It’s all about improving outcomes for children. As President of Mountain States Policy Center, I’m proud to announce the launch of "Education Choice Improves Outcomes." This interactive effort includes seven new informational videos, an interactive website, a complete listing of programs, debunking myths, and much more. Our recent Idaho Poll showed a third of Idahoans are not familiar with education choice, but when they know about it, they overwhelmingly approve. What if you could use some of the money allocated to your child’s education to get them extra tutoring – something that would supplement your public school? What if you had the resources to send your child to a private or specialty school to focus on a specific subject on which they excelled? What if, like me, you had a special needs child that needed extra assistance outside the classroom – and you finally had the ability to pay for it? This is not about shutting down public schools. As a state and region, we need to do better to make sure parents and families have more choices, and businesses have a future workforce that is skilled and qualified. When families have more choices, the outcomes for our children improve. How do we know this? On mountainstatespolicy.org you’ll find a complete list of education choice programs from across the country – which ones succeeded, which ones failed, and which ones made no difference. The vast majority show education choice programs save taxpayers money, allow for more diverse schools, and improve academic outcomes for those participating and those who choose to stay in their local schools. Unfortunately, those interested in the status quo are frightening citizens with a lot of myths. Here are the top six. Myth One – Allowing more education choice will harm public schools In reality, public schools are part of education choice. If your neighborhood public school is working for you, nothing will change. In fact, education choice can help improve your local public school. Why? Because parents will have more resources to get their child extra tutoring or assistance outside of the classroom. This can take some of the burden off your public school. Myth Two – Education choice violates the separation between church and state The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that appropriately designed education choice programs are fully constitutional. And numerous state courts have upheld the constitutionality of education choice. Still, it’s important to know that most won’t use education choice to send their child to a private or religious school. Most will stay in public schools, and instead might use education choice to help pay for the extra tutoring or help that their child so desperately needs. Myth Three – Students don’t benefit from education choice Seventeen major studies have examined academic outcomes for education choice participants. Eleven of them have reported an increase in student outcomes. Four reported no effects. Only two reported negative effects. Education choice has led to higher graduation rates and 43% of students who have used education choice are more likely to enroll in college. Myth Four – There’s no accountability when it comes to education choice All education choice programs have a level of administrative and financial accountability. Most have academic accountability. In most states, your student still must either take state assessments or tests to measure whether they are meeting standards. Furthermore, families must opt-in to education choice programs, and they can opt out at any time. This adds another layer of accountability. If your education choice program isn’t working, you have the greatest accountability tool of all – the ability to leave. Myth Five – Education choice hurts rural communities A Brookings Institute report shows a full 70% of rural families live within ten miles of various education choice options, including charter schools and private schools. As other states have advanced education choice, supply has increased to meet demand. In Florida, the number of private schools in rural areas doubled after numerous expansions of education choice. In Arizona, a public school is 15 times more likely to lose a student to another public school than a private school. Myth Six – Education choice is anti-public school Public schools are critical to the success of our region and country. But they don’t always work for everyone. And when that happens, children and families should be able to get the extra help they need. Every child can learn and should have the chance to do so in a way that meets their individual learning needs. We’re paying to educate the child. That must be what comes first. As state courts have recently ruled, public schools and education choice can exist at the same time. Education choice is important because education choice improves outcomes for children. Every state does it differently, but the Mountain States are behind the times when it comes to providing your family with more options. In places where education choice is allowed, the results are impressive and the future for children improves. That is what’s most important.

As legislative sessions in our region are underway, one cannot help but look at the list of bills being introduced and be overwhelmed. While we are still waiting to see the bulk of legislation in Idaho (which doesn't allow pre-filed bills), there is plenty of legislation being introduced in Montana and Washington. So far, we have seen nearly 400 bills introduced in Montana and 483 introduced in Washington State. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, we still have a long way to go. On average, more than 109,000 bills are introduced in state legislatures each year. An average session length is approximately 120 calendar days. Throughout our region, the number of bills introduced typically depends on the state. Some states, including Montana and Wyoming, have limited the number of bills a legislator can introduce, a policy which forces lawmakers to focus on important issues, and not spend time naming official state rocks or dinosaurs.

Idaho Governor Brad Little announced Monday a plan to increase K-12 spending in Idaho in several areas. From the Governor's release: · Targets starting teacher pay to Top 10 nationally ($47,477), up from #41 nationally when Governor Little took office. · Strengthens pay for all teachers – including our most experienced educators -- by $6,359. In total, this adds $145 million for enhanced teacher pay statewide. · Closes the salary gap that schools face for classified staff by providing $97.4 million to better position schools to hire critical support staff such as cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and paraprofessionals. · Continues the state’s commitment to raising take-home pay of teachers and school staff by providing an additional $27.9 million for health insurance benefits. · Provides $52.4 million for the largest single-year boost of discretionary funding to schools in state history, allowing local schools to meet local needs and defray reliance on property taxes. · Puts forward $2.9 million in ongoing funding to improve dyslexia outcomes throughout the state through training and outreach. · Makes permanent the widely popular Empowering Parents grants by investing $30 million to continue helping families take charge of education expenses for their children. · Provides $20 million in one-time grants for the Securing Our Future Initiative from the Office of School Safety and Security. Funds will be used to make meaningful, durable, and demonstrated effective investments in K-12 school facility security throughout the state. · Provides $30 million in one-time grants to preserve school investments in information technology, including student and classroom devices and network infrastructure. Many of these items may be very popular. We know that the Empowering Parents grants, for example, is popular and has helped students get extra assistance outside the classroom. That program should be expanded to include all families and more education options - with the goal of improving outcomes. Our question is whether the other spending will improve student outcomes? What is the measurement whereby we can determine if it will help children? What are the goals? The number one priority of any plan to increase education funding should be student outcomes. Unfortunately, many states have increased funding on their K-12 system without seeing results. The latest National Assessment of Education Progress scores prove the point. Even before the pandemic, the scores were flat. Idaho currently spends more than 50% of its budget on K-12. You can decide for yourself whether that's too little, too much, or just right.

Montana is considering legislation that would tighten the rules for the auditing process — including penalties for state employees that do not comply with audits. This proposal stems from frustration on behalf of the Legislative Audit Division of state government that is attached to Montana’s Legislature. Legislative Audit Division employees are tasked with performing a variety of audits to ensure the state’s programming is running and budgeting is being spent according to the will of the lawmakers. These audits include both financial reviews as well as performance reviews. In the past decade, the Legislative Audit Division has run into roadblocks with their requests either getting delayed or outright ignored which delays the legally required audit process. At this point, the Montana Audit Act does not have penalties for state employees or departments that refuse to comply with the process. LC 4126 would introduce penalties in order to incentivise state employees and departments to comply with the audits. If an elected or appointed official ignores or delays the audit, they will be charged with a misdemeanor. Additionally, the law would make materials under review confidential until after the audit has been released — something that has been understood by not outrightly confirmed.

Governor Brad Little welcomed members of the Idaho State Legislature today with his state of the state address, pressing a theme of "Idaho First" in his remarks. The governor spent a large chunk of remarks on education funding as well as tax reductions and fiscal responsibility. On education funding, Governor Little wants to increase teacher pay, increase salaries for classified school staff, increase the state coverage of teacher health insurance benefits and increase school funding. In total, those four ideas would represent more than $300 million in spending. The governor also said he favored making permanent the popular Empowering Parents program. This form of school choice has been helpful to parents seeking to get their children extra help they need outside the classroom. Other highlights of the governor's address include: $120 million for ongoing property tax mitigation $62 million to the state's rainy day fund $200 million+ surplus and a balanced budget for the next five year $80 million to provide $8,500 for qualifying high school graduates to use at any Idaho university, community college, career technical program, or workforce training provider of their choice It is especially encouraging to hear the governor's comments on the Empowering Parents program. It has been an enormous success, but state lawmakers would be wise to not only make it permanent, but also expand eligibility and the options for parents inside the program. Our children deserve nothing less. Today, we launched Education Choice Improves Outcomes. Mountain States Policy Center will release a comprehensive study on education choice and the options available for lawmakers this Thursday.

Idaho residents are experiencing a painful consequence of rising real estate values. Not only is it more difficult to purchase a home and/or relocate, but property taxes are also increasing. From 2020 to 2021, there was a 20.2% increase in the assessed value of Idaho property, totaling $230.7 billion. Then from 2021 to 2022, assessed values increased by 43.7% to reach $332.1 billion. To put this in perspective, in the last market run-up from 2005-2006 before the Great Recession, Idaho only experienced a 19.8% increase in assessed property values. Despite lowering levy rates throughout Idaho’s local governments, the property tax amount paid by each homeowner has increased substantially. The Idaho State Tax Commission recently presented to the Idaho House of Representatives Committee on Revenue and Taxation. One chart shows that, of the major property categories in Idaho, residential properties have increased more than the other property categories which include commercial, public utilities, agriculture, timber, and mining. The thousands of dollars that individual Idaho families are having to divert to ballooning property taxes is a difficult burden in this inflation-driven economy. Kathy Ireland, with the Idaho State Tax Commission, shared with the Committee on Revenue and Taxation, that in 2021-2022 residential property owners (excluding new builds because they have an inherent premium) saw a 9.3% increase in taxes. Commercial property owners had a 13.5% decrease in property taxes over the same time-period. Property tax relief has been built into Idaho’s property tax system for decades. Beginning in 1980, homeowners received a property tax exemption up to 50% of the value of their home, originally capped at $10,000. This exemption was deducted from the assessed value of the home, while the remainder was then the taxable value of the property. In 2006, Idaho began to rely upon the Federal Housing Price Index to set the exemption amount for property taxes and this number fluctuated with the housing market. In 2016, the Idaho legislature voted to cap the property tax exemption at $100,000 (which later increased to $125,000). If a homeowner’s property is greater than $250,000, the homeowner’s exemption will be maxed out. At the end of 2022, the average Idaho home cost was $459,947. Unfortunately for homeowners, assessed housing values increased dramatically post-2016 and the majority of the tax burden quickly shifted onto residential property and away from commercial. Canyon County estimates that 75% of its property tax income comes from residential property. A proposal to re-instate the HPI in last year’s legislative session had 40 sponsors but was never heard in committee. If the HPI was re-instated, it would have increased the exemption to almost $180,000 in 2022. This would have saved the average urban household roughly $573.65 in 2022. (180,000 minus 125,000 equals 55,000. This was multiplied by the average urban property tax levy rate across Idaho of 1.043%.) Governor Little has also called for property tax relief, but has left it to lawmakers for a specific strategy. He called for the setting aside $120 million from the general fund to buffer local property tax needs, while the legislature develops a longer lasting solution. Providing funding to our cities, schools, counties, roads, and other municipal services is critical to the daily functions of both homeowners and businesses, but the cost should not be borne by only one of type of property owner. Not only do local governments need to keep spending in check, the Idaho Legislature needs to find and hear out a workable proposal that fairly distributes the property tax burden. Hopefully, as the Legislature begins its fourth week of the legislative session, workable proposals will find a path forward to fix Idaho’s property tax system.

An astonishing 4,332 bill draft requests have already been submitted to the Montana Legislation committee, according to the state Legislative Services Division. For perspective, the entire 2021 legislation session had 3,367 bills. Despite the large number, most of these requests will not end up making it to committee based on previous years. In the 2019 and 2021 sessions, less than 40% of the bill requests were introduced for debate and 20% or less of those requests have made it through the Legislature. There are 271 bills that have already been assigned to committees before Legislation has begun. The first week of the session will see at least 85 of those bills in their first committee hearings. A majority of these bills are tackling cleaning up state code and consolidating state boards. The committee work is starting work immediately which is unprecedented according to House speaker-elect Rep. Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, in an interview with KTVH. The current topics are mainly concerned with education, election and taxes. So far, these are the bill requests: 28 deal with abortion 49 deal with guns and weapons 52 deal with marijuana 81 deal with housing 147 deal with fish and wildlife 269 deal with education 269 deal with elections 342 deal with taxes Additionally, 48 proposals for amending the Montana Constitution have been submitted. If two-thirds of the Legislature endorse the amendment, it will be placed on the 2024 ballot for voters to approve or reject. Currently, Republicans have a 102-seat supermajority which means if they united, they could advance a proposed constitutional amendment.

Governor Greg Gianforte today called on the Montana State Legislature to approve his plan to provide property and income tax relief. The governor's plan is a $1 billion proposal. Roughly $500 million would be used for property tax relief in Montana - a $1,000 property tax rebate in both 2023 and 2024. Governor Gianforte also wants to increase the state's earned income tax credit, and reduce the state income tax from 6.5% to 5.9% - a move that would immediately make Montana more competitive with its neighbors, including Idaho, which just lowered its state income tax to 5.8%. The governor's budget also "cuts taxes for Montana's small business owners, family farmers, and family ranchers by expanding the business equipment tax exemption from $300,000 to $1 million." Like Idaho, Montana can afford tax relief as it has an enormous surplus. While distributing rebate checks is welcome, policymakers should aim for more permanent tax relief. If rebates are needed, the government is over-collecting. Today, we released a study on how Montana and Idaho can tie their state income tax rates to revenue triggers. Properly designed, the revenue trigger option can result in numerous benefits and negate the need for tax rebate checks.

The federal, state, and local government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic vary based on region, and sometimes based on political party leadership in any given area. Some regions locked down for months, while others reopened quite quickly. Some states required masks and emergency orders for more than a year, while others swiftly lifted requirements. Who did it best? It depends on who you ask. For example, a comparison of a report published by Sykes Enterprises (a corporate consulting company) and another report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity (a non-profit organization promoting supply-side economics) shows that attempting to rank states based on the handling of COVID-19 is a biased endeavor. Five of the top ten states in the Sykes Enterprises report, actually rank in the bottom ten for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Meantime, three of the states in the Sykes bottom ten are in the top ten for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Differing values make an unbiased comparison of Covid-19 responses impossible, because the values of the authors determine ranking. Methodology and values differ widely across reports on Covid-19 government responses. For some perspectives, the lowest case transmissions and highest use of healthcare resources was the ultimate value, regardless of costs. Other sources weigh the health impact of the pandemic against other costs, including unemployment, GDP, and academic performance. For example, the Sykes Enterprise report assumes government mandates including masks and stay-at-home orders decrease transmissions (correlation analysis does not support this assumption). The report disregards economic and academic impact and looks at the health industries use of resources. The Committee to Unleash Prosperity, controls for more variables, including geographic isolation and industry composition. Using these weighted metrics, the report ranks states based on pandemic performance factoring the cost to GDP and academic success against the benefit of lower transmissions. Complicating the ability to draw conclusions from Covid-19 data is the low correlation of datasets. Chung et al., using Oxford Covid Government Response data, found that the only metrics that were consistently correlated with decreased transmissions were contact tracing and the health index (a metric calculated by the Oxford Covid Government Response data team). The researchers concluded that intense testing and accurate tracing were critical to controlling the spread of Covid-19 and reducing daily confirmed cases. However, despite multiple statistical models and time-lags, the report could not predict which other government actions decreased COVID-19 cases. Despite many variations, the statistical models concluded that stricter government policies had positive coefficients, meaning the implementation of these policies increased the number of COVID-19 cases within the statistical model. The researchers concluded that these policies were still significant to decreasing transmissions in the real-world but interacted in a more complex way than could be predicted accurately by the model. Literature offering measurable proof supporting stringent pandemic regulations is hard to find. Literature offering collaborative and unbiased ranking of states and their COVID-19 response policies is non-existent. This leaves policymakers in the difficult position of knowing who and what to trust. Responsible policy and regulatory decisions must look below the surface of all reports, to identify the bias and understand how the numbers are interacting and what value systems are guiding the rankings. Mountain States Policy Center is preparing to release a study of the western states regulatory response to COVID-19. The study analyzes the policy efforts of Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming and the resulting transmissions within the state. MSPC values the health of our families. MSPC also understands that economic prosperity and academic success are critical contributors to the health of the region. MSPC’s analysis seeks to identify the factors that significantly decreased transmissions and points out the costs of the pandemic.

Over the past few years, Idaho lawmakers have twice lowered the state’s income tax rate. The latest legislative action passed last September brings the Gem State’s income tax to a flat rate of 5.8% for all income levels. ​ Like Idaho, Montana lowered its income tax from 6.9% to 6.75% in 2022. Governor Greg Gianforte says there’s room for an even larger reduction. He has proposed lowering the top state income tax rate to 5.9%. ​ The reduction action in both Montana and Idaho follows a national trend of lowering state income tax rates. One of the only states not following the trend happens to be neighboring Washington, providing a golden opportunity for policymakers in Idaho and Montana to take advantage of an extraordinary policy shift and solidify their state competitiveness for decades to come. Read more about this policy idea in our latest study here. In Idaho, personal income taxes account for $2.319 billion of the state’s yearly revenue – or roughly $40 million per .1% of the 5.8% rate. Policymakers could design a trigger that would automatically reduce the 5.8% based on the amount of excess, sustained revenue reported in the state’s frequent revenue forecasts. For example:

Idaho, Wyoming and Washington are now all considering proposals for an Education Savings Account (ESA) program. This education choice option has been shown effective in other states in increasing outcomes for all students - both those who take advantage of it, and those who stay in the traditional K-12 system. But which state proposal is best? Here's a look: Our analysis on the Idaho bill can be found here. In Wyoming, legislators have already moved the legislation through one chamber. In Washington, the Education Savings Account bill is scheduled for executive session on February 9th. Washington has the advantage as the only proposal - thus far - that contains extra assistance in an ESA for special needs children.

During the lengthy debate over Idaho Senate Bill 1038 on the Idaho Senate floor on Monday, Senator Carrie Semmelroth used an unusual argument to explain her no vote. Senate Bill 1038 was the first bill of the current Idaho session to call for Education Savings Accounts. We're expecting to see more in the coming days. Most of the discussion has been over the budget, or whether the state has adequate education choice options right now, or whether the state has a responsibility to change its funding in the wake of lackluster results. But Senator Semmelroth turned part of her remarks into a rebuke of free markets, saying: There's a bit of irony in government - which has and spends the unlimited resources of taxpayers - concluding that a market model won't work because it just costs too much. The suggestion that the only motivating force in a free market is money is not only very shortsighted - it's just not true. It's important to point out what has happened in other states under an ESA model. In Arizona, for example, 58% of students using choice programs are special needs. Why is this? It's because ESA's are not just about private school tuition - they are also an important tool for families to use to supplement their child's education. Free markets are the most revolutionary force for change the world has ever known. They are all about providing creative solutions to address challenges. Throughout the pandemic, educators across the country used the free market to open micro-schools, learning pods and a host of other schooling options that uniquely fit their qualifications and a student's needs. Now some school districts are taking advantage of this pandemic-era invention. A decade ago, you would have been called crazy if you predicted teachers would open small schools at their dining room table in 2021. Three decades ago, few predicted the arrival of online education. The demand arose, and the marketplace provided. Meantime, a century ago, students gathered in a school house, at desks, facing a chalkboard. This seems to be the only education model that hasn't changed. It is very shortsighted to suggest the free market just can't address issues related to education. As we saw during the pandemic, if you give them a chance, educational models will emerge. Some will succeed and some will fail. But the options that struggle won't stay options for very long. And the options that don't innovate and change will also have a short lifespan. As the father of a special needs child, I know that the marketplace will provide the best opportunity to find solutions that fit his very specialized needs. It won't come from a system that simply provides a one size fits all service model.

If there is one thing homeschool families have in common, it’s the desire to be left alone about their education choices. Parents go to great sacrificial lengths to homeschool, including paying all expenses out of pocket, often doing so on a single salary. Homeschoolers get used to doing things in their own way, in their own time, on their own dime. Homeschool families have a unique set of concerns when it comes to policy debates about education. Many have already opted out of a classroom setting due to special or unique needs or talents of their children, religious or philosophical beliefs, or lack of education options in their area. Many homeschool families rightfully greet the prospect of education choice with a heavy dose of skepticism. “Education choice” means allowing some of a state’s education money to follow the student to the education method or school of their choice (including homeschool), usually in the form of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). In Idaho, the ESA debate is in full swing as legislators consider allowing parents to control some of a student’s education dollars. For homeschool families the opposition to any iteration of education choice comes down to one primary concern: government control. After all, prior to the early 1980’s, homeschooling was treated as a crime in many states. Homeschoolers have spent decades crawling out from the thumb of government hegemony. ESAs are viewed as a Trojan Horse that will allow the state to reassert influence over homeschooling. No matter how good the bill looks, ESA opponents embrace the slippery slope fallacy and assert that an inevitable chain of bad things will happen in rapid succession, leading to homeschooling’s demise. The fundamental appeal of this argument is fear. As homeschoolers, we would be the last people to defend every iteration of an “education choice” bill. Money is not the ticket to a homeschooler’s heart—freedom is. But money is a neutral tool that may produce greater control or freedom depending on the criteria attached to its use. In the case of any proposed education choice bill, we must resist the urge to view them all equally. Interestingly, conservative homeschoolers sometimes line up with far-left socialists and union members in opposition to education choice, albeit for very different reasons. In either case, categorical opposition to ESAs is always rooted in fear-based arguments: ESAs will destroy public education. ESAs will destroy homeschooling. ESAs will destroy the religious freedom of private schools. ESAs will leave rural students without options. Could a poorly designed ESA program result in one or more of those outcomes? Yes. Just as a knife may be used to prepare a delicious meal or to grievously wound a person, ESAs are neutral tools that must be wielded thoughtfully by policymakers. It is dishonest to ignore causal links and evidence to present a false dilemma that ESAs are categorically good or bad regardless of how they are set up. The truth is there are “right” ways and dangerous ways to set up ESA programs. As Idaho recognizes, it is parents who “have the fundamental right and duty to make decisions concerning their [children’s] education.” An appropriate and effective ESA program should serve to enhance this right and duty in an “opt-in” manner. Although it should ideally be available to all Idaho families, sometimes ESAs are narrowly tailored to low-income or special needs students only. A lack of universality or policy perfection in a pilot ESA bill is not a principled reason for outright rejection. The purpose of education choice is to give parents the means to choose the education method that best suits the needs of their individual child, not to bring the child under the regulation and purview of the state. It should be simple, clear, understandable, and place as much of the decision-making power as possible with parents. It should explicitly forbid state control over curriculum or religious choices of parents and include protective language for private schools and homeschool families. If these criteria are met, it would be needlessly cruel to oppose a policy that would fling wide the doors of opportunity for families who are unable to homeschool for financial reasons, especially when the entire program is “opt-in” and requires no additional funding for students transferring out of public school. Parents who have any reservations can continue homeschooling on their own dime outside of the program. Meanwhile, the ranks of Idaho’s homeschoolers will increase, meaning more families will be prepared to defend against future government intrusion. The reality is that state governments can and do exert regulatory control over homeschoolers whether government money is involved or not. In Washington, for example, parents must be “qualified” as defined by the state, file an annual declaration with the school district where they reside, teach 11 required subjects, have their children tested or evaluated annually by a “qualified” individual, and keep records of academic progress. All these rules exist without homeschoolers receiving one cent of government money. In fact, legislators often propose amendments to Washington’s homeschool law to enhance government control or lower the age that homeschool parents must begin reporting about their children to the state. Lack of government money does not protect homeschool families from state regulation. Vigilance and defense against government overreach is a pervasive role that all homeschool parents must accept if they value their academic freedom. We urge homeschool parents not to prioritize a hypothetical risk about the problems a poorly-designed ESA program may create over the very real crisis that a well-designed ESA program can solve. The possibility that the state might, at some point, exert more control over homeschooling through some future version of a corrupted ESA program is less pressing than the fact that parents are presently compelled by the government to submit their children to an education that may not be best for them, unless they are wealthy enough to opt out. A well-designed ESA program is not a threat to homeschoolers and is a godsend to kids who are trapped in failing or unresponsive schools. It is unreasonable to oppose every version of a policy that would enable these kids to have the kinds of opportunities our homeschooled children already enjoy on the fear that, someday, if a series of bad things happen in succession, we might lose some of our homeschool freedom.

Farm input costs are on the rise, land is less available and less affordable, and the added stress has brought little in the way of additional income. Is there an incentive for farmers and ranchers in the Mountain States to continue farming, despite the stress? On February 7th, the USDA released its latest farm-income data. Nationally, farmers in the Mountain States accounted for 4.9% of the farm related net income. Farmers in the United States as a whole created $140.9 billion in net farm income in 2021. Washington contributed 2.2% and ranked 17th, Idaho contributed 1.3% and ranked 26th. Finishing out the list, Montana ranked 33rd, Utah 37th, and Wyoming 39th. Net income on a per farm basis is most-recently available from the 2017 agriculture census. On a per farm basis, Idaho ranked 14th and Washington 17th (for net farm income per farm). Montana (26th), Wyoming (32nd) and Utah (34th), trailed further behind. Predictably, the Mountain States account for a higher percentage of production expenses. Farm cash expenses, excluding operator housing, totals $345 billion in the United States. The Mountain States account for 6.4% of national farm expenses. The higher input costs for row and specialty crops are the cause of the shift. On a per farm basis of expenses in 2017, Idaho and Washington ranked 8th and 9th respectively. Land rents for the Mountain States in 2021 were 5.1% of the national total. Idaho, Washington, and Montana ranked 15th, 16th, and 18th respectively for land costs. Again, the higher value crops play a role in the higher land rents. Farm incomes are expected to decrease in 2023 for the Mountain States between 12% for parts of Montana, 21% in the Idaho, Utah, and Washington basin and range regions, and 24% for the row and specialty crop regions of Idaho and Washington. A combination of higher production expenses and lower crop prices, will drive the farm economy downward. In the midst of these challenges, what is the financial incentive to continue farming? Net cash farm income (NCFI) is a major motivator for continued farm operations. This is the profit of the operation after all expenses are paid, including owner and employee salaries. This value can be used to reduce debt, pay taxes, cover family living expenses, and invest. For many farm families the NCFI is a financial tool that would be unavailable outside of farming operations. For Idaho this incentive is $52,503 per operation in 2017, and the four other Mountain States followed behind, with Utah the lowest at $19,929. NCFI is a critical tool in increasing the financial stability of farming operations, managing risk for farm families, and incentivizing operations to stay in business. Farm families have benefited from record levels of NCFI through the pandemic, with 2020, 2021, and 2022 setting records. This year, 2023, will likely see a softening of these numbers. However, NCFI is still predicted to be above the record set in 2021, so farmers will still be able to benefit from this financial tool.

"It's a journey," Idaho Senator Dave Lent said, before voting against Senate Bill 1038 - the first bill of the session to create Education Savings Accounts in Idaho. The Idaho state Senate voted 12-23 against the legislation, even as many members spoke in favor of many aspects of the bill. "I look forward to seeing more bills related to education choice this session," Senator Ben Adams said. "But this one creates a new government program." "This is the next iteration [of education choice]," said Senator Lori Den Hartog, encouraging legislators to be in favor even if they might not like every aspect. When MSPC was invited to testify several weeks ago, we encouraged legislators not to make perfect the enemy of the good. Arizona did not advance more education savings accounts overnight, and Idaho won't either. Whether it's this proposal or another, policymakers have the chance to advance more options for more families this session. While 1038 checked a lot of boxes and some considered it a home run in terms of what it accomplished, there is no shame in getting a double or a triple. Attempting to bring more buy-in from more legislators is a good thing. Some of the debate today centered on the state's constitutional mandate regarding public education. It is important to note that West Virginia had similar language, and the state Supreme Court there ruled there was no reason why legislators couldn't meet their constitutional requirements and launch an ESA at the same time. Idaho Representative Lance Clow may be ready to introduce another ESA bill in the lower chamber as soon as this week. We'll see what language that includes. Senator Chuck Winder also seemed to open the door by indicating there were other options coming. Both Winder and Senator C. Scott Grow also suggested amending the language in 1038. Another option for lawmakers is to expand the state's Empowering Parents program to allow for more participation and more access. Senator Julie VanOrden suggested taking parts of 1038 and adding them to Empowering Parents. Our Idaho Poll showed strong support for education choice - when it was understood what education choice meant. As we've detailed in our study Education Choice Improves Outcomes, education choice is important because education choice improves outcomes for children. Each state can and should craft its own plan with children and parents at the core. In places where education choice is allowed, the results are impressive. ​ The vast majority of credible evidence shows education choice programs save taxpayers money, allow for more diverse schools, and improve academic outcomes for those participating and those who choose to stay in their local schools. Our kids don't have a union. They don't have a special interest group. All they have is parents and lawmakers. The education choice debate in Idaho's current legislative session is still in the first couple of innings. Stay tuned.

A constitutional amendment that would change the way the citizens of Idaho gather signatures for an initiative is one step closer to going to voters. Two-thirds of the Idaho Senate gave final approval today to SJR 101, a constitutional amendment that would require 6% of legal voters in every legislative district in the state sign on to an initiative for it to go before voters. The current threshold is 6% in half of the state's legislative districts. The legislation is similar to a bill that was passed in 2021 making a similar change. The difference, this time, is that lawmakers are seeking to pass the change via a constitutional amendment instead of just a standard bill. Proponents of the amendment say it is about making the participation in the initiative process more representative of the entire state. The distribution threshold, as it's called, is not necessarily unusual as we reported earlier. Massachusetts requires that no more than 25% of signatures come from any one county. Utah has requirements spreading the initiative requirements out among legislative districts. Policymakers should always be careful about changing the right of citizens to make law through an initiative process. If this particular amendment is rejected by voters, lawmakers may want to consider a variation of the state of Nevada's requirements. In order for statutory initiatives to pass in Nevada, a single general election vote in favor is needed. But for constitutional amendments, a majority of voters is needed in two consecutive elections. A referendum - or veto of the legislature's work - would still take just one majority vote. But if citizens choose to bypass the legislature and create their own laws, a higher threshold could be adopted requiring two affirmative votes of the people.

As Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Montana all consider bills to create Education Savings Accounts (ESA) for children and their families, opponents have attempted to label ESA's as vouchers. If you oppose education choice, it's understandable. Polling shows vouchers do not have the same amount of support as ESA's. The word "voucher" has a negative connotation, which explains why so many opponents keep saying "ESA vouchers." The problem is there's no such thing as an "ESA voucher" - in fact, ESA's are very different from vouchers. Many lawmakers don't understand the difference. A voucher program would let parents use taxpayer dollars to pay for tuition at a private school approved by the state. Typically, the state writes a check to a school in the name of a student to cover tuition. An Education Savings Account is much different. First, money is held in an account by the state - it is not given directly to schools. Second, an ESA allows parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. In the end, ESA's are given directly to parents via a state fund, whereas vouchers are given to schools or a specific institution. Our Idaho Poll showed strong support for education choice - when citizens understand what it is. Explaining the difference between ESA's and vouchers is part of that process.

A flurry of legislation throughout the Mountain States has made it difficult to track everything that’s going on. In Washington state, for example, nearly 1,700 new laws have been introduced. In Montana, it has exceeded 1,400. If you are interested in education choice, it is hard to make heads or tails as to what’s happening. Here’s a state-by-state rundown, as of today. Idaho SB 1038 – Universal Education Savings Accounts for all children · Passed committee 6-3 on February 15th · Failed in Senate 12-23 on February 27th · Status: Likely dead (Note other pending proposals: On Thursday, March 2nd, we’re expecting three additional proposals creating an ESA or something similar.) Montana HB 549 – Authorizing establishment of public charter schools, with limitations · Passed committee 11-2 on February 24th · Passed in House 79-21 on March 1st · Status: Still alive HB 562 – Authorizing “Community Choice” schools · Passed committee 8-5 on February 24th · Passed in House 63-37 on March 1st · Status: Still alive SB 118 – Revise aggregate limit on tax credit scholarship program · Has not moved since January 12th · Status: Likely dead SB 393 - Establish the Students with Special Needs Equal Opportunity Act · Passed in committee 9-4 on February 22nd · Awaiting floor action · Status: Still alive SB 390 – Provide freedom in school choice Education Savings Accounts · Tabled in committee February 27th · Failed to advance directly to floor 21-29 February 28th · Status: Likely dead Washington HB 1615 – Creating students first Education Savings Accounts · Has not moved past committee on February 2nd · Status: Likely dead Wyoming HB 194 – Creating Wyoming freedom scholarship account · Has not moved past committee on February 7th · Status: Likely dead SB 143 – Wyoming freedom scholarship act · Passed out of committee 4-1 on January 30th · Passed Senate 17-14 on February 2nd · House will not introduce bill · Status: Likely dead

Idaho agriculture, along with the rest of the country, endured many negative impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Other than health care, agriculture may be the most important sector in a time of national illness. What needs to be done to protect Idaho's Ag community from future health emergencies? Idaho legislators are intent on finding out. They have introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 102, which would establish an interim committee to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Idaho’s agricultural economy. The objective of the six-person committee is to make policy recommendations to protect Idaho’s agricultural sector from future pandemics and find remedies to the negative impacts of Covid-19. The cost to the Idaho taxpayers would be $15,000 to cover the travel and other committee expenses. Undoubtedly, Idaho agriculturalists experienced some bumps and bruises over the last three years. Is it worth $15,000 from Idaho taxpayers to look at the effects of COVID-19? Any farmer or ag-business worker participating in agriculture during 2020-2022 can easily speak to the business discomforts and challenges faced repetitively over this timeframe. Supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and cost run-ups were common, not just in Idaho but throughout the country. However, through it all the Idaho agricultural economy not only weathered the storm but grew. Supply chain disruptions were immediate throughout Idaho agriculture. The closure of restaurants decreased the demand for many goods, like butter and onions. These two ingredients alone had a profound impact on Idaho dairy producers and onion growers. A sudden stop to butter and cream purchases created a glut in the milk market, plummeting prices received at the farm gate. Onions suffered excess supplies, with 2019’s harvest of onions rotting in storages with no one willing to buy and consume them. These two goods were only the start of the troubles. Over the next two years, every producer felt supply chain disruptions, along with every industry in the world. Even consumers grappled with these supply chain issues, facing empty grocery shelves. Fertilizer and chemical inputs were often difficult to find. At one point hay producers were searching the region for baling twine in the middle of the summer! Difficulties were compounded with the ability to find labor to plant, grow, and harvest crops. A pre-existing challenge was worsened by confusing and changing regulations that made it difficult to secure enough labor to accomplish necessary tasks. Increasing the complexity of the pandemic, costs rose quickly, with diesel being the most notable. Despite these challenges Idaho grew their on-farm cash receipts by 6% in 2020, to $8.5 billion. The agricultural industry added $10 billion (13%) to Idaho’s GDP and accounted for 1 out of 8 jobs in the state (123,000). Even with complaints of increased costs, data from 2020 shows that total expenses decreased by 2% and net farm income increased by 38%. This excludes any government support payment that was dispersed with COVID relief monies. Two years later farm income has continued to grow with 2022 estimates at $11 billion, 29 percent higher than 2021 (also setting a new record). Expenses also set new records in 2022, at $8.9 billion (20 percent higher than 2021). Almost every area of expenses saw cost increases. Most farmers agree that 2022 brought about similar net incomes as normal years. What information will the new committee be able to generate outside of already created resources? We'll have to find out. The most valuable part of the exercise may be the help in educating lawmakers about Agricultural issues. The topic of COVID-19 and agriculture is frequently researched by public and private entities, and many resources are easily available online. Two resources include University of Idaho (U of I) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Parents should be the ultimate authority when it comes to the education of their child. Too often, politicians look the other way while school districts attempt to subvert parental oversight. That could be about to change in Idaho. House Bill 163 has been introduced by Rep. Judy Boyle and Sen. Ben Toews, with the backing of state Superintendent Debbie Critchfield. The "Parental Bill of Rights," as it's called, would add parent and guardian rights that are not currently found in Idaho state law. The bill requires that schools notify parents about changes to a child's mental, emotional or physical health. The legislation also requires parents are informed regarding: Student’s academic and health-related information; School-offered health and wellness services; Notification and parent permission for surveys that could determine a student’s personal information such as sexuality, religion, political beliefs or family financial details; Notification of contact with law enforcement in the school setting; and Reasonable access to observe school activities The bill has already passed unanimously out of the House Education Committee. Co-sponsors include the chairs of both the House and Senate Ed committees. It's disappointing that some school districts don't already do this voluntarily. If it takes a state law to make it happen and put parents back in charge, so be it.