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 .

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.

Note: This is a guest op-ed by the Tax Foundation. In most respects, Idaho and Montana have been enthusiastic in their pursuit of tax competitiveness. But if there’s one area of tax policy on which they are worse than their peers, it’s in their incorporation of GILTI—the federal tax on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income—into their own state tax codes. Not even California or Illinois does that. Twenty states and the District of Columbia tax GILTI, and Idaho and Montana are among them. With the federal tax on GILTI undergoing substantial changes under the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), there’s no time like the present for lawmakers to reconsider this uncompetitive, and increasingly irrational, state tax policy. Under the new federal law, GILTI is about to change to a tax on what is being called Net CFC Tested Income (NCTI). Since neither of these tongue-twisting terms is a household name, let’s take a step back to see what they are, and why these seemingly obscure provisions matter. Prior to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017, federal corporate income taxes applied to the entire worldwide net income (profits) of a corporation, with credits for foreign taxes paid. Now the U.S. operates under a mostly territorial system, with a few guardrails to curb international tax avoidance techniques like profit shifting and the parking of intellectual property in low-tax countries. One of these guardrails is GILTI, imposed on so-called “supernormal returns.” Essentially, under the GILTI regime, the federal government looks at the profits of foreign companies owned (or invested in) by U.S.-based multinationals, and if their annual profits are more than 10 percent of the value of their tangible property abroad, the U.S. assumes that the foreign entity is earning income from intellectual property (royalty payments on patents, trademarks, copyrights, and the like). It then taxes the foreign income above that threshold, albeit at a reduced rate, with credits for 80 percent of the value of taxes paid abroad. The upshot of this somewhat confusing system: if you have unusually high rates of profit in your foreign subsidiaries, and you aren’t paying much in foreign taxes on that income, the U.S. slaps a minimum tax on the activity. That makes a certain amount of sense. But when some states got in the act, taxing shares of this international activity, things got messy—fast. Now they’re getting messier. The OBBB overhauled the federal GILTI regime and rechristened it NCTI. Now, instead of only taxing foreign profits in excess of 10 percent, all  foreign income from these controlled foreign corporations is brought into the tax base. As an offset, the share of foreign tax credits that can be used against liability increases from 80 to 90 percent. Meanwhile, a 50 percent deduction that essentially limited the resulting tax to half the ordinary rate (10.5 percent rather than 21 percent at the federal level) is trimmed to a 40 percent deduction, raising the effective rate of the minimum tax. States often provide their own deductions that interact with this: Montana taxes 20 percent of GILTI and Idaho taxes 15 percent. Each of these inclusions would rise with the reduction in the federal deduction under NCTI. Under the GILTI regime, moreover, many expenses by U.S.-based multinationals were sourced to their foreign corporations to the extent that they were deemed to benefit them. Since these business expenses would have ordinarily been deductions from the U.S. company’s taxable income, these expense allocation rules (1) increased domestic tax liability for U.S.-based multinationals, since they were denied deductions for some of their business expenses; but, at the same time, (2) provided deductions for the foreign companies, reducing their taxable income potentially subject to GILTI. Under NCTI, these expenses are generally attributable to the parent corporation, and thus no longer reduce GILTI liability. (For a more detailed explanation of the changes, see here .) Under this new system, the initial base is broader (all income of these foreign corporations, with fewer expense deductions) and the rates are higher. And the vital offset—a credit for foreign taxes paid—isn’t available at the state level. That’s a huge problem, because without it, the whole system falls apart. When states tax NCTI, they’re not taxing foreign profit-shifting activity, or foreign income on which relatively little foreign tax has been paid. They’re taxing all the income of any foreign company in which a U.S.-based business has an ownership stake, even if the income was genuinely earned abroad (e.g., revenue from sales into European countries by a Europe-based corporation, rather than royalty payments for the U.S. parent company’s intellectual property sourced to a low-tax country), and without any reference to how much tax was paid to foreign countries. Actually, it’s worse than that. Foreign taxes do matter for state tax liability, but not in the way you would expect, and not in the way Congress intended. When the federal government allows credits against the U.S.-based company’s tax liability based on taxes its foreign subsidiaries paid abroad, this involves an imputation: the taxes are included in the parent company’s income and then credited against its tax liability. Imagine, for instance, that the U.S. company’s net income from foreign corporations was $100 million, and that those companies paid $10 million in foreign taxes. Without any tax credits, the NCTI tax liability would be $12.6 million ($100 million x 12.6 percent, which is 60 percent of the 21 percent federal rate). With the credits, however, the income is grossed up to $110 million, making pre-credit liability $13.86 million ($110 million x 12.6 percent), but then 90 percent of the value of the $10 million in foreign taxes paid is applied against the resulting tax liability, yielding $4.86 million in U.S. federal taxes. From this, it should be obvious that it’s no trifle that states omit the foreign tax credits, given their significance. And it gets worse still: states include the gross-up of income based on foreign taxes paid, even though they don’t acknowledge the tax credits. They literally tax the amount paid in foreign taxes. In the above example, states’ NCTI tax base would be 285 percent of the federal one. None of this makes any sense. It’s an inversion of the federal system and its purpose, and beyond that, there’s no principled way to apportion this foreign activity to specific states. Yet many states tax GILTI and are on track to even more nonsensically incorporate NCTI. GILTI was the rare tax issue where red states were just as guilty as blue states. But the conversion of NCTI, which will flow through to states currently taxing GILTI, might just be the nudge states like Montana and Idaho and others in the Mountain West need to remove this provision from their tax codes. There are valid reasons for the federal government to tax some of the income of U.S.-owned foreign corporations. But virtually nothing of its federal purpose, or even its intended federal base, is retained when incorporated into state tax codes, and there’s little innate justification for state taxation of international activity. California doesn’t tax GILTI/NCTI. Illinois doesn’t either. New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts eliminated all but a small share (5 percent inclusion). It’s time for policymakers in the Mountain West to ask why their states tax it, especially now that an already uncompetitive element of their state tax code is about to become considerably more burdensome. Jared Walczak is Vice President of State Projects at the T ax Foundation .

Government officials who damage private property must pay for what they ruin ruled the Wyoming Supreme Court unanimously last week in Thomas Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District . Common sense should have dictated the outcome years ago. But the decision ends a years- long battle between the Hamann family of Cody and Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID), whose former manager destroyed about $10,000 of fencing and other property and personally and permanently injured Mr. Hamann with an excavator while accessing his family’s land without permission. This is not just an example of one family receiving the partial justice it deserved (the case only dealt with the property damage, not the personal injury). It is a case of one man standing up for his rights so that every property owner in Wyoming will be treated with fairness and respect by irrigation districts and other state and local government organizations in the months and years ahead. HMID argued successfully in district court that it wasn’t liable for the damage to the Hamann’s property because board members hadn’t specifically authorized the manager’s actions during a public meeting (background on the story here ). During testimony, however, board members admitted that they frequently did not monitor the manager’s actions and left many decisions about how to carry out the function of the district to his discretion. Besides, under that logic, HMID would literally have to vote during public meetings on when and where a manager and other employees drink coffee, use the restroom, and other daily activities. Egregiously, HMID attempted to use open meetings laws as a cudgel to protect it from being held responsible for its role in the Hamann’s property damage when those laws are specifically designed to make it easier for citizens to make the inner workings of their government more transparent and accountable. It had argued that it could only make decisions during open meetings and therefore couldn’t be held responsible for the manager’s actions, which were not discussed in one. The state Supreme Court found that the manager was acting within the normal scope of his duties and that HMID should be held liable for his actions, even if board members hadn’t expressly ordered his behavior. A legal doctrine known as vicarious liability is used routinely to sue employers whose employees damage or ruin property or assault individuals, among other issues, when employees are acting within the normal range of their duties as in this case. Federal courts have also held the federal government responsible for the damage of their employees. The case could have gone farther by stating that all state and local government employees acting within the scope of their normal duties would be held to this standard, but the court chose to stick to the specifics of this particular case, which hinged on whether Mr. Hamann was due compensation under the state’s inverse condemnation statute. Inverse condemnation is a legal action by a property owner against the government for taking or damaging property. It is the opposite of eminent domain, the legal mechanism through which the government takes private property and compensates the owner ahead of the seizure. As the court found, “HMID’s narrow stance on liability is notably inconsistent with the very purpose of the inverse condemnation statute: to provide a means for landowners to seek compensation when the government forgoes formal action.” While specific to HMID, the decision does put state and local government organizations on notice that they are not above the law and can be sued successfully for property damage. As Austin Waisanen, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, the pro bono legal group representing Mr. Hamann, said, “This is an important victory for Wyoming property owners.” He added, “The government cannot avoid its obligation to pay compensation to property owners for property damage caused by its employees by merely claiming that an employee’s actions were unauthorized. ‘You break it, you fix it’ applies to the government, just like everyone else.”  Mr. Hamann said he is relieved by the decision despite the fact that he is still dealing with the physical damage of the incident. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that my payoff is that they won’t do this to anyone else again,” he said. This ruling should be posted in every state and local government office as a reminder that everyone is beholden to the rule of law, including its enforcers.

Most Americans are unaware that the National Education Association (NEA) — the nation’s largest teachers’ union — enjoys a rare privilege: a federal charter granted by Congress in 1906. That puts the NEA in the same elite company as storied civic institutions like the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts of America, and the U.S. Olympic Committee. But while those organizations are rightly seen as broadly patriotic and educational in purpose, the NEA has morphed into something entirely different. Rather than promoting the “character and interests of the profession of teaching” and the “cause of education in the United States” — the goals stated in its charter — the NEA has become a partisan political juggernaut, wielding hundreds of millions of dollars and outsized influence to advance an agenda far beyond the classroom. It’s time for Congress to step in and act, and a new bill would do exactly that. In the 2021–22 academic year, the NEA boasted nearly 2.5 million active members, and even more public school employees are bound by NEA-negotiated contracts. Its D.C. headquarters reported over $600 million in revenue, not counting the vast sums collected by its state and local affiliates. It is, by every measure, the largest labor union in the United States and the most powerful private influence on American public education policy. Yet the NEA was never meant to be a political engine. Incorporated in Washington, D.C. in 1886, the NEA initially functioned as a professional association, not a labor union. That changed in the 1960s and ’70s as collective bargaining in government took root. From that point forward, the NEA gradually transformed into a political organization — a shift that has only accelerated in recent years. Today, there’s little that the NEA doesn’t weigh in on, from gun control to abortion rights, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, racial justice activism, and gender policies in sports. In short, if it’s controversial in American politics, the NEA probably has a position on it — and the money to influence outcomes. Last week, the NEA voted to fight against President “Trump's embrace of fascism”, voted to promote controversial events in public schools, and voted to sever all ties with the Anti-Defamation League. The NEA stands alone among labor unions as the only one with a congressional charter. That charter — shorter and less restrictive than most Title 36 charters — grants the NEA prestige and recognition without any meaningful accountability to Congress or the public. Unlike other federally chartered groups, the NEA can determine the entirety of its governance and operations through its own internal bylaws, with little oversight. This imbalance must be corrected. Revoking the NEA’s charter entirely would serve only as a symbolic rebuke, because the union’s D.C. incorporation predates the charter. But Congress has the authority — and the obligation — to amend that charter to ensure the NEA upholds the public trust it once enjoyed. The NEA’s current behavior goes far beyond its original mission. While its charter focuses narrowly on promoting the teaching profession and the cause of education, the union’s own internal goals have ballooned to include: Promoting “the health and welfare of children,” Defending “public employees’ right to collective bargaining,” Supporting “racial justice for our students, our communities, and our nation,” Providing “leadership in solving social problems,” Using “all available means, including organizing, legal, legislative, electoral, and collective action.” In other words, the NEA is no longer just a teachers’ association — it is a massive political enterprise advancing an expansive and often divisive social agenda. That’s not what Congress envisioned when it gave the NEA its charter. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of what that designation was meant to honor. Short of revoking the NEA's charter, Congress could require any of the following reforms: Ban the NEA from electoral politics and lobbying. Mandate annual transparency reports to Congress. Prohibit racial quotas or discriminatory practices. Eliminate the NEA’s special D.C. tax exemption. Ensure its leadership structure is democratically representative of its members. Require affirmative consent before collecting dues from public employees. Ban taxpayer-funded union release time. Subject the NEA to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Bar the NEA from encouraging or tolerating teacher strikes. Clarify officer liability, tax-exempt status, and corporate dissolution procedures. These aren’t radical demands — they’re basic guardrails for accountability. Perhaps the most revealing insight into the NEA’s current values came at its 2019 convention, when members rejected a proposal to refocus the organization’s efforts on “increased student learning in every public school in America.” The resolution argued that student learning should be the NEA’s highest priority and the central focus of its resources. It was voted down. That vote, more than anything else, demonstrates how far the NEA has drifted from its chartered purpose. It can be argued that the organization no longer prioritizes students or learning. It prioritizes power. Congress has reformed and even repealed federal charters before — most notably when it stripped the National German-American Alliance of its charter in 1918 after concerns about its activities. With the NEA, the case for reform is not rooted in partisanship but in principle. This is about ensuring that a powerful institution, operating under a congressional endorsement, actually serves the public good. The reforms listed above are reasonable, targeted, and an effective blueprint to restore accountability, transparency, and educational focus to the NEA. Congress must act to align the NEA with its original mission and ensure that America's largest teachers’ union once again becomes a voice for educators and students — not ideology. This is about reclaiming public education from politics and putting children first. Congress has the tools. All it needs now is the will.

Taxpayers across Washington state have had a rough go as of late. New gas taxes, increased capital gains income taxes, and higher B&O taxes are hitting the wallets of many across the Evergreen State. That’s why it was overall good news when state officials recently announced they used the new open-bidding system established in 2015 to get ferries in the water more economically. Due to the new open system, taxpayers will save an estimated $357 million throughout the program.   Washington Policy Center (WPC) wrote about the opportunity for open bid savings back in 2015 ( Ending ‘Build in Washington’ rule would cut new ferry construction costs by 30% ). At the time, the state had an uncompetitive landscape when it came to receiving bids: only one company met the requirements. As such, taxpayers paid a higher tax premium due to the restricted bidding process. While the recent savings news was mostly seen as a “win” for taxpayers, some saw the out-of-state contract as a “loss” for the Washington shipbuilding industry. To start, the Washington-based boatyard got a +13% credit to their bid, meaning they could be more expensive, yet still score better. Despite that advantage, they were still massively underbid by the winning Florida-based company. To many, the shock of a 33% savings ($714 million vs $1.07 billion) from open bidding revealed the burden Washington state places on businesses, rendering them uncompetitive in ferry construction. This led some lawmakers to call for reducing barriers  and easing regulations to increase competitiveness. After all, even under protectionism, shipbuilding in Washington state was shrinking under the “Build in Washington” rule. Employment in shipbuilding in the state fell 77% from its peak of 13,946 employees in 1982 to 3,268 by 2014 , per a WSSIP report. The other concern, even with the one-third savings, is the sheer cost of the electrification of the ferries. WPC noted in the 2015 report that WSDOT purchased diesel ferries at $131 million per ship while BC Ferries in Canada was getting hybrid diesel/LNG ferries at $79 million ($USD). Despite the potential for even more savings, leaders opted instead for electric ferries and their associated infrastructure. It should be noted that a $79 million LNG BC ferry would cost $109 million in today’s dollars, while the winning electric hybrid equates to $238 million per ferry, more than double. This shows how focusing on electric propulsion is a major factor in the inflated cost. This is confirmed by the fact that BC Ferries can retrofit a vessel to LNG for $10-50 million  ($USD, inflation-adjusted), while Washington officials say it costs $96 million  to convert a ferry to electric. Washington companies should be able to compete in their own backyard, just like they want to compete in other states. The open competition drove costs down 33%, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Yet the fact that shipbuilding in Washington is still so uncompetitive should signal an urgent S.O.S. to lawmakers that they need to right the state’s tax and regulatory ship.

AI is transforming how we produce, consume, and distribute information. Tools powered by artificial intelligence can accelerate research, summarize gigantic data sets, write papers, and demystify for others how algorithms that analyze us work. But the speed of progress carries with it a truth of its own: faster isn’t always better, especially when it comes to government documents. The recent publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report 'Make America Healthy Again' provides a reminder of this. The report was packaged as an ambitious, sweeping vision for improving health outcomes, but it came under scrutiny after it was revealed  that dozens of citations were either plagiarized or fabricated, with some references citing studies that did not actually exist. This issue from the HHS report doesn’t show a new problem as much as it illustrates a new twist on an old one. In the past, government agencies have relied on employees and researchers in order to generate reports and citations. The presumption, both then and now, is that such materials are rigorously vetted before publication. The real mess was not the AI, but the review process. Best practices don’t change: Regardless of who or what produces a report, it’s the human official signing off on the report who is responsible for its verification. This lack of verification isn't new. In 2023, as reported by Reuters , a U.S. judge imposed sanctions on two New York lawyers who submitted a legal brief that included six fictitious case citations generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT. Even traditional media has run into these problems. Early in 2024, the BBC tested the capabilities of AI tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity. The result? More than half of the AI answers tested contained significant factual errors, such as misquoting sources, making up facts, or providing bad advice. These are the kinds of errors that should give us pause, especially as AI comes to be more deeply embedded in education, media, and policymaking. At Mountain States Policy Center, we are all about innovation. For example, MSPC is blazing the trail with the launch of an AI-based assistant, “WONK.” Built to make research on legislation both more accessible and more transparent, WONK is designed to allow citizens, legislators, and reporters to quickly get details on legislative bills. By using artificial intelligence, MSPC isn’t just talking about modernizing government and policy conversations; we’re doing it. We also believe in accountability and transparency. At a time when large language models can produce policy memos, budget summaries, and even state reports in minutes, the role of human reviewers becomes more important, not less. AI can be a valuable tool, but it does not have the judgment, the context, or the moral compass of human reasoning. It is unaware of the consequences of an erroneous statistic or a fabricated fact that is relied upon. It doesn’t know when a citation warrants double-checking, nor does it take into account how an error might corrode public trust, especially in policymaking. To reap the benefits of AI without sacrificing public trust, policymakers should establish basic guardrails, like ensuring that AI-assisted government reports, press releases, and policy memos must be human-reviewed and verified before they are published. It would also be good for stakeholders to develop an AI literacy (what AI can and cannot do) training for civil servants who work with sensitive data, legal documents, and public health to ensure every public servant has access. A well-trained staff can avoid the very mistakes now filling the newspapers. This isn’t about stifling innovation. It is about keeping the public trust at the forefront and making sure new technologies serve truth, not just speed. The future should be rooted in accountability, not fear. AI is here to stay, and we should all learn how to use it as a tool rather than a speedy crutch.

Is Idaho about to fall off the fiscal cliff due to irresponsible budgeting? No. The Gem State’s current budget has a decent ending fund balance, substantial budget reserves on hand, and many important fiscal tools available should the economic outlook for the state and country change. Unfortunately, there’s a false narrative going around that Governor Little’s prudent use of budget planning tools means the state is on the wrong path. Here are the current details for the state’s budget framework: 2026 adopted spending : $5.62 billion   Ending fund balance : $345 million (6.2%) Unrestricted general fund reserves : $880 million (14.8%) Total reserves : $1.307 billion (22.1%) Due to a softening of the forecasted revenue growth, the Division of Financial Management sent a memo to state agencies on May 29 requesting they identify potential spending “holdbacks.” From the memo : “Governor Little will prioritize critical investments in essential areas while ensuring a conservative and balanced budget for Idaho. Although we understand that there are still many initiatives and challenges that impact your agency and operations, we must submit a balanced budget, and Idaho’s current revenue projections only allow for slight growth in appropriations for FY 2027. Governor Little will still work with your agencies and the Legislature to identify priorities and critical investments that solve problems and prepare Idaho for a successful future. Also, as we continue to watch revenue projections for FY 2026 and FY 2027, it is important that State agencies are prepared to manage budgets and maintain conservative spending. We are asking all state agencies to internally prepare 2%, 4%, and 6% budget holdback scenarios to have in place as we continue to watch economic trends at the national level. This exercise not only helps us be prepared for uncertainty but also allows agencies to look internally at priorities and operations and ensure critical operations are prioritized.” I recently had the opportunity to talk with Idaho’s Division of Financial Management Administrator Lori Wolff about the state’s budget outlook. She expressed confidence in the budget balance sheet and told me that the Governor’s request for agencies to identify possible spending holdbacks isn’t all related to changing revenue growth projections. She said: “Sometimes holdbacks are not due to revenue but to reduce future spending pressures.” Some have interpreted the May memo to claim that lawmakers were irresponsible to prioritize tax relief or invest in the new education choice tax credit  (HB 93) this year. Instead, it shows the Governor is taking advantage of a rational budget management tool to provide options if the economic outlook deteriorates in the future. Remember, revenues are still growing, and there is a $345 million ending fund balance for FY 2025   and $880 million in unrestricted reserves ($1.3 billion in total reserves). 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.” Should the economic outlook deteriorate significantly, however, Governor Little has the option of using the aforementioned holdbacks , budget reserves , or a combination of the two. 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) if needed, without imperiling its budget stability.  As Administrator Wolff noted in June : “Idaho also has 22% of general fund revenues in rainy day funds, greater than almost every other state. While we continue to watch revenue closely, we feel good about the strength of the state budget and our economy.” A July 11 press release from Governor Little highlighted this positive economic growth for Idaho: " Withholding collections – reflecting job and wage growth – are up 5.9% over last year. Gross sales tax revenues are up 3.7%, and online sales tax collections are tracking 13.2% above last year. Idaho’s GDP has grown 150% in the last five years. Adjusting for inflation, Idaho’s real GDP is up more than 21% in the past five years alone, demonstrating exponential, resilient growth. In addition, Idaho ranks third in the nation for the largest increase in average weekly wages." Just to illustrate how prudent Idaho’s budget balance sheet is, let’s compare it with our neighbors in Washington State. Despite imposing the largest tax increase in state history  this year, the Evergreen State has only a fraction of the budget discipline  Idaho has demonstrated. For example: Washington’s ending funding balance is only $33 million (or 0.04%) compared to Idaho’s $345 million (or 6.2%). Washington’s total budget reserves are only 2.7% compared to Idaho’s 22%. There is no denying that there are economic headwinds facing state budgets across the country, driven primarily by unpredictable fiscal policy at the federal level. The good news for Idaho is that the state’s balance sheet is sound, with a 6.2% ending fund, more than a billion dollars in total reserves, and state revenues are still projected to grow overall.

Navajo George Tutt started uranium mining in 1949 as a hand mucker. Hand muckers would procure uranium waste and ore from veins in the mountains, using basic tools like pickaxes and shovels and wheeling it out in wheelbarrows. Today, miners are well informed about the risks surrounding uranium mining, and many steps are taken to protect workers from its effects. However, during Tutt’s time, such precautions were not taken. He recounts  that there was never any communication about risks surrounding uranium mining, and even basic safety measures like the distribution of work gloves were unknown during his time mining in Colorado. Unsurprisingly, Tutt and many of his coworkers would suffer from cancer or other ailments directly related to uranium mining activities.   Claudia Peterson was just five years old when she witnessed a large mushroom cloud rising about a hundred miles east of her southern Utah home. By the time she was thirty-five, Claudia was a cancer survivor  who had watched her father die of a brain tumor, her six-year-old daughter Bethany die after three years fighting neuroblastoma (a rare type of cancer which primarily affects young children), and her only sister Cathy die of skin cancer.  ​Neither of these stories are simply anecdotes. Sarah Fox provides compelling evidence in her 2014 book Downwind: A People’s History of the Nuclear West that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), and uranium mining companies all were aware of the serious health risks surrounding radiation poisoning resulting from uranium mining or nuclear bomb testing as early as 1951, but failed to inform miners or other citizens. It would be another 39 years until President Bush would sign the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) into law, which finally gave compensation for those affected. Across the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, tens of thousands of people have claimed compensation from RECA.  That’s because from 1945 to 1962, the U.S. performed 100 above-ground nuclear tests, which released massive amounts of radioactive fallout across the continental U.S. Frustratingly, the AEC was the commission responsible for performing the tests and maintaining communication with the public about any potential risks from nuclear testing. This led to a perverse cycle whereby many dangerous nuclear tests were performed with virtually no real public communication about said dangers. And the results were devastating: disproportionate cases of lung, stomach, thyroid, and other types of cancer; severe radiation effects on crops and livestock among a population which was made up of primarily subsistence farmers; many infants and children who died from cancer tied to radioactive isotopes that passed from their mother’s breast milk or cattle’s dairy into their lungs and stomach. I do not have room here to recount more stories from individual downwinders. Thankfully, that project has been and will continue to be carried out by dedicated scholars like Fox. July 16 th  is the 80 th  anniversary of the first Trinity nuclear test . It is a good time for us all to reflect on the importance of government transparency. So long as the government is involved in a particular endeavor, it has the obligation to ensure that there are no serious public health risks from its activities. If there are any risks, the government has the obligation to tell its citizens so that they may vote, either with their feet or by the ballot. The story of the downwinders is ugly, but it is an important commentary on the need for government transparency. If we fail to take such commentary seriously, we should not be surprised to read about many more George Tutts or Claudia Petersons in the future.