Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Senator Patty Murray’s report on destroying the Snake River Dams proves it would be deadly and catastrophic for the region. Some of their key findings: "The increased road traffic if not mitigated after dam removal is predicted to result in increased road accidents and fatalities, as well as increased road infrastructure repair and maintenance costs." "...breaching the LSRD would impact irrigated agriculture by cutting off access to groundwater wells and river pumps that currently draw water from the surface of pools behind the dams." "... the costs to replace irrigation infrastructure in the event of breaching would be borne by the landowners and farm businesses in the local economy, unless a relief package were put together to support the transition." You can read the full report here: https://www.murray.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/LSRD-Benefit-Replacement-Draft-Report_20220609.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery&fbclid=IwAR2VSJeBvePQZ0Y9Yhyfd2KcPK3aYnspc_2DKq94hgmlm8CQU4qwkaa1c2E

The snowpack in most of the Mountain States is healthy and, in some areas, some of the deepest in years. It's a far cry from the predictions of doom and gloom from some politicians, including Washington Governor Jay Inslee. The numbers as of June 5th are below.

Nearly 500 lawmakers across Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and Montana begin meeting in January for their state’s regular legislative sessions. Some sessions will last more than 100 days, while others will be limited to just 40. ​ Policymakers will be dealing with a host of issues including budget surpluses, rising crime, the tax burden, homelessness, federal overreach, separation of powers and more. Each state will be adopting an operating budget. ​ This publication is intended to give elected officials numerous ideas on policy issues important to the people of their states. The ideas are presented in no particular order and additional resources are included at the end of each section. Readers will also find the results of our exclusive 2022 Idaho Poll located throughout this publication. ​ Nothing written here shall be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation. READ FULL STUDY HERE >>

In an era of electrification and increased power demand, it makes no sense to remove a clean, renewable source. So far, sanity is prevailing. How long that will last is anyone’s guess. The latest attempt to remove the lower Snake River Dams has been pushed back, for now. Language to remove the dams has been removed from the Water Resources Development Act. That Act is included in the federal government’s NDAA – the National Defense Authorization Act. Idaho Senator Jim Risch led the effort to remove the language. Senator Risch says: “The Water Resources Development Act should strengthen our water infrastructure, not dismantle it. Removal of the Snake River dams would inflict an unthinkable cost on the Northwest, all while worsening sky-high energy prices and inflation. I fought to remove language aimed at dam breaching from WRDA and remain flatly opposed to removal of the lower Snake River dams.” The lower Snake River Dams are critical to the infrastructure of the region, providing not only power benefits, but also reductions in flood risk, crop irrigation and much more. As Senator Risch points out, “following a four-year comprehensive scientific study of the Columbia River System Operations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration released a record of decision in September 2020 affirming the four dams’ critical importance to the region.” Unlike wind and solar power, the Snake River dams provide more than 1,000 average megawatts of reliable, carbon-free energy that can be turned on at any moment. That's enough energy for over 800,000 average U.S. homes. If we are serious about protecting the environment, we will keep the dams in place.

Cell phone taxes and fees are soaking up more family budgets. But the amount you pay depends on where you live. The newest Tax Foundation report shows taxes and fees on "the typical American wireless consumer increased to a record high 25.4%." This is yet another example of where competition has lowered prices but you wouldn't know it because taxes and fees are increasing costs. In fact, the wireless market is one of the most competitive parts of our economy. The average price for wireless services has actually come down, but the reductions are offset by higher taxes, as the Tax Foundation points out. The amount you pay in our region is on the two extremes. In Washington, consumers are dishing out the second highest cell phone taxes and fees in the country - an average of 32.9%. Meantime, Idaho has the lowest wireless tax at 15.0%.

The release of our Idaho Poll this week has, rightly, received a lot of attention. Digging through the numbers, just about anyone can find something they like or something of which they might disagree. On education data, the results were pretty clear and can be summarized with three simple points: The public thinks education is a top priority and doesn't mind spending more money The public thinks K-12 public schools and student outcomes are in poor shape The public is unsure what exactly "school choice" or education freedom means - but those who do know support it In reality, none of this is a huge surprise. But the results do lead to a whole host of other questions, particularly on the issue of spending. For years, if not decades, education activists have repeated the claim that public education is underfunded. How many times have you seen the stories of teachers having to purchase their own school supplies? It shouldn't be a surprise that the public thinks that schools need more money. But even when government education budgets increase dramatically, it never seems to be enough. Consider the fact that many state budgets spend the most on K-12 education, including Idaho and Washington. In both states, K-12 funding makes up roughly 50% of the state's total spending. And that's just the state portion. Millions more for schools come from local funding via levies, and federal funding. From Idaho: Where is that money being spent? How much do we spend per student, per year? It varies by school district and by state. Idaho's largest school district, for example, has resources to spend nearly $15,000 per student, per year. For a classroom of 25 students, that is $375,000. Anyone who believes we should spend more on K-12 education must be able to answer two simple questions: what amount will be sufficient and how will we know when we are spending enough? Unfortunately, these questions are never answered. Should we spend $20,000 per student?Maybe $30,000? Should a state spend 60% of its budget on K-12? How about 80%? What other priorities would be squeezed out if policymakers decided to pour even more into K-12? There is little correlation between education spending and achievement. If spending were the key, the United States would have the best schools in the world, as the U.S. spends more than any other developed nation. It’s no longer good enough to simply say all problems would be solved if only the system had more money. States that spend the most don’t necessarily have the best outcomes, and states that spend the least don’t have the worst outcomes. The majority of other states, including the District of Columbia, offer various education freedom options for families. They recognize that one size does not fit all and that we must be willing to try new things to improve educational outcomes for all children. Now is the time for policymakers to clearly define education freedom and show how it can improve outcomes for all. This isn’t about shutting down public schools. As the West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled, states can fully fund public schools and advance education freedom at the same time. This is about providing opportunity for all children, no matter where they live or how they learn. Because, as the Idaho Democratic Party recently tweeted:

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), in cooperation with the Boise-based GS Strategy Group, is proud to announce the results of our 2022 Idaho Poll. MSPC's Idaho Poll will be released every December in even-numbered years ahead of the legislative session to provide critical information regarding the state's top policy issues. From tax and budgeting, to education freedom, and even energy use, this comprehensive data taken directly from the citizens of the state will help inform our research work, and could be critical to the debate in the halls of the state capitol this January. The poll was conducted November 12-17. The total number of respondents was 400, with a margin of error of +/- 4.9%. Here's the data regarding those who participated, as well as what Idahoans thought about some of the top policy issues facing the state.

The Fraser Institute’s latest report on economic freedom contains few surprises. The Canadian-based think tank ranks states and provinces based on three areas: government spending, taxes and regulation. The top performing states were “New Hampshire at 8.10, followed by Florida (8.05), Utah (8.03), and then Idaho and South Carolina, tied for fourth (8.02), while the least-free state was again New York at 4.25, following California at 4.59, Hawaii at 4.65, Vermont at 4.70, and Oregon at 4.92.” Washington state ranked in the lower half of the states. One interesting data point is that economic freedom in the United States, Canada and Mexico is all steadily declining. The U.S. data point for 2020 is the lowest in two decades.

A new study is proving that, depending on where you live, government benefits make it pay not to work. The federal government and most states offer various safety-net programs that can provide health benefits and cash assistance. The study, completed by Casey Mulligan at the University of Chicago and EJ Antoni of the Heritage Foundation, found: In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies for a family of four with both parents not working are the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household income. In 5 states, those two programs provide the same family with both parents not working the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household income and benefits. In 14 states, unemployment benefits and ACA subsidies are the equivalent to a head of household earning $80,000 in salary, plus health insurance benefits. The remarkable data shows three states where the "earned income equivalent" for a family of four exceeds $100,000. Washington ties for the highest in the country - with benefits that reach $28 per hour. Montana is 8th highest - at $79,963 worth of benefits for a family of four, and an average hourly wage of $20. Study authors conclude "those extra benefits had a highly negative effect on employment, particularly in the states with the highest benefits." In Idaho and Wyoming the numbers are a bit more reasonable.

The damaging consequences of a bad policy can develop quickly. It has been four years now since voters in Idaho passed Medicaid expansion via ballot measure in a campaign pushed by Reclaim Idaho. It has been two years since the program was implemented. What are the results? There were promises of limited enrollment – 60,000. The latest numbers show more than double the projection and more than 1 in 4 Idahoans now enrolled. There were state-sought waivers to make changes to the program for the betterment of Idaho. Four were requested, and only one has been approved. And what about those who are using the program? As a new Foundation for Government Accountability report indicates: In Idaho, there were at least 83,000 ineligible enrollees reported in January 2021. These enrollees do not meet traditional eligibility standards, but state officials are unable to remove them from the program because of the congressional handcuffs. If the trend continues, there could be hundreds of thousands of additional ineligible Medicaid enrollees. These ineligible enrollees would come with a monthly price tag of tens of millions of dollars—a figure that will only continue to grow as the public health emergency is prolonged. The Medicaid expansion is costing taxpayers more, too. In the last legislative session, legislators increased the state’s Medicaid budget. And it’s also now the state’s largest agency budget. It’s not as if there were no other options. Before Medicaid expansion in Idaho, those who were eligible could join the Your Health Idaho program and get “advance premium tax credits” to help reduce their insurance costs. Medicaid coverage, on the other hand, can be extremely limiting. Not only do providers run into billing problems, but reimbursement rates are also extremely low. Many health care providers will only take a limited number of patients. So, while citizens may have coverage, it might not mean much. How can lawmakers begin to rectify the situation with Medicaid? The FGA suggests: Idaho lawmakers should opt out of the handcuffs by rejecting the additional federal funding. This would allow state officials to regain control of their Medicaid program and begin the process of removing ineligible enrollees. The Medicaid program was designed with the truly needy in mind, but while the handcuffs remain in place, the truly needy are shoved to the back of the line. If Idaho wants to regain control of its Medicaid program, and reprioritize those it was intended to serve, the first step is to remove the Medicaid handcuffs.

Harvest and fall groundwork are concluding for western farmers, and tractors and equipment are finally resting for the season – a much needed relief to the farm fuel budgets. Escalating fuel prices are an unavoidable reality to the fuel-intensive process of farming and ranching. No work around exists for producing the nation’s food supply without fuel – specifically diesel. A farmer who cancels trips, car-pools with a neighbor, or switches to prototype electric tractors is a farmer who can’t grow a crop and leaves productive ground idle. Diesel engines plant the seeds, harvest the crops, and ship the affordable products to the world. The continued escalation of the price of diesel endangers food’s affordability and availability. Diesel prices skyrocketed $1.50 per gallon from 2021 to 2022, averaging $5.32 per gallon. All year farmers have dealt with the escalated cost, that peaked to $5.81 in June 2022, and relief is unseen. Forecasts predict diesel will be in short supply next year and average $4.29 per gallon. Our small, beginning family farm in Eastern Oregon dealt with high diesel prices all season, along with our neighbors. A typical farmer has several fuel tanks to refill throughout the year. In 2021, our 700-gallon fuel-tank cost $1,200 to refill. Our last refill, in October, cost $3,600 for off-road diesel. Most family farmers, including us, use much much more than 700-gallons per year. Our farm is one of thousands of western state farms seeking relief from high diesel prices - high prices which cut into margins and escalate already inflated food prices. The concern over fuel prices is intensified when the western region’s fuel-intensive specialty crops and large farmable areas are considered. A recent study by the Mountain States Policy Center looked at the regional dynamics of farm fuel usage in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. This study emphasizes the importance of diesel to the nation’s supply of apples, potatoes, wheat, hay, and many other top crops. Using each state’s five most valuable crops and the associated fuel requirements for each commodity we found that total acreage is not the only factor driving fuel demand, with crop choice being a major influencer of fuel usage. For example, Washington – despite being one of the smaller farming regions by acreage – has many specialty crops which are the highest consumers of fuel. Apples, hops, and potatoes drive the state’s fuel demand. Montana follows in second because it is the largest farmable area, with the state’s main focus on grain production. Idaho’s mix of specialty and traditional commodities ranks third. Utah and Wyoming are comparably low in total fuel usage. Policies impacting fuel availability and price must consider the vulnerability of the western states’ agriculture industry. Elevated fuel prices and constrained supplies encourage farmers to switch to less fuel intensive crops and to stop farming less productive ground, thus threatening food security and hurting farming communities. Relying on currently impossible green solutions to remedy the fuel crisis is careless and continuing to ignore the pain of escalating diesel prices is not an option. Farmers and ranchers need the domestic supply of oil to be protected and domestic production to be encouraged. This is the only option that puts our food supply and western state farmers and families first.

In a recent column about K-12 education funding, I made a few simple requests of those who say we need to spend more: (1) tell us how much we should spend and (2) tell us how we'll know if we're spending enough. It makes sense to ask these questions. After all, taxpayers and working families don't have unlimited cash. There are many priorities that need funding. In order to fix a problem, we need to define the issue and how we arrive at a fix. If you're going to say we need to spend more, we need to know the amount and what success looks like. But the questions are never answered - at least not publicly. Maybe that's changing. An education activist who calls himself a "human factors scientist" recently replied to my column with this piece in Idaho Education News. The column repeats a lot of tired talking points regarding public education. It also volleys a lot of untruths that quite frankly don't deserve a response. (I post it here because we believe in free speech and the civil exchange of ideas, even if we might disagree with them.) But this part of Mr. Mortenson's op-ed was perhaps the most telling, and the line that education activists likely shouldn't repeat. An arrogant, dismissive response to be sure. "More" and "when we say so" are not acceptable answers aimed at improving outcomes for children. We've already discussed why spending more does not necessarily lead to better outcomes. In fact, Utah is one of the states that spends the least and yet has the best outcomes. Nationally, we've more than tripled the amount we spent on K-12 since the 1970's and yet outcomes in most states are lower. This is not to say that we shouldn't spend on education. The question is, rather, where the money is being spent. Our belief is that the money belongs to the child's education - not necessarily any system. And the funds are not unlimited. Education choice and parental freedom are paramount because they have improved outcomes for all. And that, by the way, is supposed to be the goal. The reality is the questions I posed in my op-ed have been left unanswered for decades. Our kids, families and taxpayers deserve some answers. No system should have a blank check.

Call it a confirmation of what most of us already knew - the population of the mountain states is surging. The U.S. Census Bureau has released the latest population estimates, which show that Idaho and Montana are growing. In fact, Idaho is one of the top states for population growth. Washington State, on the other hand, has had virtually no growth. This is not really a surprise. Most of the states that are seeing substantial growth or low tax, low regulatory environments. Meantime, most of the states that are seeing declines are high tax and high regulation. It is also interesting to consider that five of the seven states with no state income tax (Texas, South Dakota, Tennessee, Florida and Nevada) are some of the fastest growing in the country. Idaho is also getting attention as having the two fastest growing cities in the country, as ranked by SmartAsset: Nampa, Idaho Meridian, Idaho Murfreesboro, Tennessee New Braunfels, Texas Fort Myers, Florida Conroe, Texas Menifee, California Pasco, Washington Lewisville, Texas Chino, California Port St. Lucie, Florida Rancho Cordova, California Victorville, California (Tie) Riverview, Florida (Tie) Homestead, Florida Expanding our regional population is not a bad thing. It can help increase the strength of our economies and lower the tax burden. However, policymakers throughout the mountain states should make sure to remember why so many Americans are voting with their feet and choosing states that have lower taxes and fewer government burdens.

Legislators in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming are preparing to head back to their respective capitals this January to begin their governing work. In some states, policymakers will be dealing with major issues regarding homelessness and crime. In other states, lawmakers will be reviewing ideas to improve a business climate or lower the tax burden. One thing all states have in common is the requirement to produce a budget. But how much is enough? Is the tax burden too high? Are government budgets under or overspending? And how does each state arrive at a budget? One of the most important things a lawmaker can do is to ensure an adequate rainy-day fund. To properly shield a state from turbulent economic storms, many states have savings requirements built into their budgeting process. In its 2020 report, the Tax Foundation ranked Wyoming’s rainy-day fund as tops in the country – with balances as a percentage of expenses at 109%. Pew’s 2022 report now shows Wyoming could run on its rainy-day fund for almost an entire year – roughly 349 days Idaho’s rainy-day fund leaves the state able to run on savings for roughly 76 days. Meantime, Montana could operate the state on savings for just 16 days. Washington state ranks the worst in the country – with rainy-day funds only able to sustain state spending and programs for a little more than four days. Whether it be their first or tenth legislative session, policymakers from across the region will have a unique opportunity to strengthen their state finances while giving a break to their hard-working constituents. As we have shown, each has a budget surplus that can and should be spent on reducing the severe inflationary pressures made worse by intense government spending. Drastically increasing state government spending in these economic times will only make matters worse. Lawmakers should resist that temptation. READ MORE OF OUR IN-DEPTH STUDY HERE >>

Our ideas to improve public schools are getting a lot of attention. Not only was my recent column printed in more than a dozen newspapers across the region, but former Idaho Attorney General Jim Jones also decided to pen his own column contending we were wrong and improving schools simply comes down to more money. Unfortunately, this is an old, tired solution that has not proven very effective. We have to do better. The column I wrote called for two things for students and parents: (1) more education options and (2) more transparency. Our concentration has been and will always be on improving educational outcomes for children and their families. The concentration can’t just be on the system, as Mr. Jones suggests. Mr. Jones contends “the policy center calls for the Legislature to establish and fund universal education savings accounts, which parents could use to pay for private schooling for their children.” This is inaccurate. Here’s what we actually said (emphasis added): “The first step must be more options for parents. There are various ways to accomplish this. Arizona has become the first state to allow for complete and universal Education Savings Accounts (ESA’s). These tools allow parents to access at least some of the dollars set aside by the state to fund their child’s education. For the sake of students, policymakers should be looking at additional ways to provide more educational freedom. It’s no longer just an idea – it’s a necessity.” Arizona is one example. Education savings accounts are a great and effective tool, but education freedom can come in all shapes and sizes. Even if the legislature were to adopt ESA’s, that doesn’t necessarily mean parents would use them to pay for private schooling. It could be used for afterschool tutoring that might supplement public schooling. It might also be used by parents struggling financially to add more educational resources at home. Special needs parents might use it to get their children the extra services they so desperately need outside the classroom. In the end, it puts parents back in charge. And legislators can create a program that works best for Idaho. Mr. Jones seems to threaten that, if the legislature did adopt more choices for children and families, it would “give rise to a citizen lawsuit against the state.” If lawmakers decided to start by allowing ESA access for special needs children, it’s hard to imagine a cold-hearted response like a lawsuit. Mr. Jones claims that “the [Idaho] Constitution clearly commands that no public money ever be used for religious schooling.” He fails to mention this provision got its roots in anti-Catholic bigotry. It was indeed placed in several state constitutions at the time of statehood, including Idaho. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down these discriminatory laws. As the Institute for Justice writes, “these obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.” Surprisingly, Mr. Jones also dismissed our calls for budget transparency, claiming “perhaps school patrons could simply ask that the information be provided in summary form or take the time to peruse the reports.” This might be easy for those who are retired or who can understand a confusing school budget, but it’s a mean-spirited dismissal of working parents who want a better understanding of the needs and current assets in their local school district. It’s no longer good enough to simply say all problems would be solved if only the system had more money. States that spend the most don’t necessarily have the best outcomes, and states that spend the least don’t have the worst outcomes. The majority of other states, including the District of Columbia, offer various education freedom options for families. They recognize that one size does not fit all and that we must be willing to try new things to improve educational outcomes for all children. It’s also paramount that we make it easier for parents to be involved and understand what’s happening in their local schools. Education is supposed to be about the kids, right? Let's not forget that.

From Washington’s cranberries to Utah’s turkeys, the only Thanksgiving dish the five Western states can’t grow is sweet potatoes (though it’s been attempted). But thanks to Idaho’s potato and milk production, mashed potatoes are still a possibility and a side of stuffing and rolls benefit from Montana’s wheat production. Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Washington all give to the Thanksgiving feast. Potatoes, green peas, and wheat benefit the most from the production efforts of the Western States. 44 percent of the country’s potatoes are sourced from the Western states, 35 percent of fresh green peas and 18 percent of wheat. (Production values for cranberries and Turkeys are sourced from 2017, all other data is 2021.) Iconic Thanksgiving crops, including cranberries, pumpkins, and turkeys also benefit from the Western States. 15 percent of cranberries, 10 percent of pumpkins, and almost 2 percent of turkeys are sourced from the region. Of the five western states, Washington has the most crop diversity, contributing a statistically significant amount to all the Thanksgiving crops, except Turkey. Idaho is the second most diverse, contributing to milk, onion, potato, and wheat production. Montana’s large farmable area produces the largest amount of wheat. The most valuable of these crops are milk, wheat, and potatoes. These top three crops generate $8.76 billion for the region’s economy and account for over 96 percent of the Thanksgiving crop production value. These valuable and thriving agricultural sectors create many opportunities for their local communities through employment, input purchasing from local businesses, and marketing and selling crops. Many of the region’s small towns are thriving because of dairy, grain, potato, and onion farmers. Tomorrow’s festivities benefit significantly from the farmers and ranchers of the western states, so give thanks for the efforts of the western states' farmers and ranchers. The agricultural community of the western states plays an even larger role than setting the Thanksgiving table – farming employs and feeds many families who live here and is one of the largest economic drivers of the region. Policies promoting agriculture and protecting farmers from unnecessary regulation are critical to the success of our region’s economy and to maintaining an available and affordable food supply for the region's families.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the nation experienced executive overreach at both the federal and state level. In Washington state, for example, Governor Jay Inslee once famously claimed he was the only person in the state who had the capability to save lives. In the end, Jay Inslee held on to executive emergency powers for nearly 1,000 days without legislative oversight. In Washington, the state bestows upon the governor the sole authority to determine when an emergency exists and when it will end. This is not good for self-government. It’s hard to get the consent of the governed when the executive has become inaccessible. In Idaho, Governor Brad Little initially vetoed a bill that would have required restrictions from an emergency order expire after 60 days unless renewed by the legislature. He later signed bills that some called “watered-down.” There’s no question that in a real emergency, governors need broad powers to act fast. Legislative bodies take time to assemble, so they can temporarily transfer their powers to the executive in an emergency. But when problems do last for extended periods, it is the responsibility of the legislatures to debate risks, benefits and trade-offs of various long-term approaches. Lawmakers may end up passing the very policies a governor would prefer, but they do it after deliberation as representatives of the people and do it in a public process. It’s the Legislature, not the executive branch, that should make the laws we live under, and the governor – no matter the state or the person – is supposed to implement only laws passed by the Legislature. In Wisconsin, for example, a state of emergency cannot exceed 60 days unless it is extended by the Legislature, and in Minnesota, a governor must call a special session if a “peace time” emergency lasts longer than 30 days. Returning to democracy and legislative oversight is not a partisan issue.

Be grateful - for the first time in three years, families are gathering to celebrate Thanksgiving in person. However, the cost of the meal escalated by 31 percent since families last gathered without concerns in 2019, a $15.14 increase. Families purchasing a turkey or a box of stuffing for the Thanksgiving feast are doing a double take at the price tags. Prices over the 12-month average have skyrocketed for most of the traditional meal. The American Farm Bureau’s annual survey of the Thanksgiving meal estimates that the cost for 10 people in 2022, is $64.05, a 20-percent increase over last year. This is the highest year-over-year increase in the cost of the meal since the survey’s beginnings in 1986. In 2019, the average cost was $48.91 for 10 people. The Farm Bureau’s survey includes: 16-pound turkey: $28.96 or $1.81 per pound (up 21%) 14-ounce bag of cubed stuffing mix: $3.88 (up 69%) 2 frozen pie crusts: $3.68 (up 26%) Half pint of whipping cream: $2.24 (up 26%) 1 pound of frozen peas: $1.90 (up 23%) 1 dozen dinner rolls: $3.73 (up 22%) ingredients to prepare the meal: $4.13 (up 20%) 30-ounce can of pumpkin pie mix: $4.28 (up 18%) 1 gallon of whole milk: $3.84 (up 16%) 3 pounds of sweet potatoes: $3.96 (up 11%) 1-pound veggie tray (carrots & celery): 88 cents (up 8%) 12-ounce bag of fresh cranberries: $2.57 (down 14%) Inflation is a huge factor contributing to the rapidly increasing prices, with other global concerns adding to the escalation. War in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions, avian influenza, and adverse weather patterns are some other factors influencing prices. Unfortunately, consumers looking to save money by making more from scratch face even steeper price increases with basic ingredients like cooking oil, butter, and eggs soaring even higher, at 47%, 27%, and 44%, respectively. The oil market has been the hardest hit of all grocery items, with the war in Ukraine tightening the world food oil supply and driving the price up. Ukraine is the number one producer of sunflower oil, which accounts for 9 percent of the world supply. Trade disruptions with other countries and severe weather patterns have also adversely affected oil supply. Butter, a favorite substitute for oil, has faced increasing challenges from a short milk supply, poor weather conditions, and lower cow inventories. The price increase for butter is expected to continue with the upcoming holiday baking driving demand higher. Eggs are the second highest year-over-year price increase, with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) hitting egg laying flocks throughout the United States. In October, consumers paid an average of $3.42 for a dozen Grade A, large eggs. Chicken meat prices have softened slightly, because meat flocks were not hit as hard and prices have already started to recover. Some analysts say the escalating cost of ingredients would make it more favorable to eating out for the Thanksgiving feast, because food-away-from-home inflation (3.4 percent) outpaced food-at-home (3.5 percent). However, the total cost of eating out is still more than the cost of a home cooked meal. A report by CNBC indicates most consumers will not compromise on the traditional meal, instead finding alternatives to mitigate the increasing prices - looking for deals and seeking out lower-priced stores are the top two alternatives. Unfortunately, increasing demand during the holiday season, will only cause prices to climb higher, with other influencing factors refusing to soften. Economists are predicting food prices to climb an additional 3.0 to 4.0 percent in 2023. Despite on-farm price increases, producers still face market volatility and stagnated or decreasing margins. Only 8 cents from each dollar spent on food returns to the farm and cost increases for all inputs, especially fuel and fertilizer are also eating into the producers’ bottom lines. Agricultural cost increases are expected to be 17.8 percent in 2022 for all inputs, with fertilizer jumping by 52.3 percent. Net farm income, adjusted for inflation, only rose 0.6 percent during the same period. In a year, where it is a relief to be gathering without social distancing guidelines, families and farmers are faced with the challenging economy. However, give thanks that these holiday gatherings of families and friends are still occurring despite the cost increases. As we once again spend time with our loved ones, our relationships within our communities will be strengthened, a much better alternative to social distancing and political discord.

For decades, those living long distances from a state capitol had to brave icy conditions, closed passes or expensive flights to participate in the legislative process. But things changed during the COVID pandemic. Most states expanded remote testimony options. Remote testimony is now more broadly accepted than ever before. In the 21st century, there is no excuse for not allowing all citizens the opportunity to be involved in their government via technology. Remote testimony allows citizens the opportunity to give legislators their opinion on a policy being considered by any committee, without the hassle and cost of traveling to the state capitol. Without remote testimony, lawmakers only hear from lobbyists or activists who regularly camp out at a state capitol during a legislative session. With remote testimony, the playing field is leveled and all citizens can participate in the legislative process. Additional Resources: National Conference of State Legislatures Remote Testimony State by State Idaho State Legislature Remote Testimony Tips

Education freedom for parents could be one of the top issues of the upcoming legislative session, not only in Idaho but across the mountain states and the country. Lawmakers in several states have already passed or are seriously considering proposals that would give parents more say over their child’s education dollars. In Arizona, legislators passed the broadest school choice bill in the country, giving parents access to the funds allocated for their child’s education to use for educational supplements for public school or even private schooling options. In Idaho, similar pieces of legislation have been introduced, but some lawmakers have expressed concern regarding the state’s constitution, which proclaims the state must “maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The words “uniform and thorough,” in particular, give some pause, believing that the constitution specifically forbids public money being used to fund anything other than public schools. A similar debate just played out in West Virginia, where the constitution requires a “thorough and efficient” education system. West Virginia recently passed an education freedom law called the “Hope Scholarship.” But opponents pointed to the state constitution’s “thorough and efficient” language and said it wasn’t permitted. The West Virginia Supreme Court has just disagreed. From the majority’s ruling: “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.” Let's be clear: education freedom doesn't mean dismantling the public school option. The courts have recognized the ability of states to do both things. The more options for parents, the better. The point is to improve educational outcomes for all children. Lawmakers in Idaho will likely consider a flurry of education freedom bills this session. The dispute over "uniform and through" will most certainly be front and center. As we pointed out in our Analysis of Idaho’s Quality Education Act, “the dictionary defines “thorough” as “complete with regard to every detail.” That doesn’t mean omitting options for parents. In the end, parents know what best works for their child. Lawmakers might also consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling, overturning Maine’s ban on public funds at religious schools. In the coming weeks, we'll be releasing an in-depth study on education freedom options available for lawmakers in the upcoming legislative session.