In a shocking 8-1 ruling , the Washington State Supreme Court has given its official blessing to a secretive process that allows the offers and counteroffers leading to more than a billion dollars in taxpayer-funded compensation to remain secret until after the state budget is signed into law. By failing to uphold the clear intent of Washington’s robust public records law, expect more labor unrest, not less, as a result of this ruling. For example, Washington state employees walked off the job last year to protest the compensation offers from then-Governor Inslee. According to KOMO News : “WFSE negotiators said they want to express their frustration with where the labor talks have gone. They called the wage offer proposed by the state … ‘disrespectful’ and are demanding livable pay rates.” The problem is, except for a handful of people involved in the secret compensation talks, no one knew what the actual details were. Since 2004 , state negotiations with union executives about how much taxpayers compensate government employees have been secret, even though these talks with the governor’s office involve more than a billion dollars in public spending per biennium. Before 2004, compensation decisions were made transparently with public hearings. They were part of the normal legislative budget process. That’s as it should be. In a  2024 video , WFSE leaders told public employees that they can’t share details of the pay talks until a tentative agreement has been reached, implying that they are being forbidden from doing so. Ashley Fueston, council vice president, said, “The way that our bargaining structure works here in the state of Washington, we aren’t allowed to share the details of what’s happening within bargaining.”  What Fueston didn’t say is that secrecy is something union leadership wants and has  fought to maintain . For example, Section 39.13  of the WFSE 2023-25 contract says: "Bargaining sessions will be closed to the press and the public unless agreed otherwise by the chief spokespersons. No proposals will be placed on the parties’ web sites…. There will be no public disclosure or public discussion of the issues being negotiated until resolution or impasse is reached on all issues submitted for negotiations." Keeping taxpayers and public employees in the dark allows union leadership to get away with saying things like a compensation offer is “disrespectful” without actually providing any details. Unfortunately, this charade is likely to continue as a result of the state supreme court's ruling on June 26, which green-lights secrecy on the offers and counteroffers that lead to an agreement.   The lone dissenting voice to this tragic ruling was the new state Justice Salvador Mungia. He astutely noted : “The people have the right to know what their government is doing. That value is the basis for the Public Records Act (PRA). The presumption is that the public is entitled to information their government holds. Withholding information is the exception, and this court’s responsibility is to construe any exemption under the PRA as narrowly as reasonably possible so that information is disclosed and not withheld.” Government employee contract negotiations should be fully open to the public . At a minimum, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed should be made publicly available before and after the contract meetings, with a fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. This would better inform the public and state employees about promises and tradeoffs being proposed, so all sides could decide if the offers are in fact “disrespectful” or instead reflect fiscal realities. This type of transparency also makes clear whether one side or the other is being unreasonable in its demands, and quickly reveals whether anyone is acting in bad faith. Now that the state supreme court has issued this pro-secrecy ruling, reforms to the collective bargaining process in Washington are essential. For example, Idaho law prevents cities and unions from negotiating any contracts in secret. Democrats and Republicans passed the law unanimously and it was signed into law by former Governor Butch Otter in 2015. Ideally, contract negotiations should be fully open to the public. At a minimum, government officials should adopt an openness process like the one used by the City of Costa Mesa, California, to keep the public informed. The city’s policy is called Civic Openness in Negotiations, or COIN. Under COIN, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed in closed-door negotiations are made publicly available before and after the meetings, with fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. While not full-fledged open meetings, access to all of the documents better informs the public about promises and tradeoffs being proposed with their tax dollars before an agreement is reached. It's incredibly disappointing to see the Washington State Supreme Court rubber-stamp the current anti-transparent government employee compensation process being used in the Evergreen State. State employees and taxpayers deserve much better.

Parents, you won't want to miss these details from the Idaho State Tax Commission. The full implementation of HB 93 (school choice tax credit) is moving forward, and families are invited to register for an online webinar on August 19 or an in-person seminar in Boise on August 26 to learn more about how to apply for the tax credit. In preparation for these events, the Idaho State Tax Commission has posted an FAQ page to answer the questions parents may have about how to utilize this new education choice option. This new school choice program provides eligible families a $5,000 tax credit for educational expenses, including private school tuition. Special needs students could qualify for a $7,500 tax credit. It is universal (any family can apply), but priority will be given first to low-income families. Because of the first-come, first-served structure of the tax credit, parents are encouraged to act quickly once the application period opens. According to the Tax Commission: "You’ll be able to apply for the 2025 program online from January 15, 2026, through March 15, 2026. Please remember this is a first-come, first-served program, so we recommend you apply as soon as possible. The program requires priority to be given to parents whose total adjusted income doesn’t exceed 300% of the federal poverty level. In addition, applicants are required to keep receipts for qualified expenses. Applicants whose total adjusted income exceeds 300% of the federal poverty level will be placed on a wait list until priority applications have been processed. All applications will be processed in the order in which they’re received . . . You’ll apply online through our Taxpayer Access Point (TAP). You’ll need to get a TAP account if you don’t already have one for individual income tax. We suggest you register for a TAP account now, so you’ll be ready to fill out your application online in January. It can take from one day to two weeks to register for the account depending on your circumstances. To get a TAP account, register at tax.idaho.gov/NewTAP ."    The Parental Choice Tax Credit is currently capped at $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget .  This tax credit does not take any funding from traditional public schools. As Mountain States Policy Center has repeatedly noted , the HB 93 school choice tax credit is not a voucher. The Idaho State Tax Commission also makes this point clear in its FAQ: "Is the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit program a voucher program? No. Once the tax credit is awarded through the application process, it goes directly to a parent, guardian, or foster parent of the eligible student(s)." We'll post additional details about this exciting new education choice program in Idaho as they become available.

President Trump recently signed H.R.1, aka the " One Big Beautiful Bill Act ," into law. The basis of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax relief. Also included in the new law is the first substantial reform to the Medicaid health insurance entitlement. Despite claims that “the sky is falling,” the Medicaid reforms are actually a start at guaranteeing that the program will survive into the future and be available for the country’s most vulnerable people. Opponents decry the “cuts” to Medicaid. In reality, the new law actually reduces an INCREASE in spending from four percent to two percent. Only convoluted accounting would define an increase in spending as a “cut." Medicaid spending was $900 billion last year and has increased by 60 percent since 2019 . The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that even with H.R.1 in place, Medicaid will grow by $200 billion over the next decade. Medicaid began in 1965 as a 50/50 financial partnership between states and the federal government. It was focused as a health insurance safety net for the country’s poor and disabled. Obamacare in 2014 gave states the option of expanding the entitlement to any able-bodied, low-income individual between the ages of 18 and 64. The enticement for the states was a 90 percent contribution from the federal government. The program has never undergone significant reforms and in many states now functions as a piggy bank for not only taxpayer-funded health insurance, but also spending on housing, transportation, and food supplements. So, what are the Medicaid reforms in H.R.1? For starters, the law adds a work requirement for single, able-bodied individuals and recipients with children over the age of 13. The requirement is 80 hours per month and can include community service or education. Estimates vary, but research shows that potentially 40 percent of the able-bodied Medicaid enrollees could work but don’t . H.R.1 also includes a cost-sharing provision. Recipients will need to pay $35 as a co-pay for a provider visit, a medical test, or treatment. The out-of-pocket amount cannot exceed five percent of a family’s annual income. The law also tightens up eligibility checks. Instead of relying on states to determine the timing of compliance checks, H.R.1 requires that states confirm eligibility every six months. For years, states have been gaming Medicaid by using a provider tax. Hospitals pay a Medicaid tax, which shows higher state spending on Medicaid. This in turn, precipitates a higher financial match from the federal government. The state then pays hospitals a higher Medicaid fee. The whole scheme is essentially legalized fraud. H.R.1 drops the acceptable tax from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. As a payback to hospitals, the law sets aside $50 billion for rural hospitals. It is unclear how those funds will be dispersed. There are currently a staggering 83 million people, or 25 percent of the U.S. population, enrolled in Medicaid . Remember, Medicaid was supposed to be a health insurance safety net for low-income individuals and families. The estimates of the number of people who will lose health insurance because of H.R.1 have no foundation in reality. The CBO estimate , which is the most widely published, comes in at approximately 11 million people by 2034. Almost 5 million are estimated because of non-compliance with the work requirement, and another 1.4 million because they are not U.S. citizens. Millions more are expected due to unwillingness to do the necessary eligibility verification paperwork. There are two issues here. First of all, no one knows exactly how many people would be dropped from Medicaid. The numbers seem frightening, but are also being promoted by opponents of any Medicaid reform. Secondly, there is no way to know how many people who lose Medicaid would simply find other sources of health insurance. Opponents of H.R.1 believe that the law will “gut” the Medicaid entitlement. However, Medicaid must be reformed if it is going to survive as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable, as originally intended. Medicaid is now one of the largest non-discretionary budget items for the federal government and is one of the three largest budget items for every state. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is a long-overdue beginning at Medicaid reform. The program needs to return to its roots as a helping hand for the most vulnerable and not be used as a Trojan horse for government-provided single-payer healthcare.

Add outrageous cell phone taxes to the major financial difference between living in states like Idaho and Montana, versus Washington state. When you open your cell phone bill each month, the price you agreed to with your carrier is only part of the story. Hidden beneath the advertised rate is a complex web of taxes, fees, and surcharges—many of them imposed by state and local governments. These charges vary widely across the United States, leading some consumers to pay nearly 25% more in taxes and fees than others in neighboring states. Cell phone users pay a combination of: Federal Universal Service Fund (USF) fees, which help subsidize rural communications and low-income support programs. State and local sales taxes, which apply to most goods and services. State-specific telecommunications taxes, which often predate modern wireless services and were originally designed for landlines. 911 fees, which fund emergency call systems. Here are a few examples of states with the highest effective cell phone tax rates (as of recent estimates): Illinois: Among the highest in the country, with combined state, local, and federal charges topping over 23% of the bill. Arkansas: Heavy state universal service and 911 fees push effective rates above 21%. Washington: High state taxes and local utility surcharges combine for a burden near 22%. Nebraska: Local telecommunications taxes and surcharges add up quickly, exceeding 20%. New York: Wireless consumers face layered state and city taxes, approaching 21% in many areas. In contrast, Idaho (3.35%), Montana (7.03%), Oregon (8.93%), and Delaware (8.64%) have some of the lowest wireless tax burdens. State and local governments have long relied on telecommunications taxes as a steady revenue stream. As more consumers dropped landlines and moved to wireless, lawmakers simply applied the same taxing structures—sometimes without updating the rates or simplifying the system. Unfortunately, these taxes are regressive, disproportionately impacting lower-income households who rely heavily on wireless service as their primary internet access. There's also complexity and lack of transparency, making it hard for consumers to know what they’re actually paying for. While the convenience of mobile service is undeniable, the patchwork of state and local taxes means you might be paying far more—or less—than your neighbors in the next state over.

In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Delaware: George Read | Caesar Rodney | Thomas McKean | Pennsylvania: George Clymer | Benjamin Franklin | Robert Morris | John Morton | Benjamin Rush | George Ross | James Smith | James Wilson | George Taylor | Massachusetts: John Adams | Samuel Adams | John Hancock | Robert Treat Paine | Elbridge Gerry New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett | William Whipple | Matthew Thornton | Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins | William Ellery | New York: Lewis Morris | Philip Livingston | Francis Lewis | William Floyd | Georgia: Button Gwinnett | Lyman Hall | George Walton | Virginia: Richard Henry Lee | Francis Lightfoot Lee | Carter Braxton | Benjamin Harrison | Thomas Jefferson | George Wythe | Thomas Nelson, Jr. | North Carolina: William Hooper | John Penn | Joseph Hewes South Carolina: Edward Rutledge | Arthur Middleton | Thomas Lynch, Jr. | Thomas Heyward, Jr. | New Jersey: Abraham Clark | John Hart | Francis Hopkinson | Richard Stockton | John Witherspoon | Connecticut: Samuel Huntington | Roger Sherman | William Williams | Oliver Wolcott | Maryland: Charles Carroll | Samuel Chase | Thomas Stone | William Paca |

For years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has ignored the pleas of states wanting to study the implications of removing Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in small pilot programs. Though many studies incentivizing improved nutritional choices have been approved by the USDA. Why the preference for incentives over boundaries? Some might say it’s a reluctance to be a nanny state, as stated by the last Trump Administration. Former Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in May 2017, “On what level do we want to become a nanny state of directing how, and what, people feed their families?” Or it’s the slippery slope of government coercion as argued by American Enterprise Institute’s Benjamin Zycher, “If it is acceptable for government to limit the food choices available to SNAP beneficiaries on healthfulness grounds, then no principle prevents the government from refusing to pay for individual health care services unless the given individual adheres to lifestyle choices—diet, exercise, etc.—approved by the government.” But really, it's none of those things. Excluding SSBs from SNAP benefits does not prevent beneficiaries from using personal dollars for these allotments, as explained by another American Enterprise Scholar Angela Rachidi saying , “Moreover, with or without restrictions, recipients remain free to purchase whatever foods they want—with their own money. The rationale for restricting SNAP purchases lies in ensuring that this taxpayer-funded program is aligned with its purpose.” Instead, the USDA’s reluctance has been political. The USDA has unilaterally rejected these requests to set stricter limits on purchasing decisions, languishing in the ‘ iron triangle ’ of opposition from food and beverage industry lobbyists, liberals defending SNAP benefits in totality, and institutional agency preferences. The reluctance to ban SSBs has ignored many years of research conjecturing that the removal of SSBs would contribute to the health of low-income Americans. A 2016 study from the USDA showed SSBs were the number one product purchased by SNAP benefits at 9.3%. Additionally, SNAP benefits were used in three-fourths of the food purchases versus out-of-pocket expenditures. It is hard to ignore the possible conclusions from the correlation that SNAP recipients have an obesity prevalence of 40%, versus 32% for low-income non-SNAP participants. It is not the place of taxpayer-provided benefits to pay for food that is undermining public health. Instead, restricting taxpayer-funded purchases away from unhealthy products leaves more SNAP benefits available for nutritious foods, as originally intended. The current administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission is changing this long-run USDA narrative, recently approving six state petitions for banning SSBs, candy, and energy drinks with various proposals. Idaho is one of these six states removing unhealthy foods from SNAP. Current Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said , “The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer. Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.” It is admirable to see Idaho as one of the first states in line to focus this taxpayer-funded benefit on healthy options. Directed by the state legislature with House Bill 109 during the 2025 legislative session, Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare formally requested the waiver from the USDA. Then Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director Alex Adams said , “This is about ensuring that public dollars are used to support public health. By aligning SNAP benefits with nutritional goals, we’re not only promoting better outcomes for families today—we’re investing in a healthier, more resilient Idaho.”(In March 2025, Alex Adams was nominated as the Assistant Secretary for the Administration of Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.) Governor Brad Little also supported the waiver saying, "Idaho proudly welcomes the MAHA movement because it is all about looking for new ways to improve nutrition, increase exercise, and take better care of ourselves and one another, especially our children. We are excited to partner with the Trump administration in bringing common sense to the government's food assistance program with the approval of our SNAP waiver." SNAP is an important resource for low-income families. Idaho recognizes the vital role it plays in ensuring a more resilient state. Removing SSBs and candy from the list of approved purchases will ensure that taxpayers are funding health food options for SNAP participants. Mountain States Policy Center recognizes that the citizen, not the government, is the best advocate for their own health. By removing the taxpayer-provided subsidies for sugary drinks, a government incentive is removed from unhealthy products, leaving the beneficiaries free to make their own food choices with their own dollars.

I was proud and honored to represent Mountain States Policy Center at the James Madison Institute’s annual Tech and Innovation Summit in Florida on June 25-26, 2025. The summit was divided into two parts: a closed-group roundtable and an open day that featured workshops and policy debates. On June 25, MSPC provided its expertise to the closed-group Emerging Tech Threats Roundtable. This in-depth conversation covered several important discussion topics, including AI and the structure of data center infrastructure, child safety online, and antitrust in tech markets. Our perspective focused on facilitating innovative technologies while adopting responsible safeguards with necessary human oversight. I had the opportunity to highlight how Mountain States Policy Center is actively participating in the national AI policy discussion . My recommendation to attendees was to look beyond white papers and start the hard, urgent work of building good policy from the ground floor. This includes being committed to federalism as a governing principle while understanding that there is still a need for a national framework. This is especially important as some states continue to adopt tech regulations. While a focus on protecting children online is important, these efforts should be part of a coordinated approach. The main JMI policy event featured a wide variety of workshops and learning sessions to help policy leaders keep up with the most current intelligence on technology and the challenges ahead. Topics within the tech sector were diverse, with sessions titled “Truth in the Age of AI,” “Florida’s Algorithm for Innovation,” and panels discussing broadband policy and regulatory reform. Former Michigan Congressman Justin Amash delivered a strong keynote address on the importance of principled governance in policymaking and specifically regarding technology policy. MSPC’s participation in the national tech conference demonstrated our continued focus on the need for thoughtful policymaking that encourages innovation, protects consumers, and responsibly controls the rise of new threats. We are grateful to the James Madison Institute for putting together the event and for the creative and thoughtful tech brainstorming.

If you’ve ever wondered whether it’s worth the drive across the border to fuel up in Idaho instead of Washington, the answer is a resounding yes—especially if you care about saving money, understanding where your tax dollars go, and holding government accountable. While fuel prices across the country remain volatile, the gap between Washington and Idaho has grown into a canyon. The difference? Taxes, regulations, and transparency—or the lack of it. As of this week, the average price of a gallon of regular gas in Idaho is $3.69, compared to $4.87 in Washington. That’s a jaw-dropping $1.18 difference per gallon. A standard 15-gallon fill-up in Idaho could save a Washington driver over $17 every time they gas up. For families feeling the squeeze of inflation, that’s not small change—it’s hundreds of dollars a year in real savings. Fuel taxes are a major reason for the price discrepancy: Washington state’s gas tax is increasing on July 1 by 6 cents to 55.4 cents per gallon, one of the highest in the nation. State lawmakers also put this gas tax increase on autopilot this year, with it set to increase automatically by 2% each year. When combined with the 18.4-cent federal tax, drivers will be paying nearly 74 cents per gallon in taxes alone. Idaho’s gas tax, by contrast, is 33 cents per gallon, bringing its total tax load to 51.4 cents per gallon—more than 22 cents less per gallon than Washington. But the taxes themselves are only part of the issue. Washington has further driven up costs through a cap-and-invest program, effectively a “carbon tax” that forces fuel suppliers to buy emissions credits. These regulatory costs are quietly passed along to consumers without clear disclosure. It is estimated that this carbon tax is currently adding an additional 46 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline in the Evergreen State. Idaho doesn’t impose these carbon fees, meaning lower regulatory costs and less government interference in fuel pricing. It’s a clear, measurable advantage for Idaho drivers—and a growing point of frustration for Washingtonians. Drivers in border communities like Spokane, Clarkston, and Pullman have already figured it out: gas up in Post Falls, Lewiston, or Coeur d’Alene. It’s not uncommon to see license plates from Washington lined up at Idaho gas stations, with drivers saving hundreds of dollars per year by simply crossing the state line. This isn’t just about consumer choice. It’s about government responsibility. If Washington is going to impose the highest gas taxes in the country, policymakers have a duty to ensure those dollars are being used efficiently and transparently. Under state law and the Washington Constitution, fuel tax revenue is supposed to be spent on highway purposes—not swept into unrelated programs or used to fund political agendas. Unfortunately, that transparency is often missing. Between overlapping environmental programs, regulatory fees, and administrative costs, many taxpayers are left wondering: Where is all this money going—and why aren’t the roads any better? High gas prices aren’t inevitable—they’re often the result of policy choices. If Washington lawmakers want to rebuild trust, they must: Ensure fuel tax revenues are spent solely on roads, bridges, and transportation infrastructure; Increase transparency at the pump, so consumers understand what portion of their payment goes to taxes and fees; and Re-examine costly regulatory programs that drive up fuel prices without clear benefit to taxpayers or the environment. In Idaho, lawmakers could build trust by requiring gas taxes to be posted at the gas pump. This is a long-standing MSPC recommendation that will help the state be more transparent. Drivers are smart. When they realize they can save more than a dollar per gallon just by crossing the state line, they act—and they talk. If policymakers in Washington don’t start listening, the growing exodus to Idaho gas stations will only continue. And maybe that’s the real message here: If Washington won’t deliver savings, efficiency, and accountability—Idaho will.

Congress is currently debating the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Among the many provisions is a ten-year moratorium on state Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulations to help avoid a patchwork of rules. We recently hosted a webinar with the Abundance Institute discussing the future of AI and the need for a federal moratorium on state regulations ( video below ). Our region needs regulatory certainty to attract AI companies looking to expand. The proposed federal moratorium would provide exactly that—a stable, predictable environment where tech firms can invest with confidence, knowing they won't face a confusing patchwork of conflicting regulations across state lines. Further explaining why this is important, several regional business leaders and MSPC board members sent the following letter to Congress discussing the need for a federal AI regulatory moratorium. Dear Members of Congress, As business leaders across Montana, Washington, and Idaho, we write to urge your support for federal legislation establishing a moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence regulation. The emerging patchwork of inconsistent state AI laws threatens to undermine economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness across our region and nation. Economic Impact on Regional Businesses. Our states' economies depend heavily on industries that increasingly rely on AI technologies—from agriculture and energy to manufacturing and logistics. A fragmented regulatory landscape creates substantial compliance burdens that disproportionately harm smaller businesses and startups that lack the resources to navigate dozens of different state requirements. Compliance costs are already mounting. Companies operating across state lines face the impossible task of complying with conflicting regulations. What's permissible AI use in Montana may violate Washington state law, forcing businesses to choose between limiting their operations or accepting significant legal and financial risks. These costs ultimately get passed to consumers and reduce our competitiveness against international competitors who benefit from more unified regulatory approaches. Innovation suffers under regulatory uncertainty. The current trajectory toward state-by-state AI regulation is driving investment and talent away from our region. Tech companies and AI developers are increasingly choosing to locate in jurisdictions with clearer, more predictable regulatory environments. This brain drain threatens our states' long-term economic development and technological leadership. Current Federal Protections Are Sufficient Existing federal frameworks already provide robust consumer protections without stifling innovation. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, including AI applications that harm consumers. Sector-specific regulations in healthcare (HIPAA), finance (FCRA, ECOA), and other industries already address AI use in high-risk contexts. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has developed comprehensive AI risk management frameworks that provide industry guidance without prescriptive mandates. State-level regulation adds complexity without corresponding benefits. Most proposed state AI laws duplicate existing federal protections while creating operational chaos for businesses. Rather than enhancing consumer protection, this regulatory proliferation often reduces it by creating loopholes and enforcement gaps between jurisdictions. The Case for Federal Preemption National competitiveness requires national standards. China and the European Union are developing unified AI governance frameworks that give their companies clear competitive advantages. The United States cannot afford to handicap its AI sector with a maze of conflicting state requirements while other nations advance with coordinated approaches. Interstate commerce demands federal oversight. AI systems inherently operate across state boundaries through cloud computing, data processing, and digital services. State-level regulation of inherently national and international technologies creates constitutional commerce clause conflicts and practical enforcement impossibilities. Small businesses need regulatory certainty. Our region's entrepreneurs and small businesses—the backbone of our rural and suburban economies—cannot afford teams of compliance lawyers to interpret dozens of different state AI laws. Federal preemption would level the playing field and allow these businesses to focus resources on growth and innovation rather than regulatory navigation. Regional Economic Considerations Our four-state region offers unique advantages for AI development and deployment—abundant renewable energy, strong research universities, and growing tech sectors. However, regulatory fragmentation threatens to undermine these natural advantages. Companies evaluating where to locate AI operations increasingly factor regulatory complexity into their decisions, often choosing states or countries with more streamlined approaches. Agriculture and natural resources sectors are particularly vulnerable. Precision agriculture, predictive maintenance in energy production, and supply chain optimization all rely heavily on AI technologies. Inconsistent state regulations could force these critical industries to abandon beneficial AI applications, reducing productivity and competitiveness. Conclusion The United States stands at a critical juncture in AI development. We can choose a path of coordinated federal leadership that promotes innovation while protecting consumers, or we can allow regulatory fragmentation to undermine our technological leadership and economic competitiveness. We respectfully urge you to champion a time bound moratorium on state-level AI regulation. This approach will protect jobs, promote innovation, and ensure that our region remains competitive in the global AI economy while maintaining appropriate consumer protections through existing and enhanced federal frameworks. Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue. We look forward to working with you to ensure America maintains its leadership in artificial intelligence while supporting the economic prosperity of our states and communities. Sincerely, Aaron Klein, Contio (Idaho) Scott Brown, CEO of Sterling Urgent Care (Idaho) Todd Cranney, Managing Partner of Riverwood Strategies (Idaho) William Junkermier, Vice President at Cerium Networks (Montana) John Otter, Board member of Simplot (Idaho) Tom Power (Washington) Julie Shiflett, Founder of Northwest CFO (Idaho) Russ Stromberg (Idaho)

Government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on a requirement that threatens a family's religious beliefs, the Supreme Court said in a landmark decision on Friday. Justices ruled 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor  that public school districts cannot prevent families from opting out of lessons or events they find sexually explicit and inappropriate. In this case, Dr. Amina Mahmoud, a parent and educator, challenged a school district’s refusal to accommodate her request to exempt her child from a mandatory curriculum she believed violated her family's deeply held moral and religious beliefs. The district argued that standardized education mandates required uniformity in instruction, while Mahmoud maintained that her rights as a parent were being unconstitutionally overridden. The court sided with parents. Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "We hold that the parents who sought to have their children opt out of the storybooks are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise. We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children." Today's ruling comes during the same month that we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the landmark decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters . In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "the child is not the mere creature of the State." The ruling was monumental because it affirmed parents' rights to direct their own child's education, protected private and religious schools, and led to the movement of education choice that is helping so many children today. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor will impact families in states like Washington, where policymakers have sought to make it more difficult for parents to exercise their rights. It is parents, rather than the government, who are best suited to decide their child's educational needs.

Congress is currently debating many important issues as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB). One very concerning proposal that may be flying under the radar compared to the other provisions is a section in the House version of the BBB that would impose a 600% tax increase on charitable foundations. Thankfully, this massive tax increase is not included in the Senate version. As explained by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation : “Federal law requires grantmaking foundations to pay out 5% of their assets each year, to pay full income tax on unrelated business income (UBI), and to pay a 1.39% federal tax on investment income. OBBBA adds some well-crafted reforms (a floor to corporate charitable contributions, and closing some loopholes on UBI) but it would convert this flat tax to a progressive one based on asset size, where larger foundations pay a higher tax rate up to 10%. This tax increase will have unintended consequences, sweeping thousands of community and faith-based foundations into its scope. Large and bad are not the same thing (particularly when it comes to charitable endeavors). The Senate should avoid setting a precedent for wealth taxes and remove this tax increase.” Idaho State Senator Julie VanOrden recently wrote an op-ed  warning of the possible consequences of this tax increase on the Gem State. She said: “Idaho’s broader charitable ecosystem is equally essential. The Idaho Community Foundation has distributed more than $177 million in grants across all 44 counties. This year’s Idaho Gives campaign alone raised over $5 million for local nonprofits. These organizations thrive not because they have to, but because they choose to give. They are on a mission to serve our communities and the most vulnerable among us. Taxing that generosity is not only shortsighted; it’s self-defeating.” Mountain States Policy Center agrees that this tax increase is the wrong approach. That is why we joined a coalition letter on June 23 to House leadership,  encouraging them to remove this massive tax increase on charitable foundations from the BBB as the Senate wisely did. That coalition letter says (in part): "The draft Senate bill rightly eliminates the private foundation tax increases included in the House version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). The House-passed bill would raise taxes on charities by more than 600%, allowing the IRS to take nearly $16 billion from private charitable foundations that would otherwise help improve the lives of many Americans. Countless programs and services that provide for the needs of people in every state are funded by the generosity of private citizens. Without them, we would see more Americans reliant on government, which ultimately costs us all more for what is often an inefficient bureaucratic solution." The letter continues: " Charitable giving helps form the bedrock of a resilient America by supporting organizations committed to creating a stronger, healthier society where every person has the opportunity to thrive. We support our nation’s long history of encouraging private initiative and generosity that benefits the common good, and we will work to advance conservative and free market policies that continue this legacy. "   Congressional leaders plan to vote on the final version of the BBB before the 4th of July. There is nothing beautiful about imposing a big 600% tax increase on charitable foundations. Let’s hope we’re also celebrating the defeat of this misguided tax increase when the fireworks go off on Independence Day.

The Wyoming Education Association’s (WEA) lawsuit  against school-choice legislation reveals its hostility to children, families and education freedom. The timing of it is particularly egregious, coming two weeks before money from the expanded Education Savings Account (ESA) program was to be distributed by the state to parents and used for tuition, homeschooling, curriculum and other expenses for the upcoming school year. Schools, in particular, will be hit hard by the suit. Those that are expecting payments from parents receiving the $7,000 ESA now won’t have money to hire teachers and prepare classrooms at a pivotal time. As Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder told Cowboy State Daily recently , “ Left wing lawfare is what they do… But what deeply troubles me is the timing. The Education Savings Account program became law last year, with some changes made this year. To wait until two weeks before the funds are to begin distribution to ask for an injunction is devastating to the nearly 4,000 Wyoming families that have signed up for the program and the many service providers that are counting on those families. This is reckless and our Wyoming children are the collateral damage." Thankfully, there is a vast body of legal precedent that supports an ultimate victory for the ESA legislation and the nearly 4,000 families seeking to help their children reach their highest potential outside of traditional public schools. The WEA claims the legislation violates the Wyoming Constitution’s requirement to provide a “complete and uniform education,” and argues that it means the state should only fund public schools and nothing else. But as research  from Mountain States Policy Center shows, “Uniformity Clauses, however, were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity. Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor.” Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue. For example, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris  that governments may fund any school, including religious ones, as long as it was on a voluntary basis. In 2021, it ruled in Carson v Makin  that Maine couldn’t stop religious schools from receiving tuition assistance as it violated parents’ right to Free Exercise under the First Amendment. State court decisions across the country have also bolstered school choice programs. In 2022, in a similar case dealing with ESAs in West Virginia, that state’s Supreme Court found, “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 those things.” Like the WEA, opponents of ESAs in West Virginia argued that public schools would be hurt by students exiting to private schools and homeschooling. But as evidence in Arizona shows, the academic success of public school students improved even as thousands left public school systems for other options. The state has even saved  money in the process. In providing ESAs, Wyoming is not funding religious schools. It is instead allowing parents to use the money already set aside for their child or children’s education to choose how to best allocate it. In essence, ESAs place parents on the same footing as the WEA as arbiters of what constitutes a good education. They do not create a new system. Instead, they simply redistribute power from the union alone to parents throughout the state. Interest in the case is so strong that on June 20, the Partnership for Educational Choice , a collaboration between nonprofits EdChoice and the Institute for Justice, filed a motion to intervene  in the WEA’s case against the state. It represents two Wyoming families, one in Casper and one in Cody, that have applied for the ESA program and want to be included as defendants in the case, given how essential they find the funding to the educational success of their children.  Realizing the individual needs and different learning styles of children, including those with special needs, learning disabilities and other issues, it is not only unfair of the WEA to sue, but cruel. Just as other judges have done across the country, the court should quickly decide in favor of the thousands of families eager to pursue an education option that best suits their children.

With the stroke of a pen, the future of the Snake River dams is looking better. President Trump issued an Executive Order on June 12 repealing a secretly negotiated memorandum signed by President Biden that was attempting to set the path for the possible breaching of the Snake River dams. It is damn good to see the current President take a strong position to protect the vital clean energy and other important economic benefits provided by these dams. One of our top priorities at Mountain States Policy Center is for policymakers to oppose any breaching of the Snake River dams  or efforts to reduce operational effectiveness. According to President Trump's EO: " Among other things, the actions that the Biden Administration contemplated in furtherance of the policy stated in the Presidential Memorandum of September 27, 2023, included breaching four dams on the Lower Snake River, eliminating over 3,000 megawatts of secure, reliable, and affordable hydroelectric generating capacity. The negative impacts from these reckless acts, if completed, would be devastating for the region, and there would be no viable approach to replace the low-cost, baseload energy supplied; the critical shipping channels lost; the vital water supply for local farmers reduced; or the recreational opportunities that would no longer be possible as a result of these acts. To prevent these harmful impacts, I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of September 27, 2023." The President's actions drew strong praise from dam supporters. The American Public Power Association said : " As the voice of not-for-profit, community-owned utilities across the United States and five U.S. territories that serve over 55 million people, maintaining affordable and reliable hydropower is critical to APPA’s mission. Physical or operational breach of the four LSRD would run counter to these objectives by undermining essential, emissions-free, hydropower resources. Making full use of the Pacific Northwest’s hydropower resources is key to ensuring that its grid remains reliable and resilient and that utilities can respond to rising electricity demand and extreme weather events alike. " Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, explained : “President Trump’s announcement smartly helps preserve affordable, reliable electricity for families and businesses across the Pacific Northwest. Hydroelectric power is the reason the lights stay on in the region. And as demand for electricity surges across the nation, preserving access to always-available energy resources like hydropower is absolutely crucial.” Todd Myers, Vice President of the Washington Policy Center, noted : " Dam opponents have consistently claimed that Snake River salmon are on the verge of extinction. They have been wrong consistently. Most recently, in 2021 dam opponents claimed that wild Spring Chinook on the Snake River would be 'functionally extinct' this year. In fact, returns this year are slightly above the 10-year average. Early estimates are that returns will be even higher next year." In an era of moving towards more electrification and increasing power demand, it makes no sense to remove a clean, renewable power source. Hydropower is an important provider of reliable and clean energy for everyone in the Northwest. Many dams also provide important baseload power reliability to help a stressed energy grid during periods of extreme heat or cold. The Snake River dams are critical to the infrastructure of our region, providing not only reliable power but also many other economic benefits. Removing these dams would have many negative impacts on our region. The multi-year scientific and public review process in 2020 conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration , which was undertaken by both a Democrat and Republican administration, made one thing abundantly clear: dam breaching on the lower Snake River is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. In addition, Congress authorized these dams, and only Congress has the power to remove them. Thankfully, many of the congressional members elected to the areas surrounding the Snake River dams are working to protect the economic and environmental benefits they provide. The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation noted in a 2021 statement : “The lower four dams on the Snake River produce a significant amount of cheap and environmentally friendly hydroelectric power to the region and are a critical part of a system on the Columbia and Snake rivers that allows wheat farmers, as well as producers of many other commodities, to export their product to the world.” Idaho Governor Brad Little proclaimed in a July 2022 press release : “I have been clear in my opposition to dam breaching because it is not a silver bullet for salmon recovery. Idaho has shown leadership and commitment to bringing together diverse interests to ensure abundant, sustainable populations of salmon and steelhead for present and future generations.”   Protecting the Snake River dams and other federal water infrastructure is pivotal to the Northwest. It is good to see the President among the many supporters  who understand we must remain dam strong for the benefit of our region.

Washington state lawmakers this year imposed a new tax that has already sent tremors through the state’s tech titans and small business owners.  Senate Bill 5814  significantly broadened the state’s retail sales tax to include an extensive array of digital services. Starting on Oct. 1, 2025, services that include digital advertising, website design, IT support, software development, SEO, and even network training will be subject to the state’s steep sales tax, already as much as 10.6 percent in parts of the state. What’s not taxed? Old-school media services such as newspaper ads, TV spots, billboards, and radio. This carveout isn’t just unfair, it follows the poor practice of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. For small businesses already straining with razor-thin profit margins, this tax is more than just a nuisance; it’s a direct threat. Local businesses are cautioning that projects may be canceled or moved out of the state to escape this new onerous tax. As reported by GeekWire, Curtis Costner, who runs a digital marketing firm in Tacoma, said : “It’s just more difficult for businesses to do business with other businesses in their locality.” Others share similar concerns. Scott Foreman, partner at the Seattle-based agency Copacino + Fujikado, remarked : “They think they can milk this cow forever, but cows eventually always move to the greener pastures.” The warnings are clear that clients will simply take their business to more tax-friendly states. Others worry about the broader ramifications. Washington’s never-ending focus on chasing after new tax revenue could be driving innovation, and the jobs that come with it, to other states. By singling out digital services while sparing the traditional forms of advertising from similar tax obligations, the state legislature has constructed a tax code that punishes the modern economy. According to the Tax Foundation, this disparate application almost assures a court challenge based on the Internet Tax Freedom Act, a federal law that bars discriminatory taxes on digital commerce . That law specifically prohibits taxing digital services differently from physical ones. Washington’s new tax appears to do exactly that, with digital ad services subject to a sizable burden as print, broadcast, and billboard advertising are exempt. A comparable digital ad tax in Maryland was recently invalidated by a Maryland circuit court judge who found it violated both ITFA and the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by trying to regulate out-of-state commerce. Washington is now diving headfirst into the very same legal quagmire. Lawmakers attempt to justify this new tax as part of a general “modernization” of Washington’s tax system. They argue that an economy dominated by services should be paying more to support government programs. But there is a fine line between modernization and government overreach. Picking winners and losers is not equitable tax policy. This new tax fails to meet the principles of sound tax policy . It creates additional red tape for small digital agencies, adds constitutional uncertainty, and risks pushing away the very entrepreneurs that are building the future economy needed in the state. Rather than shoring up budget holes caused by overspending with short-term patches that stifle creativity, lawmakers need to stop creating new and constitutionally suspect ways to tax businesses that harm economic growth.

Is the liberty of American health under threat? Are Americans still free to make their health choices? The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement would have you believe the threat is dire, with Big Food and Big Pharma’s crony capitalism pervasively controlling all aspects of American health. But a quick trip around the grocery store combats this myth – apples or Cheetos anyone?   The food and medicine options in developed countries are more in line with choice overload versus the narrative of corporate capture . Americans have more opportunities than ever before to adjust to dietary preferences. Any student of history should recall that dietary restrictions were often pervasive, dependent on successful harvests, political endangerment, and civil unrest.   The American public would do well to remember that they should not entrust their health to the government. The food pyramid , for example, was a government creation that promoted carbohydrates as the base of all healthy diets and limited protein and fats. This type of government-advocated diet promotes obesity and many of the metabolic issues (like diabetes) facing our nation.   Instead of relying on the government’s bad track record to fix American health, the American consumer needs to trust in their own power. The food, health, and pharmaceutical industry do not force the purchase of their products – they meet the demands of consumers. If consumers stop buying products with unwanted ingredients, the food industry will remove the ingredients. If the patients start adopting new healthy lifestyle choices, the medical industry won’t be marketing weight loss and metabolic drugs to patients. Consumers have power in their choice.   Indeed, the American public supports improving access to healthy foods (especially in school lunch) and addressing food ingredient concerns while increasing transparency between bureaucrats and industry. But the public’s concern for improving health doesn’t mean they want the government to “make” them do anything.   The government has a limited role in public health to engage on issues that prevent harm  from extending to others, as in combating contagious diseases. The government’s mission creep into the role of personal health leads to politically biased opinions becoming unofficial mandates on health.   We can effectively engage on issues important to American health by empowering public choice. By offering health education through existing federal programs like school lunch, SNAP, and WIC, we can increase transparency between bureaucracy and industry to reduce existing crony capitalism. The government’s role should be a facilitator of information and an enabler of consumer choice.   For example, one issue of great importance to Americans is improving access to fruit and vegetables in school lunch programs. Leveraging the existing federal school lunch program, we can improve nutritional and health outcomes through education, without limiting choices for adult consumers. The U.S. would benefit from following Japan’s school lunch program, which is a vital tool in combating obesity . Japan requires strict nutritional standards in schools without offering unhealthy alternatives, hires dedicated food and nutrition teachers who engage students in hands-on learning, and adopts policies that bridge the income disparities among students for nutritional access.   The concerns about the government’s new health report should come as no surprise. When a 73-page health report is created by 14 mostly non-medical commissioners (only 2 have medical experience) in less than 100 days, successful conclusions are unlikely. But what the American public should take from this experience is that their health should not be left up to the government’s intervention – it is slow, frequently inaccurate, and often politically biased. Americans still have a choice and should empower themselves to make better nutritional and lifestyle decisions, instead of waiting for the government to save them from the industries that already cater to the desires of the consumers, not the whims of government.

In many places, it is the best of times. In others, it is the worst.   If you need further proof, simply look at the latest moving data from organizations like U-Haul, North American Van Line services, and now PODS. The clear message is Americans are voting with their feet.   PODS watches moving data closely.  And, like other moving companies, it has first-hand experience – after all, it sees the data every day in where customers are requesting units, and where they are ending up.   Among cities, Boise has the 7th highest number of move-ins. In fact, it is the only city outside of the South that ranks in the top 10. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Idaho's quality of life, low tax burden and booming economy make it incredibly attractive. When it comes to public policy, citizens vote with their feet.   Cities With the Highest Number of Move-Ins Ranked 1.    Myrtle Beach, SC/Wilmington, NC (1st in 2024) 2.    Ocala, FL (2nd in 2024) 3.    Raleigh, NC (6th in 2024) 4.    Greenville-Spartanburg, SC (4th in 2024) 5.    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (Not ranked in 2024) 6.    Charlotte, NC (5th in 2024) 7.    Boise, ID (11th in 2024) 8.    Knoxville, TN (8th in 2024) 9.    Nashville, TN (13th in 2024) 10.  Jacksonville, FL (9th in 2024)   Meantime, the number of Move-Outs also includes a Northwest city. Seattle, not previously ranked, shot up to 12th nationally. High living costs, crime, homeless encampments and more have made the Emerald City one of the least desirable places to live.   Cities With the Highest Number of Move-Outs Ranked 1.             Los Angeles, CA (1st in 2024) 2.             Northern California (San Francisco area) (2nd in 2024) 3.             South Florida (Miami area) (3rd in 2024) 4.             Long Island, NY (Serving parts of NYC) (4th in 2024) 5.             San Diego, CA (8th in 2024) 6.             Central Jersey, NJ (6th in 2024) 7.             Chicago, IL (7th in 2024) 8.             Boston, MA (13th in 2024) 9.             Hudson Valley, NY (10th in 2024) 10.         Denver, CO (12th in 2024) 11.         Santa Barbara, CA (11th in 2024) 12.         Seattle, WA (Not ranked in 2024)   Customers of U-Haul get daily lessons in the price of bad policy as well. We tried to book a U-Haul truck from Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland and other cities to Boise, and then from Boise to the other cities.   ·      Seattle to Boise (July 1st) - $752 ·      Los Angeles to Boise (July 1st) - $3,474 ·      San Francisco to Boise (July 1st) - $2,698   ·      Boise to Seattle (July 1st) - $532 ·      Boise to Los Angeles (July 1st) - $842 ·      Boise to San Francisco (July 1st) - $609

When Fremont County voters in Wyoming were asked to pass an initiative in 2020 to dedicate ½ percent of the sales tax collected in the county to economic development, they were told it was essential to job, revenue and tax growth. They were advised  that every dollar invested would return $3.91; 1,059 new jobs would be created by 2028; $30.5 million would be generated in labor income; and $4 million in state and local tax revenue collected. That’s a big deal in this small hamlet of about 40,000 people.  A majority of voters agreed that year, and starting March 1, 2021, Fremont County businesses and organizations became eligible for grants to expand or start initiatives aimed at the above goals. Citizen boards were tasked in Lander, Riverton, and at the county level to review applications and select the ones they deemed most likely to succeed. The respective city councils in Lander and Riverton and County Commissioners made final approvals, which amounted to almost $4.5 million  at the county level from the program’s inception to its close in April, following voters’ rejection of continuing the program at the ballot box in November. Mia Harris, Administrative Services Director for Riverton, said the city had made grants totaling $3.3 million to 27 businesses and organizations. Lander distributed $1.2 million to 43 businesses from 2021-2024. Based on how the money was spent, voters made the right decision in not reauthorizing the tax. So, what happened to the county money? Did businesses follow through on their plans? Did they hire the employees promised in their applications or generate the revenue they anticipated? No one knows. Why? Brett Berg, Chairman of MOVE, the volunteer citizen group tasked with recommending which businesses should have received awards and with monitoring their progress at the county level, told County Commissioners that he doesn’t have the time. He said during a Feb. 4 County Commission meeting  that he had done a few on-site visits, but “I can’t commit five or six hours three days a week to doing this.” He added, “I am doing this as a volunteer and the rest of the committee as well.” He suggested that the County Commissioners consider hiring a paid auditor so that someone could verify what businesses were reporting. He added, “I just have concerns that the grants awarded have been utilized the way they said they would be.” Becky Enos, the administrative secretary for County Commissioners, said they have not hired an auditor to review the grants. A review of the 53 grants totaling $4.5 million awarded at the county level shows many have not fulfilled their contract to use grant money within a year, used it for projects in their applications, documented that they still have money if not disbursed, and followed through on required reporting and other regulations. Pushroot Brewing  Co. in Lander, for example, received $125,000 from MOVE in 2023 after already receiving $75,000 from Lander’s ½ percent program in 2022. MOVE rules state that businesses that have received ½  percent funding “from any source, are ineligible to apply for future funding.” Lander LLC also double-dipped. Its motel and brewery projects received a total of $255,000 from the county on June 7, 2022, and June 20, 2023, as well as a $67,500 grant from Lander LIFT  on June 13, 2023. And then there are those who used the money and then folded. Some of the most egregious losses include $325,000 given to the Lander Housing Authority on April 23, 2024, for the proposed Table Mountain Living Community. Grants were not supposed to be used to pay  back debt, but the money was used as a “reimbursement of design costs already expended.” The bigger issue is that the Housing Authority had “ no legal authority ” to launch the project, now defunct, in the first place. Where was the oversight? And then there is the $125,000 awarded on February 13, 2024, to Warm Valley Lodge Assisted Living Center in Dubois. It closed permanently in September 2024. It asked the county to expedite funding because of payroll concerns. Did that not raise a red flag with County Commissioners? Did no one look at its financials? The county has thus far tried to claw back money—a provision allowed in the law – from only one business: SDT Property Management, owned by Doug and Sophal Thompson, for fraud and breach of contract. Given the late reporting and lack of payment receipts (as required) of multiple businesses, it was surprising to see only one singled out for legal action. A review of program documents shows many businesses didn’t follow through in the required timeline, changed how they wanted to use grants and haven’t fulfilled employment promises. Still, other grants might raise eyebrows for the type of product funded and the fact that the businesses could have easily obtained bank loans, which would have spurred economic growth in the county. Benessere Clinic in Lander and Riverton was awarded a total of $56,000 in 2022 and 2023 for wellness technology. According to its application, $20,000 would be used to buy an Alma Duo , an “in-office treatment that uses gold standard shock wave technology to stimulate blood flow and restore natural sexual performance for men and women… Also, the Alma Duo is a cutting edge machine to address male and female sexual health and it currently would be one of two in the state of Wyoming.”  It expected many clients to travel for a package of six treatments from around the state, meaning the main beneficiaries of enhanced sexual wellness would likely not be in Fremont County. A visit to Benessere’s website  does not show Alma Duo treatments available. Did County Commissioners even review the grant application? Lander Medical Clinic and Western Family Care, which have been doing business in the community for over 70 years, received $100,000 from county taxpayers for aesthetics technology. Those same taxpayers each pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, annually for care through their offices. Did County Commissioners ask them what percentage of county residents could afford their proposed treatments and why they couldn’t finance the purchase entirely through a loan? As Chris Rodkey of Wind River Glass in Dubois testified at the February 4th County Commissioner meeting, the awards “smack of unfair advantage.” He added, “We’re funding new product development. It struck me as odd, to be kind, that taxpayers didn’t get a royalty back on every one of those items developed. If I invest in something, I want to get a piece of the action.” He’s right. Picking winners and losers should not be the realm of the government, in addition to the fact that profit maximization for taxpayers was not part of the law. Given that Fremont County government had no idea if it was picking a winner or a loser because virtually no one paid attention to the financials of particular businesses or followed up to verify whether their reporting was accurate, makes the program especially egregious. So does the fact that County Commissioners were aware of the problems with the program and did not hire an auditor. The other issue with the program is the total lack of transparency. None of the grant applications or follow-up reporting is available online or searchable. Reviewing the material required a Public Records Act request – one more reason for state legislators to strengthen the state’s law and make more documents available online. In a situation like this particular one, citizen supervision is even more imperative given the lack of oversight. State Auditor Kristi Racines should step in to review how funds were used. Alternatively, state legislators could require special taxing districts to prepare a yearly report on how the funds were used and the outcome for them. Residents rightly voted to end the program during last November’s elections. But it is outrageous that the County Commissioners and those tasked with overseeing the programs cared so little about millions of taxpayer dollars at a time of economic uncertainty and when all county agencies have been asked to submit budgets with significant cuts. May Fremont County’s mistakes be a lesson to counties throughout the rest of Wyoming to quash campaigns to raise economic development funds in the same manner. For the sake of fairness and ultimately, economic success, governments should create tax and regulatory environments that allow businesses to thrive and compete on an even playing field.

Parental rights are not something the government gives, and any free society should never permit it to be so. This week, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the landmark decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters . In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "the child is not the mere creature of the State." The ruling was monumental because it affirmed parents' rights to direct their own child's education, protected private and religious schools, and led to the movement of education choice that is helping so many children today. In 1922, Oregon passed a law requiring students to attend public schools and only public schools. In other words - private or religious schooling was outlawed. The law was supported by anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic views, eerily similar to advocacy for the controversial Blaine Amendment , which is still supported today by some extremists. The court stepped in and affirmed parental rights, ruling unanimously that the government had no right to compel students to attend government schooling. The law was a violation of the 14th Amendment. "Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only." -Majority opinion, Pierce v. Society of Sisters The impact of the case is still evident today. It is parents, rather than the government, who are best suited to decide their child's educational needs and school choice. Had the court decided differently, we might not have charter schools, magnet schools, specialty schools, and religious institutions that provide education to millions of students who may not thrive in the public school system. We certainly wouldn't see the advancement of choice options in more than half the states, including Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The court is likely to reaffirm parental rights this session in Mahmoud v. Taylor , when it decides whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out. More broadly, as this discussion from the American Enterprise Institute highlights, the court may need to weigh in on how to apply parental rights to new contexts.

Students aren’t the only ones getting graded this time of year. States are starting to receive their credit ratings to help bondholders weigh whether they are a good investment. Based on the most recent news from Fitch, Idaho is a notch above its neighbors in creditworthiness. Idaho continued to secure the top AAA credit rating (tied with Utah), while Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington came in just below that with an AA+ rating. There currently isn’t a comparable Fitch rating for Wyoming. Here is how Fitch describes its top two credit ratings: “AAA' ratings denote the lowest expectation of default risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.” "AA' ratings denote expectations of very low default risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.” Responding to the announcement by Fitch, Idaho Governor Little said : “Thanks to our diligent and unrelenting focus on maintaining a structurally balanced budget and saving healthy amounts for rainy days, Idaho has maintained the AAA rating from Fitch for five straight years, and I am very proud. The rating means we’ll save Idaho taxpayers millions of dollars on future projects. This is what good government is all about. I appreciate my partners in the Legislature for sharing my passion for maintaining a lean state budget and stable rainy-day funds. Our partners in the private sector, too, have done a tremendous job propelling Idaho’s economy forward.” Fitch shared these details about its credit ratings for Idaho, Montana and Washington. Idaho credit rating: AAA / Outlook stable   (2025) “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.” “Idaho's economy has seen strong growth in recent years. The state's population increased by about 27.7% from 2010 to 2024, far exceeding the comparable national rate (about 10.2%). The state's economy has been diversifying beyond traditional strengths in agriculture and mining, with growth in transportation and warehousing, professional and business services, retail, construction, and healthcare. Personal income gains have accelerated with population growth and diversification, although state wealth remains below average as measured by per capita personal income.” Montana credit rating: AA+ / Outlook stable   (2024) “Historically, periods of strong revenue gains tied to natural resource activity have ended with cyclical downturns followed by periods of weaker revenue expansion. The state's consistently conservative approach to fiscal management has nevertheless enabled it to maintain stable operating performance while addressing spending priorities for education, health care and infrastructure, as well as enhancing its formal reserves. These strengths leave the state well positioned to manage through both the current and future economic cycles.” “Montana's revenues are diverse but economically sensitive given the relatively large share of state-source revenues derived from income tax and natural resource levies. Fitch expects solid revenue growth trends over the medium term in line with historical rates as recent decreases to personal income tax rates reset the baseline for future growth.” Washington credit rating: AA+ / Outlook stable   (2025) “The 'AA+' ratings incorporate the state's very strong financial resilience, which is supported by a statutory requirement for a balanced four-year budget and formulaic funding of the budget stabilization account (BSA); the latter has led to the accumulation of solid fiscal reserves. Education funding poses continued long-term spending pressure for the state given steady population growth and the state's role as the primary funding source for K-12 public schools.” “Washington's spending growth, absent policy actions, will likely be marginally above its pace of revenue growth, requiring regular budget management actions to ensure ongoing structural balance.” Idaho’s continued AAA credit rating from Fitch shows that prudent fiscal management, combined with a pro-growth regulatory framework, is not only a good deal for citizens and businesses but also a good investment for bondholders.

Who knew there were this many things that had to be fixed? The legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington are over. Depending on your political perspective, the benefits - or damages - will be felt for years to come. One thing that isn’t in dispute? Lawmakers couldn't help but introduce a record number of bills in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Washington may also be added to that list, depending on what happens in the second part of its biennium. In Idaho, lawmakers introduced nearly 800 pieces of legislation - the highest mark going back at least 16 years. Less than 50% of the legislation actually made it across the finish line. Higher numbers are expected in Idaho, as lawmakers now individually introduce and approve every state department budget, rather than just one large state budget. Still, the numbers are staggering, not only for lawmakers who work at the state capitol, but also for citizens who try to follow the session and be involved in the process. Making it more challenging in Idaho is the sometimes minimal lack of notice regarding hearings for bills that have been introduced. We've recommended that lawmakers commit to a Rule of Three to allow citizens more time to be engaged. In Montana, lawmakers also hit a record of 1,761 bills introduced, with a little more than half being signed into law by Governor Gianforte. Montana's joint Rule 40-40 "allows members of the Montana Legislature to request an unlimited number of bill or resolution drafts before December 5. After that date, a member may request the Legislative Council to prepare no more than seven bills or resolutions. Unused requests by one member may be granted to another member. The limits do not apply to code commissioner bills or committee bills." In Wyoming, which divides sessions among general session years and budget years, lawmakers also hit a record of 556 bills introduced. But only 31% became law. Washington state lawmakers were by far the least productive, passing only 19.5% of the more than 2,000 bills they introduced. And they're not done yet, as Washington works on a biennium and lawmakers will return next January to continue increasing the number. Passing legislation certainly isn't a contest. And this column is in no way an encouragement to increase the across-the-finish-line percentages. But it is worth pointing out that introducing legislation takes time and resources - resources that are provided by taxpayers (So perhaps a new state rock shouldn't be high on a lawmaker's list). More bill introductions also make tracking your elected official's work more difficult. Some states, including Arizona, California, New Jersey, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana and Montana have sought to restrict how many bills a legislator can introduce each session. Do all states need a rule that limits a lawmaker's appetite for more and more legislation? Maybe. But we'd rather see a self-imposed diet.