house. Multiple Supreme Court cases ( Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist and Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado ), show that, as PLF writes, “A plaintiff need not wait for a permit denial, file a variance, or pursue administrative workarounds in order to state a claim. Nor does subsequent negotiation, reduction, or even acquiescence to the demand eliminate the injury. The constitutional violation is not defined by the final amount paid or whether the government was successful in its demands, but by the coercive use of government power to force a rights-holder to choose between exercising their right or receiving a public benefit—here, a permit to build a family home.” Austin Waisanen, a PLF attorney litigating the case, said, “with that [Sheetz] decision and the growing bipartisan consensus recognizing that we can only build ourselves out the housing affordability crisis, it’s open season on these wrongheaded inclusionary zoning policies that assume that new construction would somehow worsen housing affordability.” He’s hoping for a decision within a month. May the decision spur cities and counties around the nation that require “workforce housing” fees—many in places where homes are exorbitantly expensive and out of reach for most residents – to reduce the regulatory burden to make more homes available and affordable. As the state legislative study notes, many regulations have nothing to do with safety. It recommends adding sunset provisions for codes, so that officials can review whether they were effective at regular intervals, and reducing regulation by five percent per year for five years or at a minimum, eliminating a code when a new one is added, among other ideas. Lawmakers can also consider the permitting reform adopted by Florida in 2021. That law 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. This reform is fixing housing challenges in Florida. These reforms and other suggestions would be a great place for Teton County to start laying the foundation to make housing more affordable in reality rather than in theory. In addition, the state legislature should also revive and consider 2025’s Senate File 40, which would ban workforce housing fees as a condition of building, to codify common sense.

Note: This is a joint op-ed with Peter Murphy ( Invest in Education Coalition ). The old saying that states are the “laboratories of democracy” was apt in the passing of the new federal school choice law as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” enacted in early July.   The school choice provisions in this landmark legislation will generate private charitable contributions from individual taxpayers to fund scholarships for children in private, religious, public or charter schools. This legislative design is modeled after nearly two dozen states with such tax credit donation incentives and precludes potential government entanglement in school autonomy and religious liberty.   The result of this law, effective in January 2027, will mean more private dollars funding scholarships for use in K-12 education, thereby expanding existing opportunities in more than 30 states with school choice, and filling voids in the 17 states with no private school choice options for families.   This new federal school choice law contains an income tax credit equal to 100 percent of a donation to a qualified not-for-profit scholarship granting organization (SGO). The amount a taxpayer donates, up to a maximum of $1,700 annually, will reduce federal taxes owed by the same amount, without having to itemize tax returns.   As important as this federal law is to expand education opportunity, the final version was the product of last-minute legislative sausage-making that warranted a proverbial R-rating. To comply with U.S. Senate Budget Reconciliation rules, known as the “Byrd” rules, two key changes had to be made to the school choice provisions: the amount of the maximum annual donations by a taxpayer was lowered to $1,700, and each of the 50 state governors was given the choice whether their state would participate in the law. That means governors get to decide if their own state’s children will have access to school choice opportunities.   To take effect in a state, governors have to “opt in,” as this provision is informally described, by annually submitting a list to the U.S. Treasury Department of the SGOs in their respective states that “meet the requirements” of the federal law. There has been some confusion that legislatures need to pass a law designating a state SGO. That isn’t necessary. Existing entries can be designated as a qualifying SGO by governors.   Though Governors have the option of not opting in by doing nothing, this would send the message to nearly all  their state’s schoolchildren to buzz off. Yes, all schoolchildren in a state stand to benefit from this federal school choice law because it allows SGOs to serve children in private, religious, charter and public schools. That is because SGOs can award scholarships for tuition and a range of other education expenses such as tutoring, online courses, special needs services, school supplies, software and more – meaning students could remain in a public school and benefit from a scholarship to meet supplemental needs.   Importantly, when governors determine whether to opt in, the federal law is clear that it’s an all-or-nothing decision; that is, governors must list the SGOs that “meet the requirements” of the federal law, regardless of the SGO's mission, philosophy or choice of eligible expenses covered by its scholarship awards to children. In other words, a governor can’t list their favorite SGOs and exclude others, nor can governors impose extra-legal requirements on SGOs as a condition to be listed.   For a state like Washington, which has few school choice opportunities, the federal tax credit would enable families with limited means to access private and religious schools and supplement instruction and resources for students at district public schools. For those states with existing choice options like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, opting in would supplement existing state choice options and reach more students while not spending a dime of state tax dollars.   States participating in this federal tax credit is a “win-win” scenario that provides students scholarship opportunities to pursue the public or private education model that fits their learning needs at no state cost. Governors should choose to help all the children of their states with greater private resources for K-12 education. The choice is obvious.   Peter Murphy is Senior Advisor at Invest in Education Coalition . Jason Mercier is Vice President and Director of Research of Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), the region’s fastest-growing free market think tank, announced today that Dana Perino, co-anchor of America’s Newsroom on Fox News and former White House Press Secretary, will be the keynote speaker at its Spring Dinner in Boise on April 25, 2026.   The organization also announced that it is changing its dinner schedule starting next year - holding the annual Spring Dinner in Boise and Fall Dinner in Coeur d'Alene. Each will be held on a Saturday night.   Perino, one of the most respected voices in American media and politics, served as Press Secretary for President George W. Bush, becoming only the second woman ever to hold the position. Today, she is a bestselling author, a co-host of The Five on Fox News, and a trusted commentator on issues shaping the nation.   “Dana Perino is known for her thoughtfulness, her insight, and her commitment to civility in public life,” said Chris Cargill, President & CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “We are honored to welcome her to Boise, and we know our guests will be inspired by her story and perspective.”   MSPC's Spring and Fall Dinners have quickly become one of the most anticipated public policy events in the region, bringing together leaders from business, government, and the community to celebrate ideas that expand opportunity and freedom.   This fall, MSPC is welcoming legal analyst Jonathan Turley at its dinner in Boise October 9th. Anyone who registers and attends the October 9th dinner will receive a discounted ticket to the Spring Dinner with Perino.   Sponsorship opportunities and table reservations for both dinners are available now HERE.   About Mountain States Policy Center Mountain States Policy Center is an independent, free market think tank dedicated to advancing opportunity, prosperity, and individual liberty across the Mountain West. MSPC provides research and policy solutions to empower citizens and promote government accountability.

Imagine being told you can’t record what your own government is doing. That’s exactly what happened in Jerome recently, when a reporter was told they couldn’t film a public school board meeting. Think about that: a school board, funded by taxpayers, making decisions that affect families, students, and teachers—telling the press and the public to put their cameras away. That’s not transparency. That’s secrecy. To his credit, Superintendent Brent Johnson admitted afterward that the policy was wrong and promised to change it. But here’s the real problem: this wasn’t a one-off. Public officials too often treat “open meetings” as if they’re doing citizens a favor by letting them in the room. That’s not how democracy works. Government belongs to the people, and the people have every right to see it in action—without barriers, excuses, or restrictions. The Idaho Press Club got it right: banning recording is “beyond unreasonable.” The Constitution protects the right to report and record, and Idaho’s open meeting laws exist to prevent exactly this kind of closed-door behavior. But let’s be honest—just allowing someone to sit in a room isn’t good enough anymore. In 2025, when nearly every citizen carries a high-definition video camera in their pocket, when businesses, churches, and even youth sports teams livestream their events, there’s no excuse for government meetings to be stuck in the 1950s. Other states are moving forward. Montana passed a law requiring school boards, city councils, and county commissions to record and post their meetings online. They didn’t just talk about transparency—they made it the law. Idaho should do the same. Why does this matter? Because families are busy. Parents are working jobs, shuttling kids to activities, and putting dinner on the table. Most people don’t have the luxury of sitting through a two-hour meeting on a Tuesday night. But they should still have the ability to see how decisions are made, how their tax dollars are spent, and whether their elected leaders are serving them—or themselves. Livestreaming and archiving meetings is not complicated. It’s not expensive. In fact, it’s the cheapest insurance policy for trust in government. Put a $200 camera in the back of the room, hit “record,” and upload it to YouTube. Done. If a school or city claims they can’t afford it, they’re not being honest—they just don’t want the public watching too closely. Here’s the plain truth: when government resists transparency, it’s usually because it has something to hide. And that’s exactly why every meeting should be recorded and shared. Transparency isn’t optional. It’s the foundation of trust. The people of Idaho shouldn’t settle for vague promises of openness. We deserve laws that guarantee it. Montana got it right. Now it’s Idaho’s turn to step up. If our kids’ soccer games can be streamed, why can’t our school board meetings? If churches and civic clubs can post recordings, why can’t city councils? The only reason is because some officials would rather you didn’t see what really happens when they think no one is watching. Well, it’s time to start watching. No more excuses. Record every meeting. Livestream every meeting. Archive every meeting. Let the people see what their government is doing—because it’s their government, not the politicians’. In a free state, the camera should always be rolling.

You can cash that check now. On August 7, 2025, President Trump delivered a federal solution to remove the regulations that result in politicized or unlawful debanking. The executive order ,  “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans," states that:   “It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicized or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Banking decisions must instead be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses.”   Debanking is the process where a bank customer is returned their money and told their accounts are closed without reason and no access to an appeals process. Customers are cut off from basic economic activities. For criminals utilizing the banking system, this is a great tool to cut off financial access and aid law enforcement. But for law-abiding citizens debanking can victimize them for their political beliefs.   For example, under the Obama Administration, banks were discouraged from conducting business with firearm retailers and manufacturers and payday lenders. The Biden Administration exploited this practice to cut off financial services to political opponents. In a February 5, 2025, Senate Banking Committee Hearing , Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said :   “It is incredibly alarming and disheartening to hear stories about financial institutions cutting off services to digital asset firms, political figures, and conservative-aligned businesses and individuals.   Under the Biden administration, we’ve seen the rise of what many are calling Operation Chokepoint 2.0, where federal regulators exploited their power, pressuring banks to cut off services to individuals and businesses with conservative disposition, or folks aligned with industries they just didn’t like – like the color of one’s skin in my family’s history.   The message is crystal clear: no regulator, and no bank, is above the principles of fairness and market access.”   The new executive order focuses on the use of reputational risk, which is the risk banks take when serving certain customers. An undisclosed banking policy expert said , “You had regulators coming in and saying, ‘We determined this industry to be riskier than this one, and so, therefore, you should have to do all these additional requirements in order to do business with this company.'”   As the problem grew and the national government delayed providing a solution to this federally created problem, some states, including Idaho, attempted to create solutions for their citizens. This patchwork of state protections, like Idaho’s Transparency in Financial Services Act  (passed in 2025), was designed to prevent debanking within the individual states, but these policies complicate an already murky issue without going after the real culprit.   In response to the executive order, Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) signed a coalition letter  supporting the new protections for bank customers. The letter also recommends the following policy changes: "Increase the $10,000 threshold that triggers the creation of a Currency Transaction Report, which has not been updated since it was implemented when Richard Nixon was in the White House." "Update requirements for when and how often banks have to file Suspicious Activity Reports." "Bring accountability and transparency to how agencies issue guidance and conduct examinations of financial institutions."   The real solution for debanking has always been ensuring that federal changes protect customers from discriminatory practices, not add to the complexity of existing banking regulations. This new executive order is a positive step forward. MSPC will continue to support national efforts to remove politicization from the banking process.

Washington state politicians - and many more around the country - cheered when the Albertsons-Kroger merger was blocked. They said it was about protecting workers and consumers. But walk through Kent, Renton, or Shoreline today and ask yourself—are families really better off? This week, Kroger announced it will shut down at least six Fred Meyer grocery stores in Washington state . Hundreds of workers will lose their paychecks. Thousands of families will lose a neighborhood store. Shoreline’s mayor warned the closure will leave a “food desert” in his city. Union leaders admit the closures will be “devastating” for employees. Politicians said the failed merger was a win. Today, it's a gut punch to working families. The truth is, the Albertsons-Kroger merger was about survival. Grocery competition doesn’t just come from the store down the street anymore—it comes from Amazon dropping food on your doorstep, Walmart offering rock-bottom prices, and Costco selling everything in bulk. Albertsons and Kroger needed each other to stand a chance. But politicians in Washington, D.C., Olympia and Seattle couldn’t resist meddling. Washington state, in fact, spent $1,100 an hour fighting the merger , even though union leaders supported it. Politicians pressured regulators to block the merger, calling it anti-competitive. The irony? The real anti-competitive move is closing stores. An empty storefront doesn’t give families more options—it wipes them out. Now, instead of stronger regional competition, Washington families get fewer choices, longer drives, and lost jobs. Rural and working-class communities will feel it the most. It’s time to stop pretending that stopping businesses from adapting is somehow “protecting consumers.” If politicians truly cared about competition, they’d welcome efforts to build grocery chains strong enough to take on Amazon, Walmart, and Costco. Instead, their grandstanding has left our communities worse off. The closures in Kent, Renton, and Shoreline should be a wake-up call. When politicians play politics with our economy, it’s ordinary people who pay the price—at the checkout line, in lost jobs, and in shuttered stores.

To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, there they go again. Opponents of parental choice in education are reviving their favorite scare tactic: the "voucher" boogeyman. Six months ago, the Idaho legislature passed and Governor Brad Little signed one of the nation's best education choice programs - a parental tax credit. Those who opposed the measure are stuck on the same old talking points. They've launched a renewed effort to label the program a voucher - even though the facts clearly show it is not. They know the term carries political baggage, and they use it to scare parents and mislead the public. One legislator recently wrote, "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck." But here’s the truth: Idaho’s new Education Choice Tax Credit, established by House Bill 93, is not a voucher. It’s a tax credit. And it’s the most responsible, parent-focused education choice program in the country. A screenshot from a recent Idaho State Tax Commission webinar. In a recent webinar , the state tax commission confirmed the credit is not a voucher. A voucher is a government payment that flows directly from the state treasury to a private school. That’s not what Idaho has created. House Bill 93 empowers families directly. Parents can claim a tax credit against their state income taxes for education-related expenses. The money never passes through a government agency before it’s spent. That’s a fundamental distinction. The program puts parents in charge—not bureaucrats, not politicians, and certainly not school districts that want to maintain a monopoly. Opponents know this difference. They just don’t like competition. They prefer a system where parents are forced into one option, regardless of whether it fits their child’s needs. By crying “voucher,” they’re trying to frame choice as some kind of attack on public schools - even though public schools are not harmed by this legislation. In fact, the state's K-12 budget is increasing. In reality, choice is about helping kids succeed—whether that’s in a public school, a private school, a homeschool, or through tutoring and specialized programs. The policy in House Bill 93 is popular. MSPC polling finds a super majority of Idahoans support it , which may explain why opponents feel the need to try and change the messaging in a hurry - before the first children benefit. The bill sets the gold standard for how to expand educational opportunity responsibly. It has accountability, a reasonable starting cap, and flexibility that ensures families can use it for what works best for their child—private tuition, homeschooling materials, therapy, or tutoring. No other state has a plan this well-designed, this family-friendly, and this protective of taxpayers. Idaho is leading the nation by showing how you can expand opportunity without creating runaway government programs. Parents, not politicians, should decide what education looks like for their kids. That’s what Idaho’s tax credit delivers. We shouldn't let opponents distort the truth with tired talking points. This isn’t a voucher and it's not a duck—it’s a victory for families and a model for the nation.

Note: This is a guest op-ed by Louis Villacci of the Pacific Legal Foundation. When the Supreme Court issues a ruling, whose job is it to enforce it? Everyone who’s taken high school civics can tell you the executive branch enforces the law. But what happens when the law needs to be enforced against  the executive branch? Meet Caleb and Rebecca Linck . The Lincks are normal, everyday people who own a small parcel of land in Bonner County, Idaho. After the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tried to unlawfully claim authority over nearly a quarter of the Lincks’ property, Caleb and Rebecca decided to fight back. Caleb and Rebecca Linck own a simple plot of land that has been in their family for over 40 years. The Lincks’ dream is to one day use the land for agricultural purposes. That dream is in danger because the Army Corps is not following the law. Immediately north of the Lincks’ property is a 35-foot-wide gravel road owned by the county. Beyond the road is a purported “swale” which, about 350 feet from the road, allegedly abuts a relatively permanent tributary of a nearby stream. But none of that is on the Lincks’ land. The Army Corps hasn’t collected reliable onsite data related to the swale and tributary because it couldn’t get the permission of the landowner to access the northside property. The Lincks hired a wetlands consultant to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act, and because their land is one mile from the nearest stream and two miles from the nearest lake, they were not expecting any trouble. In May of this year, Caleb and Rebecca were surprised when the Army Corps claimed authority over nearly a quarter of their land pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, Congress prohibited the discharge of pollutants to “navigable waters” (defined as “the waters of the United States”) and gave regulatory authority to both the EPA and the Army Corps. In Sackett v. EPA , the Supreme Court held the term “waters” in “waters of the United States” is limited to only “relatively permanent” bodies of water such as “streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” In other words, a “water” should be obviously water.   “Wetlands”—which are not traditionally recognizable “waters”—may only be regulated incidentally to such bodies of water. Thus, federally regulated wetlands must have a continuous surface water connection to, and be indistinguishably  part of , a body of water.   It's hard to imagine how an isolated plot of land fits that definition. But the Army Corps believes two or more wetland areas can be combined to constitute a single wetland. Using this logic, the Army Corps claims the Lincks’ property is one wetland with the alleged swale north of the county road. Because the swale allegedly abuts a tributary to a nearby stream, the Army Corps claims the CWA grants it broad authority to control the land. The Army Corps is essentially arguing that the Lincks’ land , despite being multiple steps removed from any water, is a navigable water. Sackett closed the door on the Army Corps’ argument. The Court said “a barrier separating a wetland” from a covered water “would ordinarily remove that wetland from federal jurisdiction” so long as the barrier was built lawfully. This prohibits the Army Corps’ daisy-chain theory to extend its authority beyond certain barriers. Here, the county road to the north of the Lincks’ property is one such barrier, preventing the Army Corps from claiming authority over the Lincks’ land. Therefore, even if the Army Corps is correct about the alleged swale and tributary across the road from the Lincks’ property, under Sackett , the Army Corps is prohibited from lumping both pieces of land together and claiming authority over it all because of the barrier—the county road separating the land. Under Sackett , the Army Corps’ argument must fail. The Lincks are not alone. All across the country, the Army Corps is trying to work around the plain text of Sackett  to lay claim to countless acres of privately owned land. More people like Caleb and Rebecca need to stand up in defense of private property and the rule of law. When government agencies try to impose their will on the public by finding workarounds to avoid following the law, someone must stand up for individual liberties. It’s everyday Americans like Caleb and Rebecca Linck who stand up and enforce the law against an overreaching government. Louis Villacci is a litigation fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that defends Americans’ liberties against government overreach and abuse. He can be reached at LVillacci@pacificlegal.org .

Changes are coming to Idaho’s current budget with Governor Little acting swiftly to focus on government efficiencies in response to changing revenue projections. As we previously highlighted , Idaho’s balance sheet when the budget was adopted had very strong fundamentals, leaving a $345 million (6.2%) ending fund balance, $880 million (14.8%) in unrestricted general fund reserves, with a total reserves balance of $1.307 billion (22.1%). Most states couldn’t show a balance sheet this strong when adopting their budgets. It is because of the state’s strong fiscal management that Fitch recently reaffirmed its top AAA credit rating for Idaho. Fitch noted : “Fitch believes the state is well positioned to absorb multiple rounds of recent tax cuts and dedicated spending allocations from the general fund, given Idaho's prudently managed budget with significant one-time spending that rolls off to create fiscal capacity.” Although the economic fundamentals for the state continue to trend in the right direction, consumers and businesses have been more cautious with spending money. According to the latest revenue projections for the state, forecasted sales tax collections are softening. Showing that the state’s economic fundamentals are still trending in the right direction, however, forecasted income tax collections are still good. As noted by the Governor’s press release : “Idaho’s economy is strong, resilient, and growing rapidly, fueled by smart fiscal management, a strong labor market, and record-setting gains in personal income, jobs, and GDP . . . Idaho’s personal income is projected to grow 32% over the next five years and wages are expected to grow 15% over the next five years.” In response to the softening in consumer spending, Governor Little issued an Executive Order on August 15 saying that “Idaho will further improve government efficiency and reduce government spending.” While holding K-12 education spending harmless, the Governor is also ordering holdbacks  of three percent for other parts of the budget. From the Governor’s Executive Order : “To ensure that state government continues to administer its business efficiently and effectively, all executive departments, offices, and institutions of the state (agencies) must follow the steps outlined below: review all current operations and determine if consolidation or reduction of services, offices, bureaus, or agencies could improve efficiency and reduce overall spending . . . My administration will collaborate and partner with the Legislature to continue to identify and implement more efficiencies in state government. I commend the Legislature and agencies for identifying obsolete, outdated, and unnecessary statutes pursuant to the Idaho Code Cleanup Act passed by the Legislature this year, and I look forward to working with the Legislature to streamline Idaho Code and further Idaho's efforts to reduce regulatory burdens.” While Idaho continues to focus on spending discipline and government efficiencies, states like Washington are instead considering even more tax increases in response to changing revenue projections. Despite the state’s strong fiscal management, it hasn’t been able to escape the impact of ever-changing and unpredictable federal economic policy. This is true for other states as well. Sales tax collections have been softening nationally as businesses and consumers try to navigate the impact of tariff tax increases and increasing prices. Some of this uncertainty about the tariff tax increases may clear up soon. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the unilaterally imposed tariffs are unconstitutional . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit  heard the appeal in that case  in late July. A ruling is expected soon. Mountain States Policy Center joined an amicus in the case. While all states are impacted by economic decisions at the national level outside of their control, Idaho policymakers shouldn’t second-guess the budget decisions they made this year. A budget is adopted based on the economic data available at the time. Had lawmakers prioritized more spending instead of returning revenue to taxpayers, the same challenges would exist. Leaving an even larger ending fund balance on top of the very large existing reserves would have led to accusations of hoarding taxpayer dollars. Realizing that a 10% reserve is considered healthy, Idaho has significant capacity to draw from its nearly 15% unrestricted savings account (22% in total reserves), without imperiling its budget stability. These strong reserves provide lawmakers with alternative ways to address the softening sales tax collections should consumer confidence not rebound soon. If the revenue forecast improves, the three percent holdbacks can be rescinded or reduced. By taking action early in the fiscal year to right-size the budget and focus on government efficiencies, while not reducing K-12 education appropriations, Governor Little is taking decisive action to avoid a potentially larger problem in the future while providing time for sales tax collections to stabilize. The “Idaho Way” is one that other states can learn from to manage their budgets.

House Bill 93 — Idaho’s new education choice program — is already shaking things up. And that’s a good thing. For too long, many public schools have assumed families will automatically choose them. Those days are over. As Quinn Perry of the Idaho School Boards Association recently told school leaders , “It’s time for you to start marketing yourself.” She’s right. Parents want to see results — not just hear promises. The real question - why did it take so long (and the passage of new legislation) for public school leaders to realize this? Whether a family chooses public, private, or homeschool, every school should be able to clearly explain how it’s helping students succeed. Test scores, graduation rates, career readiness — these aren’t just numbers. They’re proof points. And if a school can’t show them to parents, it runs the risk of losing those families to other options. House Bill 93 is more than just a tax credit — it’s a catalyst for innovation in education. By giving families up to $5,000 (or $7,500 for students with disabilities) to use on private education options, homeschooling expenses, or tutoring, the program empowers parents to choose the learning environment that best fits their child. That flexibility encourages all schools to raise their game, sparks new ideas in teaching, and ensures that education funding follows students, not systems. HB 93 puts parents in the driver’s seat — and when families have the power to choose, students benefit most. There's a reason why a super majority of Idahoans supported the tax credit. Some critics of HB 93, including Idaho State Board of Education President Kurt Liebich, worry about accountability. Fair enough. But here’s the catch: those accountability questions should apply to all schools — including the ones funded with billions in taxpayer dollars every year. Before lawmakers expand HB 93, Liebich wants to know: Where did the money go? Is it improving achievement? Is it hurting rural schools? Good questions. Now, let's ask them of the public system, too. Competition isn’t something to fear — it’s something to embrace. HB 93 could push every Idaho school to do what it should have been doing all along: prove its value to families, earn their trust, and proudly tell its story. When schools compete to deliver the best education, students win.

Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL) recently released its 2025 Freedom Index Rankings  for states. SEL is a global leader in power system protection, automation and control solutions. The SEL report ranks the most economically and politically free states in the nation. It utilizes data from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Cato Institute, and various government agencies to identify the optimal business and trade environments nationwide. SEL found that Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana are attractive states, but Washington continues to trend in the wrong direction for economic freedom. SEL considers three pillars for its rankings: government efficiency, regulatory freedom, and energy resiliency. The top five states according to SEL are South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota. The poorest performing states are Vermont, New York, Hawaii, California, and Maine. Wyoming was ranked number two for the second year in a row. The Cowboy State’s success can partially be attributed to its lack of an income tax. Wyoming also has a very low regulatory burden and continues to evaluate how it can promote a business-friendly tax and legal system. In addition to no state income tax, the Wyoming legislature passed property tax relief for homeowners during the most recent legislative session. Idaho continued to rank in the top five nationally, coming in at number four. This year, Idaho lowered its corporate and individual tax rate from 5.695% to 5.3%, making it the largest tax cut in Idaho’s history. SEL noted that issues to keep an eye on include “housing affordability, and water resource sustainability” to accommodate future growth. Montana secured the tenth place ranking from SEL. Along with Idaho, the Treasure State enacted major tax relief this year. The various income tax changes adopted are expected to save taxpayers more than $750 million over the next four years . Montana was also ranked as the best state for business startups this year . It is home to the highest percentage of business startups per 100,000, and the highest rate of survival from 10-year-old startups. In 2021, Montana created the Red Tape Relief Task Force , and it has successfully amended or repealed 25% of its state regulations. Montana will likely move up in future SEL rankings if it continues this progress. Washington State was once again reminded that its regulatory and business climate is very deficient. The Evergreen State was unable to improve its poor ranking of 35 th in the nation for the second year in a row. This ranking could’ve been worse, but other states such as California and Connecticut drove their states even farther in the wrong direction. As states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana look to assess the best way to lower the tax and regulatory burden on their business environment, Washington did the exact opposite. Washington legislators this year decided to substantially increase taxes on businesses and individuals, resulting in one of the largest tax increases in state history. This includes  a business and occupation tax rate increase, expansion of the sales tax, increases in the death (estate) and capital gains income tax, elimination of certain tax preferences, and additional taxes on luxury items and electric vehicle credits. SEL warns  on Washington: “The current climate is increasingly unfavorable, particularly for small businesses, manufacturers, and technology firms. These measures have all intensified an already burdensome regulatory environment, and the state’s score and overall competitiveness will likely decline in future years as a result.” The SEL report reveals the stark differences between the tax and regulatory priorities in the Mountain States. Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana continue to work to lower taxes while spending revenue efficiently. Washington instead continues to invent new ways to tax its residents and businesses without addressing its overspending problem. As demonstrated by the SEL Freedom Index, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are making their business environments more politically and economically free, while Washington is heading in the opposite direction.

Note: This is a guest op-ed by Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center. It has been fifty years since the four dams on the Lower Snake River were completed. Originally built to provide transportation, they now create the equivalent of one-third of the electricity generated in Idaho, helping balance the growing amount of wind and solar energy across the Pacific Northwest. And for virtually all of those 50 years, those who want to destroy the dams have predicted they would cause the extinction of Snake River salmon. In the late 1990s, anti-dam activists purchased an ad in the New York Times predicting that unless the dams were destroyed, “wild Snake River Spring Chinook salmon … will be extinct by 2017.” In the late 1990s, that prediction seemed plausible. Salmon populations had declined dramatically. In 1995, just 1,105 Spring Chinook passed the Lower Granite Dam, the farthest upstream of the four. Thirty years later, returns are much larger. Population improvements have been slow, but positive. However, some still claim that extinction is right around the corner. In 2021, environmental activists wrote  that if the dams weren’t removed, Spring Chinook would be “nearly extinct” in 2025, adding for dramatic flair, “that’s not hyperbole.” Instead, this year returns of Spring Chinook at the Lower Granite Dam were almost twice as large as when the prediction was made. The Snake River Fall Chinook run has been above Washington state’s recovery goal since 2002 . The largest-ever scientific assessment of the dams, completed by the federal government, recommended keeping the dams because the evidence showed that salmon could recover with them in place and provide the energy that will become even more valuable and critical as electricity demand increases in the upcoming years. To be sure, those of us who have spent decades working on salmon recovery across the Pacific Northwest understand that Snake River salmon need help. There is understandable frustration with the slow pace of recovery and the Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe noted that “decades of habitat restoration work and improved fish passage technology at the dams haven’t restored the populations to levels that can be de-listed under the Endangered Species Act.” That is also the reality for salmon across the Pacific Northwest. Decades of habitat restoration work across the region have not delivered the promised increases. Focusing only on the Snake River misses the larger reality that salmon recovery in general is hard. The good news is that there is progress. Snake River salmon runs are much larger today than in the 1990s. About 98 percent of young salmon successfully pass each dam on their way to the ocean. Some politicians and activists have resorted to grasping at simplistic and costly silver-bullet solutions for salmon recovery. Such thinking distracts from the more mundane, but critical, efforts to save salmon. There are many things we can do to help the salmon short of wasting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. The Washington Academy of Sciences found  that the growing population of seals and sea lions at the mouth of the Columbia River is having a significant impact on salmon returns. They recommend reducing the population in order to help more salmon make it back upstream. As Peter Kareiva, who served as the chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy, wrote in an analysis opposing the removal of the dams, “The problem is that a complex species and river management issue had been reduced to a simple symbolic battle—a battle invoking a choice between evil dams and the certain loss of an iconic species.” He concluded that “it has become clear that salmon conservation is being used as a ‘means to an end’ (dam removal) as opposed to an ‘end’ of its own accord.” A lot has changed in the fifty years since the dams were completed. The value of the electricity they generate is more valuable than in 1975. While they are still far from recovery, the number of salmon returning is much larger. Hopefully, fifty years from now salmon returns will be even larger and the dams will continue to provide the energy that will become even more important for the region’s economic prosperity. Todd Myers is the Vice-President for Research at the Washington Policy Center, a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy based on free-market solutions. He can be reached at tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org .

Medicaid is a joint federal and state-controlled health care insurance entitlement. It is not financially sustainable in its current form unless the federal debt or taxes are significantly increased. Our new study explores ways that states can reduce the financial burden for their taxpayers, while ensuring that their most vulnerable citizens continue to have access to health care. Medicaid eligibility was initially defined as:       1. All children in families with incomes of less than 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL);       2. All adult caretakers of eligible children;       3. Elderly people not receiving supplemental social security benefits;       4. The legally blind; and       5. The disabled. The Affordable Care Act of 2010, aka Obamacare, greatly expanded Medicaid to any low-income, able-bodied American between the ages of 18 to 64. The original ACA bill forced states to participate in the expansion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this provision to be unconstitutional and left it up to individual states to decide on expanding their programs. Forty states, plus D.C., have chosen to expand their programs . The enticement in Obamacare for states was an increased federal payment match of 90 percent. Medicaid is now one of the largest budget items for every state and is the largest entitlement program for the federal government. For this expensive taxpayer investment, d oes having Medicaid health insurance actually save lives or improve health more than being uninsured? Except in very specific cases, the answer is no. A lottery-based expansion of Medicaid in Oregon in 2008 provided the opportunity to compare health outcomes. The two-year results of the subsequent health comparison study were published in  The New England Journal of Medicine.  The conclusion is surprising. It turns out that having Medicaid health insurance does not improve health outcomes, nor does it improve mortality statistics , compared to having no insurance coverage at all.   Another tragedy for Medicaid patients is limited access to care in some areas because of poor provider payments. States have the leeway to set reimbursement rates for doctors and medical facilities, but traditionally, these payments have been very low. Depending on the medical specialty, Medicaid pays physicians 30 to 50 percent of what private insurance pays. Hospital payments are likewise less than Medicare payments and considerably less than private insurance. No doctor or hospital could pay their overhead and keep their doors open with only Medicaid’s poor reimbursements. The reality is that not every provider can afford to see Medicaid patients, which limits recipients’ access to care. It is very clear that simply having health insurance does not guarantee timely access to health care. Rather than keep Medicaid spending increases on autopilot, state lawmakers can consider several reforms. These policy updates could include waivers, eligibility checks, block grants, and more patient control of health care dollars. We detail the various options in our new study   For example, the Idaho legislature recently passed a Medicaid reform bill into law. The legislation establishes a 20-hour-a-week work or community service requirement for able-bodied enrollees in Medicaid. The law also asks the federal government for waivers to place the state’s Medicaid program in a comprehensive managed care plan, as well as a waiver to establish cost-sharing in the program. In addition, the law includes an increase in provider payments to better align with Medicare reimbursements. The fiscal note estimates a savings of $15.9 million in 2026 and $27.2 million in 2027 and beyond. Although Idaho voters passed the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in 2018, the new legislation is potentially an excellent start at meaningful Medicaid reform. The massive expansion of Medicaid is completely understandable. Elected state officials have looked at the program as a federal piggy bank. They can feel good about providing health insurance to the poor, with the federal government paying over half the costs. In a sense, Medicaid could be considered the first step to a single-payer health care system in the United States. Although it appears that the federal money for Medicaid is “free” money for states, elected officials need to remember that federal taxpayers are also their state taxpayers. For meaningful reform and to ensure that the most vulnerable patients can still access the program, state officials must be willing to make the necessary changes to the entitlement. They should be willing to go to the federal government and push for sensible reforms. They must be willing to confront criticism and do what is necessary to guarantee Medicaid’s viability for those truly in need and for whom the program was originally designed to assist.

Because of the way health care has evolved in the United States over the past 80 years, it is extremely complex and now involves employers, the government, and various insurance companies. Yet, health care is simply an economic activity, albeit where the activity between a provider and a patient is the most personal interchange an individual will ever have. However, because of the complexity, the vast majority of patients in the U.S. don’t completely control their medical finances and, in many cases, their medical decisions. Almost 90 percent of Americans have their health care provided through their employer or the government via Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. Likewise, health insurance companies often dictate what medical procedures or medications are allowable. Direct primary care (DPC) changes that entire dynamic. There are some minor variations, but in its simplest form, DPC is a contract between a patient and a primary care physician. The patient usually pays a fixed amount of money per month and then has unlimited access to the medical provider for routine types of care. There is no insurance or government involvement. Most practices limit the overall number of DPC patients they will accept. From the patient’s standpoint, DPC offers real continuity of care and allows the provider to develop a meaningful relationship with the patient. From the primary care provider’s perspective, there is an opportunity to really get to know their patients, there is an average savings in overhead of around 40 percent , and the provider has the ability to practice medicine without interference from any third party. The number of DPC practices is growing, going from 100 in 2009 to over 2,500 in early 2025 . A patient in a DPC practice still needs to have a major medical or catastrophic health insurance policy to cover hospitalizations or other large medical expenses. In this case, insurance functions as it should to pay for infrequent, unpredictable events rather than day-to-day medical expenses. Half of all Americans receive their health insurance through their employer or their spouse’s employer. To save costs, there is growing interest among employers to utilize DPC for their employees . Likewise, there have been DPC practices that limit themselves to the Medicaid entitlement population with initial success. Seniors in the Medicare program have the ability to access DPC as well. Although attempts have been made by state insurance commissions to classify DPC as health insurance and to then regulate it, these attempts have been unsuccessful. By any definition, DPC is clearly not any type of insurance. Health care costs and expenses continue to increase in the U.S. Direct primary care is an excellent tool to hold costs down, while giving patients more control over their health care decisions and dollars, and giving providers more freedom to practice medicine without third-party interference.

As Americans hit the road this summer, what types of transportation-related taxes will they be paying? We answer this question in our new study ( Transportation taxes and spending throughout the Mountain States ). Highway infrastructure is funded primarily at the state and federal level, with every state in the country levying a tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, ranging from $0.0895 per gallon in Alaska to $0.629 per gallon sold in California. The federal government taxes gasoline at $0.184 per gallon and diesel fuel at $0.244 per gallon. Other road and highway funding comes from license fees, vehicle registration fees, tolls, general taxation, truck fees, title fees and other taxes and fees. Similarly, metropolitan, county, and city governments might also impose taxes and fees for roads and transportation. These can involve property taxes, sales taxes, car registration fees, fuel taxes, or other taxes and fees. Gasoline taxes, tolls, registration fees, and others are generally considered “user fees.” User fees are paid by drivers to support building, maintaining, and expanding the road and highway network they use. Sales taxes and property taxes, though often paid by drivers, are not considered user fees, as they are broad-based and not specific to the act of driving, registering, or operating a motor vehicle. Yet, as is often the case with government programs and taxes, politicians may look to divert dedicated driver user fees to other, more general, transportation purposes. Recently, lawmakers in many states have proposed and enacted new driver-related taxes and fees, seeking to divert money to other purposes, like public transit and cycling, while unfunded needs and maintenance continue to grow. In fact, a recent Pew Charitable Trusts study  stated deferred maintenance on roads and bridges across the country has reached more than $100 billion and continues to grow. In the Mountain States, the state excise tax on gasoline as of July 2025 is as follows: Idaho - $0.32 per gallon; Montana - $0.33 per gallon; Washington - $0.554 per gallon (not including the impact of the state climate tax); and Wyoming, $0.24 per gallon. Since 1980, lawmakers have increased the federal gas tax and Wyoming’s gas tax three times, increased Idaho’s seven times, increased Montana’s eight times, and increased Washington state’s 14 times. As lawmakers increased the fuel tax rates, more revenue was generated for highway accounts. Despite many public officials claiming gas tax revenue has not kept up with inflation, state gas tax revenues have soared far beyond, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Additionally, one reason cited for potentially declining fuel tax revenues is the adoption of electric vehicles. Yet lawmakers in the Mountain States have already considered this by imposing an annual $140 electric vehicle fee in Idaho, $130 annual fee in Montana, $225 annually in Washington state, and $200 annually in Wyoming, allaying concerns of officials that EV’s are not paying for their use of the road network. Each of the Mountain States has some form of constitutional protection against diverting gas taxes and fees to other purposes. Yet subtle differences in languages provide openings for diversion. Some states allow for diversion under certain circumstances, for example, in Washington state, if the law states that a gas tax or fee is not  intended for highway purposes, it may be diverted. In Montana, the legislature can divert protected fees for non-highway purposes through a supermajority vote. In addition, other driver-related taxes, such as the carbon tax in Washington state, effectively tax gasoline at approximately $0.43 per gallon, to the cost of gas at the pump in 2023, but revenues are diverted to other programs . For more than a decade, states like Washington, Oregon and Utah have moved forward with pilot programs to tax VMT, vehicle-miles traveled, or the amount people drive (another term used for this type is a RUC – a Road Usage Charge). Presumably, this would require either GPS monitoring, tracking and reporting or some kind of odometer reading. Boosters argue it is a fair way to pay for roads. Yet some lobbying groups and lawmakers want to use highway dollars for mass transit. Transit lobbyists like the Transportation Choices Coalition in Washington state say it wants an “ Equitable Road Usage Charge ” that is a “progressive user fee that could be used for multimodal transportation.” While a VMT tax has the potential to replace a fuel tax responsibly, policymakers should focus on the following areas to ensure taxpayers are protected should they desire a mileage tax: Taxpayers should not pay a fuel tax and a mileage tax concurrently, even with a refund mechanism; A mileage tax should be a direct replacement of the gas tax, which means it is deposited into each state’s respective trust fund to be used for highway purposes only. A tax that is diverted to other purposes is not a replacement of the fuel tax; Strict protections on GPS tracking or eschew GPS tracking altogether; Costs to administer the program should be on par with current fuel tax collection costs; and Taxes should not vary by time of day, road choice, or distance. It has been nearly a century since the first gas tax was imposed on the traveling public, and for 100 years it has been used to benefit the traveling public, with constitutional protections to realize those benefits. Any exploration of a mileage-based fee, new tax on fuel, or special taxes and fees paid by drivers should be spent to directly improve personal and business travel on the state road network instead of indirectly through other modes like transit.

While funds may be temporarily paused for the nearly 4,000 families approved to receive education savings account funding in Wyoming pending judicial review, they should not lose hope. The law and common sense are on their side. In his injunction earlier this month to halt the program authorized by the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act , Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher said he thought the legislation violated the Wyoming Constitution’s ban on direct appropriations to people, corporations or communities as well as to religious institutions or associations. He also believed it conflicted with the Wyoming Constitution’s promise to provide a “complete and uniform” public education system. Third, he was concerned that the ESA program could harm plaintiffs – the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) and a number of public school parents -- as some private schools might not accept their children because of their gender status; and that it could harm public schools as they likely would lose money as a result of students leaving district schools. Let’s unpack these misguided arguments. The Wyoming Constitution Article 3, Section 36 states, “ No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association.” Judge Froelicher and opponents of the legislation have seized on this passage as a “gotcha” against the program. But that is a misreading of the ESA legislation. The law does not send money directly to families; it sends it to the Wyoming Department of Education, which then administers the funds according to the program rules. Wyoming already does this in many other parts of the government. For example, it sends direct cash assistance to individuals, with funds coming from both federal and state sources, through the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services. It provides health insurance to low-income individuals via Medicaid through the Wyoming Department of Health. In addition, it gives state grants directly to nonprofits through the Wyoming Arts Council. Do all those programs violate the Wyoming Constitution? No. Neither does the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act, as funds allocated for the program are administered through a state agency, just as the aforementioned. Second, courts across the country have repeatedly addressed the issue of whether education savings accounts violate “complete and uniform” clauses in state constitutions. The verdict: they don’t. Research  from Mountain States Policy Center shows that they are meant only as a baseline requirement or floor and do not ban additional programs As noted by the West Virginia Supreme Court, “We find that the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of these things.” And as Thomas Fisher, director of litigation at EdChoice  Legal Advocates – interveners  in the case along with the Institute for Justice — said, the requirement is “not a floor without a ceiling but a floor without a roof” in the case of Wyoming. He noted Article 1, Section 23 of the state constitution, which pushes the legislature to not only provide a suitable education but to “encourage means and agencies calculated to advance the sciences and liberal arts.” In other words, legislators are supposed to strive for excellence by reviewing and enhancing the state’s education program as necessary, not just accept the status quo. Lastly, the idea that private schools would discriminate against some children is pure speculation without evidence. And as the state wrote earlier this month in its pleadings to dismiss the case, public school funding has always increased or decreased based on student enrollment.  The state’s brief said , “Funding is a means to an end, not the goal … Districts have no legal entitlement to additional funding beyond that required to educate their enrolled students. Accordingly, if student population reduces for any reason—whether the ESA program, the military base closing, or a bust in mineral development—the school district’s costs and funding are both affected. The school district is not legally entitled to more funding, so it cannot have a legally cognizable claim based on the funding being reduced with the model.” For all these reasons, the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act deserves to stand, and the injunction against it should be reversed. In the interim, Gov. Gordon should opt Wyoming into the school choice enhancements created by the “ One Big Beautiful Bill ” that President Trump recently signed into law. That legislation will allow individuals to receive up to a $1,700 tax credit beginning on January 1, 2027. These funds come from donations to scholarship granting organizations, generating more money for school choice and giving families greater ability to find the school, tutor or curriculum best suited to their child or children. To access these funds, however, states must opt in first. Combined, the state and federal education choice programs will unlock a new and more competitive and accountable education marketplace in Wyoming.

Mountain States Policy Center supporters Bill & Milly Kay Baldwin Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) is proud to announce the official launch of the Bill & Milly Kay Baldwin Center for Education, a new research and advocacy hub focused on expanding educational opportunity and defending student-centered policy reforms throughout the Mountain West. Named in honor of longtime MSPC supporters and seed funders Bill and Milly Kay Baldwin, who have generously pledged a large gift to make the center possible, the Baldwin Center will serve as a leading voice for education freedom in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. “Bill and Milly Kay Baldwin are visionaries who understand the urgent need for innovation and accountability in our education systems,” said Chris Cargill, President and CEO of MSPC. “Their investment will allow us to further research and defend proven policy reforms like Idaho’s House Bill 93, as well as build momentum for broader choice and accountability in our region.” The search for the Baldwin Center's full-time director will begin immediately ( full job description and application information available here ). The center’s initial focus will be on the implementation of House Bill 93, the nation’s strongest education choice law, recently enacted in Idaho. The Center will conduct outreach to families, host public events, and publish original research demonstrating the value of giving parents more control over their children’s education. Over time, the Baldwin Center will broaden its efforts to include additional policy research, legislative tracking, education transparency, coalition-building, and improving outcomes for children across all four states served by MSPC. Tax deductible contributions will help expand the center's work, and can be made here. “Every student deserves the freedom to learn in the environment that works best for them,” the Baldwins said. “We view this as a gift to children for generations to come.” MSPC 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. The organization’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.

Public dollars should always be spent wisely and efficiently, especially on infrastructure that touches nearly every home, school, and business. That's why Montana Governor Gianforte is happy to see President Trump's move to slash red tape in the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. In June, Governor Gianforte praised the new federal guidelines that eliminate “needless obstacles” that the previous administration had put in place. This policy shift makes it easier for Montana to use its $629 million in BEAD funds more efficiently and effectively, particularly in the state’s unserved and underserved areas. Congress established the BEAD program in 2021 , marking it as the biggest broadband investment in the history of the United States. It was supposed to offer states the resources and tools they need to close the digital divide. However, for many states, the path was stifled by federal regulations that often limited flexibility and proved an obstacle to controlling costs. In Montana, that has translated to longer timelines, higher prices, and fewer local solutions. That’s changing now. Montana and other states are no longer required to favor only one type of broadband technology, whether it be fiber, cellular, or wireless, under new “Benefit of the Bargain” guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Rather, they are directed to explore all alternative technologies, such as wireless, satellite, and fixed-wireline technology. This tech-neutral approach allows states to concentrate on outcomes. As Governor Gianforte observed, with this reform, “... the Montana Broadband Office can now get the right technology at the best price to implement this historic investment... ” That kind of flexibility is essential in a state with challenging geography and vast distances between communities. Getting rid of onerous rules does not mean getting rid of accountability. It is allowing states to design broadband solutions that fit their communities, avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C. This plan will help allow the dollars for broadband to go further and flow faster. It also provides an example for other states that are going through their implementation of BEAD. Getting rid of federal red tape is a good start. Freeing states up to make the best decisions for their communities most efficiently and effectively is how we will best close the digital divide. Montana's efforts are on track with many of the key principles promoted by Mountain States Policy Center. As states receive billions in BEAD dollars and other federal broadband grants, it's crucial they resist the temptation to build government-owned networks or adopt one-size-fits-all models pushed by Washington, D.C. Instead, policymakers should focus on tech-neutral, market-driven solutions that encourage innovation, foster private-sector competition, and avoid long-term public liabilities.