The Montana legislature has passed a controversial bill that would ban the use of styrofoam containers by the food industry within five years. The measure - House Bill 477 - is now before Governor Greg Gianforte awaiting his signature. It's an admirable effort, but not one that will make a difference. In fact, it could do more harm than good. Proponents have argued that styrofoam is not only bad for health but also bad for the environment. But banning styrofoam has consequences. First, the legislation would force restaurants and other businesses to switch to more expensive packaging alternatives. This cost increase would be passed onto consumers at time when many are already struggling to make ends meet. A paper cup, for example, costs about 2.5 times more than a styrofoam cup. Second, the impact on the environment. A paper cup requires 12 times the amount of water and 36 times the amount of electricity to produce. A Dutch study also found sourcing material for foam cups and shipping "uses 22 percent less petroleum than is needed for paper cups, and producing foam cups doesn’t require the use of harsh chemicals such as chlorine dioxide." Third, there's little evidence to show the bans in other cities have actually helped protect the environment. In fact, more than 100 cities and a dozen states have passed laws that restrict or ban the use of styrofoam, many of them in California. However, the California State Water Resources Control Board concluded that “mere substitution would not result in reduced trash generation if such product substitution would be discarded in the same manner as the banned item.” Going after businesses in the state for using styrofoam also seems particularly unfair. After all, they are not the ones throwing the product into the litter stream. Consumers and law-abiding businesses shouldn't be penalized simply because others may not be responsible. Simply banning a product is an easy way to address a potential problem. Real solutions, however, take hard work and often don't involve the government at all.

If there was a theme for the 2025 Legislative Sessions in our region, it was major tax changes. On the negative side of the ledger are the “historic” tax increases  rammed through in Washington state. On the positive side are the “record” tax cuts enacted in Idaho and Montana. Consider these regional headlines from the past month: “ Idaho delivers largest income tax cut in state history, sending another $253 million back to Idahoans ” “ Governor Gianforte Celebrates Largest Income Tax Cut in State History ” “[WA] Legislature passes largest tax increase in state history ” As for Montana, House Bill 337  lowers the current 5.9% income tax rate to 5.65% in 2026 and then 5.4% in 2027. The new law also increases the number of Montanans eligible for the lower tax bracket of 4.7% and doubles the state’s earned income tax credit. Capital gains will also now be taxed at 4.1%. The total four-year savings for taxpayers are expected to be around $756 million . Discussing this record tax relief in Montana, Governor Gianforte said: “As leaders elected to serve Montanans who sent us to Helena, we all want the same thing: to open the doors of greater opportunity so more Montanans can thrive, prosper, and achieve the American dream. Today, we’re doing just that. Today, we’re delivering the largest tax cut in Montana’s history – once again.” Montana House Speaker Brandon Ler noted: “This is a historic day for the people of Montana. Standing here on the steps of the Capitol, I’m proud to say we are delivering on the largest income tax cut in the history of the state. This bill is a firm commitment to the conservative principles we all stand for. We said from the beginning that we wanted to build a tax system that was fairer, flatter, and more focused on growth and that’s what we’ve done.” Even with this record tax cut, there is more work to be done in Montana. As noted by the Governor: “The reality is, even after our historic tax cuts in 2021 and 2023, we still have the highest income tax rate in the region and one of the highest in the nation.” For comparison, here are some of the current top regional income tax rates: Montana – 5.9% reducing to 5.65% in 2026 and then 5.4% in 2027 Idaho - 5.3% ( reduced this year ) Utah – 4.55% Colorado – 4.25% (temporary – capped at 4.40%) North Dakota – 2.5% Nevada/South Dakota/Washington/Wyoming – No personal income tax (though Washington does have a standalone 7%-9.9% capital gains income tax) While this tax relief is fantastic news for the Treasure and Gem States, things didn’t turn out so well for taxpayers in the Evergreen State. Here is the joint statement  from the Association of Washington Business, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Washington Roundtable in strong opposition to the passage of the largest tax increase in Washington state history: “We are deeply disappointed by the legislature’s decision to approve nearly $9.4 billion in state and $3 billion local, for a total of over $12 billion in tax increases — an unprecedented move that comes at the worst possible time for working families and local employers. As Washingtonians struggle with rising inflation, affordability challenges, and economic uncertainty, these massive tax hikes — as much as 400% in some sectors — will hit hard on small businesses and the communities they serve. Childcare providers, assisted living centers, repair shops, wholesale groceries, and other local retailers already operating on thin margins will now be faced with the choice to raise prices, cut jobs or close their doors.” Thanks to the drastically different tax approaches of these three states, we’ll have a natural case study to see how the economic outlook of each one changes as a result of these tax decisions. If history is any guide, Idaho and Montana may soon be bestowing Washington lawmakers with their “Realtor of the Year” awards.

Even Mark Twain, the king of idioms, would have trouble understanding the phrases in the Clean Water Act’s  (CWA) waters of the US (WOTUS) definition and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation. Years have been wasted in fruitlessly hoping the government agency would spill the beans  on the regulatory definition of ‘WOTUS’, and its related terms of ‘navigable water,’ ‘surface connection, ’‘adjacent,’ and ‘significant nexus.’ Those citizens who have dealt with the EPA on any of these interpretations know to take the agency’s word as a grain of salt .       In 2012, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote  “the reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” and faulted Congress for “not defin[ ing ] what it meant by ‘the waters of the United States’,” as, he says, “the words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate” [ Sackett v. EPA  2012]. The Sacketts are a North Idaho couple who endured a 15-year legal battle. Their first round at the Supreme Court in 2012 decided if the couple even had standing to bring the case against the EPA.   In 2023 , the Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, agreeing that building a home on a piece of property separated from Priest Lake by a row of homes and a dirt road should not be considered a WOTUS under the CWA. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling , brought clarity to many of the terms used in the Clean Water Act, but the EPA still needed to engage stakeholders in order to clarify interpretations for agency staff. A preliminary amended rule in September 2023 reflected the decision of the court but it circumvented much needed public commentary.   On March 24, 2025, the EPA, in combination with the Army Corps of Engineers, issued a notice in the Federal Register  announcing listening sessions and requesting feedback. The announcement is related to the implementation of the definition of the “waters of the United States (WOTUS)” based on the 2023 SCOTUS opinion. The listening sessions are seeking feedback on the scope of the following terms and their associated features: “Relatively permanent” waters “Continuous Surface Connection" What it means to “abut” a jurisdictional water “Temporary interruptions in surface connection” Interpreting “jurisdictional ditches”   The Clean Water Act of 1972 created significant improvements in water quality in the United States, but the advancements were weaponized into a manipulative tool for environmental groups and biased bureaucrats to make law-abiding citizens abide by unlegislated ideologies. Environmental activists used the term ‘pollution’ to create fear and control communities, and these groups continue to oppose any clarification of the WOTUS definitions.   But the 2023 Sackett decision made it clear that citizens deserve well-defined laws, not flexible definitions allowing bureaucratic overreach. After decades of victimizing citizens through ambiguous rulemaking, this once in a blue moon  clarification effort by regulators is receiving well-deserved applause. Lawmakers across the country are praising the EPA’s announcement, and Idaho’s leaders were no exception.     Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID):  “The Trump Administration continues to deliver on promises to reduce the size and scope of the federal government in places where it does not belong--like momentary puddles and groundwater ditches. I thank Administrator Zeldin for his quick actions to revise WOTUS decisions within the law and under the Supreme Court’s clear ruling on navigable waters. It’s time to give water management policies back to state and local on-the-ground experts once and for all.”    Senator Jim Risch (R-ID):  “Idaho’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners have been forced to comply with federal overreach for too long. Thank you President Trump and Administrator Zeldin for rolling back unreasonable WOTUS regulations.”    House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID-02):  “The Biden administration created a regulatory nightmare by trying to expand federal authority over WOTUS. EPA Administrator Zeldin's announcement ensures that the government's role in WOTUS complies with the Supreme Court's Sackett decision, which reined in expansive overreach of executive power. From the Obama to the Biden administrations, I have long fought against the EPA weaponizing WOTUS. The Trump administration is committed to reducing regulatory burdens and providing certainty to farmers, ranchers, and landowners in Idaho and across the country, and that's a win!”   Governor Brad Little (R-ID):  “For too long, the federal government has weaponized WOTUS to stonewall farming, ranching & American industry. While D.C. bureaucrats have been dragging their feet on  Sackett , President Trump is taking action in the first 100 days. A huge win for rural America!”      Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke (R-ID):  “This is great news for farmers, businesses, and the Gem State. The bureaucratic blunders on WOTUS will soon be coming to an end, while cutting costs and protecting our nation’s waters.”    Free markets rely on regulatory clarity. Vague definitions hinder a person’s ability to build a home, start a business, or continue a multi-generational operation. Providing regulatory clarity to the Clean Water Act is not about ending environmental protection, but about allowing citizens to make informed plans based on predictable rules, without the subjective threat of regulators enjoying the ambiguity of rules as muddy as the Mississippi River.

They couldn't convince legislators. They couldn't scare the public. They couldn't pressure the governor. Three strikes, and you're out. In the weeks since Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 93 - an education choice program that provides a simple tax credit for needy families - opponents have only ramped up the criticism. They now claim to have new momentum from a dubious and already-appealed lower court ruling in Utah regarding the Beehive State's education choice program. To keep up the baseball analogies, they're guilty of a balk. Idaho's new ed choice program is not a voucher. It's not an Education Savings Account or a program that takes money away from public schools. In fact, the state's K-12 education budget isn't touched. It's a simple tax credit, and it goes directly to families. In reality, it is no different than any other tax credit provided by the state. Setting tax policy is the prerogative of the legislative branch. It would be absurd to suggest that policymakers couldn't adopt a higher grocery tax credit, for example, simply because families may buy their groceries at one store or another. A ruling against the education choice tax credit would be folly, calling into question the constitutional authority of the legislature to set tax policy. As we previously highlighted in our study " Answering the legal questions on expanding education choice ," every state constitution has an education provision, with some containing language that calls for a “uniform system of free public education,” or something similar. Education choice opponents have argued that such language not only requires the government to establish traditional public schools, but also prevents the government from doing anything else. 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. For example, Idaho’s constitution says: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” Nothing in House Bill 93 changes or takes away from that requirement. In fact, the legislature has once again increased the amount of money going to the state's "uniform and thorough system." Throughout the nation, many state cases have determined the constitutionality of education choice expansion. In March 2021, West Virginia launched its Hope Scholarship program, offering Education Savings Accounts to students. Predictably, public school advocates sued to block implementation. But in Beaver, et al. v. Moore et al. , the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ESA’s and said there was no conflict: “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.” It is important to note West Virginia’s Hope Scholarship is funded by a separate, annual appropriation by the legislature. The Georgia Supreme Court has also dismissed a case challenging the state’s popular tax credit scholarship program. In Gaddy v. Georgia Department of Revenue , plaintiffs took aim at the program that provided scholarships for children to attend private schools, funded by voluntary donations from individuals and corporations. The court ruled those who brought the case had no standing because neither they, nor the state, were hurt by the tax credit. Justices wrote: “A tax credit that funds a program that encourages attendance at private schools might, in fact, create a tax savings by relieving public schools of the burden of educating the students who chose to attend private school.” Numerous other cases are instructive: Kotterman v. Killian , Arizona The Arizona Supreme Court determined that tuition tax credits are in line with both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. The court said the credits form part of a government program that remains neutral with regard to religion and is accessible to a wide range of citizens. The primary effect of the program was not deemed to either advance or inhibit religion. The Court emphasized that the scholarships primarily benefit children rather than schools. Oliver v. Hofmeister, Oklahoma The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships program did not violate the Blaine Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution because the program is neutral with respect to religion. Because the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and receives the aid in consideration for their not attending the public schools, the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian school. Magee v. Boyd, Alabama The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's two tax credit programs, rejecting several claims made by the plaintiffs under the Alabama Constitution. The court ruled that the tax credit programs do not violate Alabama's Blaine Amendments, as the credits are given to parents or taxpayers, not religious institutions, and do not constitute government appropriations. Additionally, the court found the programs to be neutral toward religion, with any benefits to religious institutions resulting from individual choices, not government action. The overwhelming consensus of cases at the federal and state level shows education choice programs are constitutional. Idaho lawmakers were very careful to design a program that is constitutional. It puts tax credit funds in the hands of students and families, not any religious institution or private school. In fact, the legislation makes clear that families can use the dollars for a variety of educational purposes. To further cement its constitutionality, lawmakers chose to make an appropriation to fund the program outside of the state's K-12 budget. Opponents claim that the cash should have been spent on public schools. That may be a valid debate for the legislative branch as part of its budget-setting process. It in no way calls into question the constitutionality of the credit. As Governor Brad Little said in his signing statement , "Idaho can have it all - strong public schools AND education freedom." Citizens, lawmakers and the media must understand and expect any new program to face legal challenges, especially when it is perceived to threaten special interest groups including unions. In this case, we would all be wise to ignore the noise.

A bill hoping to deliver on the long-overdue climate tax fuel exemptions promised to agricultural producers has passed the Washington House and is awaiting action by the Senate. Sponsored by Washington State Rep. Tom Dent (R-Moses Lake), HB 1912 addresses the taxes for farmers added by the Climate  Commitment Act (CCA) . When the CCA was enacted, farmers were promised a fuel exemption until 2027. However, the required exemption for agricultural producers and transporters was never enacted. Rep. Dent’s bill will build a long-term plan for how Washington’s agricultural sector interacts with the demands of the CCA. The CCA was passed in 2021, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. It works through a cap and invest program that creates market mechanisms to create a financial incentive for companies to reduce their emissions.  It originally stated fuel used for agricultural purposes by a farm fuel user is exempt,  and so is fuel used for agricultural transportation on public highways until 2027. Currently, an agricultural producer can apply for a rebate run by the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL), known as the Agriculture Support Program (ASP). The rebate available is up to $4,500, but it doesn’t fully repay what producers have lost from the surcharge. Transporters currently can’t enjoy the same rebate benefit as producers.   Producers have a deadline of June 30, 2025, to drain this ASP account. All of this is funded by the 2024 Supplemental Budget , but it is essentially giving the money back to farmers who should’ve never had to pay the tax to begin with. There has been a lot of costs and confusion surrounding this section, so this new legislation clarifies a few things. First, there is an existing exemption that applies to red dye diesel from the CCA, but not other fuel used on a farm, such as gasoline. This oversight will be closed, and the exemptions will be extended to all farm-used fuel, including natural gas, marine fuel, jet fuel, and propane. It also extends the exemption set to expire in 2027 to expire in 2029. Retailers are encouraged to sell exempt fuel at the pump, so farmers can purchase it without the surcharge. The Department of Ecology (DOE), who was originally tasked with implementing this exemption when the CCA was created, is now involved to make sure that farmers know where the exempt fuel is in their local area. DOE will do this by working with stations that voluntarily agree to map out where all these stations are and make this information available to farmers and ranchers. If passed, an incentive structure will be created to help the retailers who have decided to engage with this new program. For example, it suggests a new card system for retailers to provide financial benefits to both the seller and purchaser. Rep. Dent commented : "This could be one of the most challenging times for agriculture we've ever seen, our farmers and ranchers feed us--it's that simple. We need to support them, and we need to fix this. This bill will help every agricultural producer in the state. There's something in it for everybody. Is this perfect? No. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. We started working on this in November, and I'm honored to have been part of it. I'm hopeful we can keep this moving through the process because our farmers and ranchers deserve it." There have been multiple efforts in prior years that failed to fix this problem. Rep. Dent attributes the success of this year’s legislation to his working relationship with newly elected Gov. Bob Ferguson and serving as an agricultural advisor for his transition team . Rep. Dent stated that this has been a priority for him and his constituents since the CCA was enacted, especially with roughly 32,000 farms across the state, 94%  of which are family owned. HB 1912 passed the House 93-4 on March 12 and is currently waiting for Senate action. Lawmakers should take this measure seriously. Inaction has already resulted in a significant financial burden for Washington’s farmers. Continuing to ignore the problem continues to break the promise made by legislators to those very farmers. As Gov. Ferguson said on March 3 : “We must keep the promise our state made to our farmers.”

The recent test score results showing dismal reading scores for America’s 4th and 8th graders  should not be a surprise.  Organizational design expert Arthur W. Jones noted that “all organizations are perfectly structured to obtain the results they get .” Applied to our public schools, rather than being surprised by the mediocre results  we’re seeing throughout the country, it’s what we should expect. If we want to improve the performance of our schools, which is crucial to both the economic health and security of our nation, we need to change the structure of the educational system.   All successful systems have several key elements:   Leadership . Successful organizations are led by effective leaders. If we want better schools, we need better leadership, namely “change agent” leadership. Our education system is the only system in our society where promotion is done by self-selection (teachers self-select for principal jobs, and principals self-select for superintendencies).  As a consequence, we obtain leadership by accident, not by design. We’ll never improve schools if we don’t change the way we select and train educational leaders.      Employees . Successful organizations have very stringent criteria for personnel selection and training. They hire the best people they can find and rid themselves of poor performers. Our schools do neither. First, they limit hires to only “certified” staff who have graduated from an education college, many of whom have minimal entry requirements and no performance criteria for graduation. This restriction drastically reduces the pool of qualified candidates that can be considered. And teacher unions prevent poor performers from being dismissed, to the detriment of students. If we want to improve student academic outcomes, we need to change the way we select and train teachers and we must be able to remove poor performers.   Money . Successful organizations manage their funds carefully. Being results oriented, they work to maximize revenue and minimize costs. Quality performance is expected, and efficiency is stressed. That is not the case with our schools. There is no accountability for either performance or the effective use of funds.  Though evaluations are regularly done, failing schools continue to operate and poor teachers and principals continue to be employed. Consequently, performance fails to improve, and costs continue to rise. We see this scenario in virtually every urban system in the country. If we want better schools, we need accountability for how funds are spent.    Innovation . Successful organizations constantly innovate. They work to improve efficiency, quality, and performance. Our schools don’t do that. The 50-minute period, the six-period day, the 180-day year, graduation requirements, and evaluation systems are all legacies of a system created over a century ago. In short, we have a time-based, rather than an achievement-based, system. This “one size fits all” structure guarantees mediocrity. If we want our students to achieve, we need a system that meets students where they are in their   learning, rather than their age.  State laws and rules will have to be changed to allow innovation to occur.   Customer focus .   Successful organizations are laser focused on the customer. They make sure they understand customer needs and desires, and then they aggressively set out to meet them. Our schools don’t do that. In fact, one wonders if they even understand who the customer is. Private schools figured out decades ago that parents are the customers of schools, but public schools still don’t recognize this. Again, unions have not helped.  Despite their claims, teacher unions, who control a great deal of our education system, focus on adults (teachers) rather than children. As long as our schools remain adult-focused rather than student-focused, we should not be surprised that children don’t learn and customer (parents) expectations are not met.   Measure performance .   Successful companies constantly measure their own performance based on customer evaluations. Complaints are quickly answered and remedied. Our schools don’t do that. Granted, they conduct evaluations — but there is no consequence for poor ratings. No schools are closed, no personnel are released, and no funds are withdrawn. When ratings and evaluations have no consequence for the personnel involved, they have no meaning. If we want better schools, we must demand better performance from the personnel involved and the removal of personnel if needed. Meaningful measures of performance with consequences, and a demand for constant improvement, will yield improved student learning.     Our public schools are one of, if not the most, important institutions in our society. Today, they are failing our children and our country. If we want to effectively educate our children, we need to restructure our public education system.   Donald P. Nielsen is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and Chairman of the Institute’s American Center for Transforming Education. He was also President of the Seattle School Board and is the author of Every School: One Citizen’s Guide to Transforming Education.

As Idahoans take victory laps on the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project ,  proclaiming that President Trump’s executive order was “the weapon that killed Lava Ridge,” some hesitancy is needed. As any fan of Princess Bride  will recall, “There is a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.” Opponents of Lava Ridge need to remember that executive orders mean the change is permanent, until  the next administration. President Obama’s suggestion to Trump in 2016 was, “going through the legislative process is always better, in part because it’s harder to undo.” Real lasting change comes through legislative means, and Idahoans deserve the long-lasting, hard-to-change protection that comes from congressional legislation.   The Biden Administration’s last-ditch effort to ram through the Lava Ridge proposal, post-election in December 2024, was a desperate and pointless act. But it does signal that some faithfully believe that green energy deals are so essential they defy logic, because logically, everyone knew that the deal was DOA with the new Trump Administration. But this DOA for the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project is only mostly dead for Idahoans. Some efforts still need to be taken to ensure that Lava Ridge, and its related ilk of unwanted federal projects, are given almost insurmountable hurdles in the future.   Why almost insurmountable hurdles? Because the western states have very little say in their own backyard, due to the high percentage of federal lands. Congress needs to empower states with a larger say in what the federal government can and cannot do within their borders. Current policies subject states to the whims of the current administration, ignoring the communities, businesses, and individuals that live nearby and will be forced to shoulder the consequences of federal pet projects.   To ensure Lava Ridge moves from “mostly dead” to “all dead,” federal and state-level action needs to be taken. The Trump Administration’s original executive order  from January 20, 2025, was step one in killing the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project, but the order only stopped its progression and referred the review to the Secretary of the Interior. The order reads:   “ In light of criticism that the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Bureau of Land Management on December 5, 2024, with respect to the Lava Ridge Wind Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as approved by the Department of the Interior, is allegedly contrary to the public interest and suffers from legal deficiencies, the Secretary of the Interior shall, as appropriate, place a temporary moratorium on all activities and rights of Magic Valley Energy, LLC, or any other party under the ROD, including, but not limited to, any rights-of-way or rights of development or operation of any projects contemplated in the ROD.  The Secretary of the Interior shall review the ROD and, as appropriate, conduct a new, comprehensive analysis of the various interests implicated by the Lava Ridge Wind Project and the potential environmental impacts.”   Idaho U.S. Senator Jim Risch, the lead voice in opposing Lava Ridge and bringing it to the attention of the Trump Administration, said :   “Lava Ridge has been the embodiment of liberals’ disregard for the voices of Idahoans and rural America. Despite intense and widespread opposition from Idaho and the Japanese American community, the previous administration remained dead set on pushing this unwanted project across the finish line. Finally, our nation has a leader who recognizes that people on the ground should have a say in how our natural resources are managed.”   Next steps require Congress to pass legislation protecting states from unwanted federal projects. The effort of western delegates sponsoring the bill that would remove the Bureau of Land Management’s new “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule would be a step in the right direction to ensure western states have laws in place protecting them from federal agency political views and preferences.   More targeted legislation like the “Don’t Develop Obstructive Infrastructure on our Terrain Act” or the “ Don’t DO IT Act ” from 2023 would stop federal projects from continuing when the state’s Governor provides notice that the state’s Legislature disapproves of the project through enacted legislation. States with large portions of federal lands, like most of the west, deserve long-lasting protection against unwanted projects.   Idaho’s Legislature has already taken the necessary steps to formally oppose Lava Ridge by passing House Concurrent Resolution 8 . A previous Lava Ridge resolution was adopted in 2023 . The current version reads: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature requests that Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Governor Brad Little work to ensure that the Lava Ridge project does not proceed and formally protest and appeal the decision to move forward with the project, if necessary.”   The victory laps around Lava Ridge are understandable, but to ensure they are not premature, additional legislative steps need to be taken. Congress must act to ensure that Lava Ridge and similar unwanted federal projects are not pushed on states that have no desire or need for their presence. Policies need to be adopted to guarantee local voices are respected, even if federal political preferences and ideologies change from administration to administration. If these policy changes don’t happen, Idahoans will find that Lava Ridge (or a similar project) is still very much alive when a new administration has differing ideologies. Only Congress can put Miracle Max out of business to keep a future president from reviving unwanted projects like Lava Ridge.

Years of increasing taxes and regulations are leaving Washington employers facing the dreaded blue screen of death when it comes to their economic outlook. For example, Microsoft President Brad Smith did not mince his words about Washington recently, stating, “Frankly, I have never been more concerned about the future of the tech sector in Washington state than I am today, and part of that has to do with the [tax] proposal.” That’s not from some no-name startup or a disgruntled former employee. These words come from one of the most powerful tech executives in the country, sending a warning flare that the economic climate in Washington is becoming unsustainable for innovation. Continuing on this theme of discontent, GeekWire warn ed : " The ultra-wealthy from Seattle and Washington state may not exactly be looking to gamble away their riches in Las Vegas, but they are willing to take a bet on Nevada as a more welcoming environment when it comes to avoiding taxes on their fortunes. A new report from Bloomberg details how some wealthy former residents of Washington are fleeing to the desert to escape new tax proposals from state lawmakers. These potential taxes, on the heels of a 7% capital gains tax passed in 2021, would include a new 5% payroll tax on large employers, and a new 'financial intangibles' tax on wealthy individuals." The latest tax increase ideas out of Olympia are just the newest reason in a long list as to why businesses are moving out of this state. Egregious Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes, a new stand-alone capital gains income tax (removing Washington from the list of no-income tax states), and burdensome regulations are suffocating the companies that serve as Washington’s economic backbone. When Microsoft’s president raises alarm bells, policymakers ought to start paying attention. Businesses shouldn't be punished for providing citizens with job opportunities or using their earnings to reinvest in their companies for future growth. With these massive tax increases, Washington lawmakers are going all in and betting that companies will grin and bear it. But smart companies know that they have choices, and fiscally conservative states are willing to answer the call and take the pot. Fifteen years ago former Idaho Governor Butch Otter wrote a "love letter" to Washington businesses telling them there are alternatives to the state's high tax and regulatory burden. The Seattle Times noted : "But just two years ago, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter easily lassoed a $3 billion plant that would have brought as many as 400 permanent jobs to the Tri-City area in Southeastern Washington — right out from under Gregoire’s nose. People close to the deal said the project was Washington’s to lose — and place the blame squarely on Gregoire. A former congressman, Otter wears a cowboy hat in his Web site’s official photo, looking every bit the rootin’-tootin’-business-recruitin’ champion he suggests in his 'Love letter to our neighbors: Idaho is open for your business.' He notes Oregon raised taxes on businesses and that the Washington Legislature is poised to do the same. Come to the Gem state, he invites, offering 'a business-friendly State government.'” The best love letters are timeless. Perhaps it's time again for Washington businesses to leave behind the "Employer Beware" signs flashing in Olympia for the "Open for Business" promise provided by the record tax and regulatory relief of the Gem State.

A recently adopted bill in Idaho has the potential to increase much needed housing supply. Senate Bill 1164 is a supply-focused proposal, recognizing that regulatory hurdles are one of the main obstacles to adequately meeting housing demand. SB 1164 will require local governments to notify applicants if an application is complete within 10 days of submission. Red tape and slow permit processing times are a huge obstacle for home builders and result in a large cost to future home buyers. A study by the National Association of Home Builders found that regulatory costs equaled 23.8% of the final cost of a home, or over $90,000 on average.   In the mountain west region, where home prices saw increases by over 40% from 2020 to 2024, policies offering pricing and supply relief are critical. Efforts, like Senate Bill 1164, are necessary to speed up housing applications, decrease regulatory costs, and speed up the building rate of new homes. SB 1164 states :   “If an application is deemed incomplete, the local government shall, within ten (10) business days of receipt of a residential building permit application and within twenty (20) business days of receipt of a commercial building permit application, provide written notice to the applicant specifying any missing information necessary to proceed.”   “A local government’s determination that an application is complete shall not constitute approval but shall authorize the application to proceed to formal plan review.”   The testimony on March 18th  introduced parties both in support and opposed to the proposal. Sponsor Senator Codi Galloway said,   “ Idahoans are frustrated at the shortage and high cost of housing, so today I bring you Senate Bill 1164. In essence, it asks for a timely review of building permit submissions so the process to build does not turn into a paperwork death spiral. It asks building permit boards to respond on completeness of an application within 10 days.”   Ken Burgess of the Idaho Home Builders Association testified in support of the bill:   “I will relay anecdotally that there are certainly instances where I know a number of our members have had development applications that have been submitted to cities and counties … in which they’ll wait a couple weeks, a month, sometimes as much as two months, and then when they’re trying to press the issue to try to get their development application reviewed then they will come back and say oh well by the way, we finally reviewed this and you’re missing X in your development application packet. Then you know you have to go back and redo the packet and end up getting stuck back into the bottom of the pile.”   Lance Sayers of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified in opposition to the bill:   “We had some cities concerned about what does it mean for completeness and that could be possible litigation issues… The shot clock could be problematic because the fact it’s a one-size-fits-all, that’s not the way our state is really set up.”   The testimonies highlighted the need for avoiding bureaucratic delays to paperwork, the need to fix housing, and the desire to work with the cities to ensure the process was collaborative, not punitive. Concerns were raised in defining completeness and if cities of varying sizes could possibly meet the stated timelines. To address some of these concerns, we should look towards other states and what has worked to expedite building permits.   Building permit delays  are estimated to be 6.5 months in Washington and cost homebuyers $35,000. The Wharton Index, which measures housing regulatory hurdles, ranks Idaho as slightly worse than Washington, so this is a problem that should not be ignored in Idaho. The best remedy for building permit delays is a recent policy change in Florida. In 2021, Florida adopted a bill that required local jurisdictions to post online their permitting process, the status of permit applications, and created a fiscal consequence for the local jurisdiction if the permits were not processed in a timely manner.   The new law is fixing the housing challenges in Florida. The Foundation for Government Accountability   found   that before the law was passed in October 2021, a suburb of Orlando processed less than half of the permit applications within 30 business days. After the law passed, about 80 percent of applications were processed in 30 days. In Santa Rosa County less than half were processed in 30 days before the law, but after the law the rate rose to 100 percent for 347 new homes. Housing permits have also grown by nearly half in some counties since October 2021.   The drafters of SB 1164 recognize that it will not do what Florida’s model has accomplished. However, SB 1164 has a chance to smooth out this process as solutions from Senate Concurrent Resolution 103  are forthcoming. SCR 103  forms a committee, modeled after Montana’s Housing Task Force, that will look at the policy options for improving housing supply in Idaho and will report back to the legislature next session. In closing comments during the hearing on SB 1164, Senator Galloway said,   “ We’re trying to use a free market approach to improve the cost and affordability of housing and make sure that it’s easier for builders to build. We know that when we have a restrained supply, it makes everything more expensive, so we are really trying to coordinate this process and this legislation has been brought intentionally not having an enforcement clause in an effort to be palatable to the cities… It’s an effort to work collaboratively and find ways that we can make this process more smooth for all partners involved.”   Senate Bill 1164 moves the needle towards fixing regulatory permit delays, but still needs additional measures included to create the full efficacy of what was accomplished in Florida. Additional steps should be addressed between sessions to strengthen permit application reform in Idaho and to look at other opportunities for improving Idaho’s housing supply.

Voters in Wyoming and around the country have been clamoring for property tax relief as housing prices have risen almost 27 times faster than inflation  since 2020. Legislators answered the call this session—but in a way that’s unfair to many taxpayers, potentially unconstitutional and that will not stop higher assessments and taxes in the future.   First, the backstory. Rising property taxes have been a windfall for local governments around the state, which rely heavily on them to fund schools, pave roads and provide other essential services. According to a 2023 State of Wyoming Revenue Committee report , property tax levies in the state increased 80 percent ($977 million per year) from $1.2 billion in 2017 to $2.2 billion in 2023. Given that 84 percent  of total tax revenue collected in Wyoming is generated from property taxes, it’s been a good run for local government.   But long-term residents and those on fixed incomes especially have said they can’t afford to stay in their homes given the pace of their tax bill increases and have demanded legislative action. Last November, Cowboy State residents voted 146,336 to 100,392  to pass Constitutional Amendment A, which split residential property into a new class from other types of property and gave the legislature the power to change residential property taxes.   State legislators then passed earlier this year Enrolled Act 60 , which gives residents a 25 percent break on residential property and improved land on the first $1 million of fair market value. It has to be a single-family structure and residents must live at the property for eight months of the year to receive the discount.   For those people who meet the above criteria, the break will be appreciated. But what about renters? They generally have lower incomes than homeowners. Under the new law, rental property doesn’t make the cut, which means that owners will likely pass on the added expense via higher monthly leases. As Manish Bhatt, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said, “I worry that the recent legislation is going to have downstream effects that haven’t been considered yet.” He said one of the unintended consequences of non-owner occupied property being punished will be fewer rental properties available, which in turn will drive up prices, making it even worse for renters.   Second, Bhatt said the fact that second-home owners and those who do not live in homes for eight months of the year, as well as business and industrial property, are treated differently under the law, potentially triggers Equal Protection Clause questions under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also begs the question of how it’s fair for similar houses on the same street to be taxed at totally different rates.   Third, the new law doesn’t stop the elephant in the room – rising property values, which skyrocketed 62 percent  in Wyoming from 2014-2024. (Believe it or not, that is on the low side of the U.S. and particularly fellow Western states of Idaho, Utah and Washington, where home prices have risen over 125 percent during the same time frame.) And it certainly won’t stop the government from claiming the sky is falling from a small drop in revenue in the counties. In Fremont County, where I live, it will be about 2.4 percent loss in total revenue. And that is generous because it assumes all residential property and improved land has a market value of less than a million dollars, which is not the case. There are already rumblings in government circles about creating special taxing districts to make up for the lost revenue.   The better option would have been for legislators to pass a levy limit. A levy limit would set government costs at the prior year, plus inflation and new population growth. Rates would fluctuate based on this formula. The method would provide a stable planning mechanism for local governments and adequate revenue for core services. Just because housing values go up doesn’t mean government revenue must rise in tandem. Besides, does anyone think they’ve gotten 80 percent more services over the last 10 years of explosive tax growth?   Partnered with a reform known as “ Truth in Taxation ,” residents would achieve lasting and meaningful bounds on their property tax bills. Truth in Taxation laws build on levy limits by requiring local governments to publicize proposed tax increases with specific information about them in order to be as transparent as possible. Utah was the first state to adopt the reform in 1985 and Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Tennessee have since followed suit.   Wyoming legislators passed a band-aid this year. Next year, they should target the disease by passing levy limits and Truth in Taxation reform to rein in government growth and protect all residents and classes of property.

The long debate in Idaho surrounding Medicaid this year has concluded with lawmakers sending Governor Little an updated Medicaid budget ( SB 1201 ) that would increase spending on the program by $539 million. Under the cost-sharing agreement with the federal government, nearly $74 million of that increase is from state taxpayer funds. This brings total spending on Medicaid in Idaho to approximately $5.3 billion, of which $994 million is state tax resources.   Here are the details for SB 1201 from the Statement of Purpose : FY25 FTP (Full Time Positions): 237.50 FY25 GF: $920,383,700 FY25 Total: $4,710,390,700   FY26 FTP increase: 68.00 – 28.6% (305.50) FY26 GF increase: $73,665,600 - 8.0% ($994,049,300) FY26 Total increase: $539,406,400 - 11.5% ($5,249,797,100) Earlier this year, the legislature adopted  an MSPC recommendation to seek a waiver to add a work requirement to the program for able-bodied individuals. In our recent Idaho poll , 63 percent of Idaho residents favor some type of work or community service requirement for physically able adults as a condition to receive Medicaid. Congress passed the original Medicaid entitlement in 1965 as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable low-income people in the United States. These individuals include the poor, parents with children, the disabled, and those needing long-term care. Medicaid is a pure welfare plan financed by both state and federal taxpayers. Although Medicaid began with a very limited enrollment, the program has exploded and is financially one of the largest budget items for every state in the union. The original program was set up such that the federal government would match the financing with states in a 50/50 percent arrangement. The federal government gradually increased its spending percentage. The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, became law in 2010, with most benefits beginning in 2014. After litigation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law was amended such that states could decide for themselves whether to expand Medicaid to any low-income, able-bodied 18 to 64-year-old person. The incentive is that the federal government would pay 90 percent of the financing of the expanded program. Idaho is one of 40 states that chose to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. The Medicaid program is one of the federal government’s largest non-discretionary spending programs. Inflation-adjusted spending in the first year of Medicaid was $10 billion compared to $900 billion  for fiscal year 2023. In other words, Medicaid spending has dramatically increased far beyond inflation alone. As part of the current 2025 federal budget debate, members of Congress are considering several changes to Medicaid, including possibly adding a work requirement and adjusting the cost-sharing agreement with states.

We all have our favorite president. For me, it’s Ronald Reagan. My admiration of the Gipper began as a young child. You can imagine the impact that receiving a personalized letter from the President can have on a grade schooler. After watching the Challenger tragedy unfold live on TV in 1986, I wrote President Reagan to tell him I was sorry about the Space Shuttle. Reagan wrote back saying: “Thank you for your message and for thinking of me. Hearing from my young friends across the nation is always a source of encouragement . . . Perhaps the best way to honor Christa and the other crew members would be to work hard in school and in your community so that someday you will reach your goals and dreams as she wished you would. God bless you.” As I grew and learned more about the role of America in the world and the importance of a free market, low tax and regulatory burden, and a light touch of government on our lives, I came to appreciate the wit and wisdom of Reagan even more. While trying to absorb the news that the current President has unilaterally imposed one of the largest tax increase ( tariffs ) on U.S. consumers in history, I reached for the Reagan quote book on my desk and found this gem about the importance of avoiding protectionism from a radio address to the nation he gave in 1982 . President Reagan told Americans: “We're reminding the world that, yes, we all have serious problems. But our economic system—based on individual freedom, private initiative, and free trade—has produced more human progress than any other in history. It is in all of our interests to preserve it, protect it, and strengthen it. We are reminding our trading partners that preserving individual freedom and restoring prosperity also requires free and fair trade in the marketplace. The United States took the lead after World War II in creating an international trading and financial system that limited governments' ability to disrupt free trade across borders. We did this because history had taught us an important lesson: Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace. When governments get too involved in trade, economic costs increase and political disputes multiply. Peace is threatened. In the 1930s, the world experienced an ugly specter—protectionism and trade wars and, eventually, real wars and unprecedented suffering and loss of life.” Reagan continued: “I'm old enough and, hopefully, wise enough not to forget the lessons of those unhappy years. The world must never live through such a nightmare again. We're in the same boat with our trading partners. If one partner shoots a hole in the boat, does it make sense for the other one to shoot another hole in the boat? Some say, yes, and call that getting tough. Well, I call it stupid. We shouldn't be shooting holes; we should be working together to plug them up. We must strengthen the boat of free markets and fair trade so it can lead the world to economic recovery and greater political stability.” Noting the importance of free markets, President Reagan said: “That is the way of free markets and free trade. We must resist protectionism because it can only lead to fewer jobs for them and fewer jobs for us . . . Either free world countries go forward and sustain the drive toward more open markets, or they risk sliding back toward the mistakes of the 1930s and succumbing to the evils of more and more government intervention. And this is really no choice at all.” A good reminder for our current leaders. While President Reagan was addressing the global policy of trade and free markets, the current debate about the massive tariffs just imposed on consumers is also a good reminder about the use of emergency powers and the proper way to enact policy under our form of government. Whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy (I believe they aren't the right tool), the fact remains that policy, especially tax increases, should be introduced, debated and voted on by Congress. Major policies of any kind should not be imposed by one person unilaterally. This type of ruling by emergency order was wrong by governors during COVID, and it is wrong now. Let’s make America the “shining city upon a hill”   again, that is focused on free markets, individual liberty, limited government intervention in our lives and economy, and governed by the checks and balances wisely created by our founders.

The 2025 legislative session may go down as one of Idaho's most significant. Legislators adjourned Friday afternoon, 89 days after they kicked off the session on a foggy, cold January morning in Boise. Nearly 800 bills later, the gavel finally came down. From a free market perspective, Idahoans did quite well. Legislators adopted more than $400 million in tax reductions, including an MSPC recommendation to lower the state's income tax and increase the state's grocery tax rebate.   In total, lawmakers approved: Income tax reduction - $253 million State funds for local property tax relief - $100 million Grocery tax rebate increase - $50 million Along with these important taxpayer savings, many of MSPC's other policy recommendations were acted on this year. On December 17, we posted our policy wish list for lawmakers to consider during the 2025 Legislative session. Several of our recommendations were enacted, including: Reform the ballot fiscal impact  statement process - ( SB 1117 ) Don’t expand the Hospital 340B program without reforms first - ( HB 136 ) Consider reasonable Medicaid work requirements - ( HB 345 ) Expand options for students and families with enhanced education choice opportunities  by adopting an education choice tax credit - ( HB 93 ) The education choice tax credit victory is likely the most significant for Idaho families and children. MSPC helped kick off session on January 6th with an education choice policy forum at the state capitol featuring former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. At the event, legislators announced plans to introduce what became known as H93 - an education choice tax credit. After much public testimony and input, both chambers passed and the Governor signed the legislation, which provides a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses  including private school tuition. Special needs students can qualify for $7,500 tax credits.   The policy change - a Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) recommendation based on years of research - was sponsored by Senators Lori Den Hartog and Scott Grow, and Representatives Wendy Horman and Jason Monks. Idaho now joins the dozens of other states with expanded choice options. MSPC researchers were also invited to testify on other policies. Along with the above-mentioned bills, we provided analysis to lawmakers on: Broadband enhancements - HB 180 Child care licensing reform - HB 243 Student-centered funding - S1096 Public access to records - HB 253 "We appreciate the work of all legislators, who take time away from family and community to serve the people's interests," MSPC President Chris Cargill said Friday. "We hope they can now get some rest."

If you’re a homeowner trying to navigate short-term rental laws in the Pacific Northwest, your experience will vary wildly depending on which state or county you live in. In an encouraging display of free market principles, Idaho lawmakers started an important conversation by introducing a pair of bills — SB 1162  and SB 1163 —that would prevent local governments from targeting and punishing homeowners who choose to rent out their properties on a short-term basis, generally defined as units rented for less than 30 days. Though not adopted this year, Idaho lawmakers are potentially willing in the future to recognize and support short-term rentals as valuable sources of tourism revenue and economic growth. Meanwhile, Washington legislators are hard at work creating scapegoats instead of solutions. Rather than confront the genuine causes of housing shortages that fall within their control , like restrictive zoning laws, environmental regulations, and onerous labor and permitting requirements, Washington lawmakers have chosen to target homeowners who offer short-term rentals.   SB 5576  originally proposed a statewide 6 percent excise tax on short-term rental income. After significant pushback from property owners concerned about the negative economic impacts, the proposed tax was revised to a maximum of 4 percent and shifts the taxing authority to local governments. This move isn’t generosity—it’s political strategy. Like all new taxes, legislators sometimes lower the rate and narrow the base to get around opposition. Once in place, the tax can easily be expanded or increased. Predictably, hotels are exempt, leaving only single-family rentals to bear the new tax burden. Washington’s complex network of short-term rental regulations has expanded significantly in recent years. Owners must now carry at least $1 million in liability insurance, obtain a state business license, and navigate additional licensing requirements at the city or county levels. This is where things get problematic: some counties impose strict caps on the number of short-term rentals allowed, effectively creating government-sanctioned monopolies where early entrants gain exclusive benefits. Other localities bury property owners in layers of regulation—multiple permits from different agencies, annual inspections, hefty fees, extensive safety checklists, and long approval times that can stretch into years. For local governments, cumbersome bureaucracy becomes an effective alternative to an outright ban. Local governments’ eagerness to aggressively target, tax, and restrict the rights of short-term rental property owners highlights exactly why Idaho’s proposed bills are so important. Property rights aren’t a policy detail; they’re the backbone of a free society . Or as John Adams put it , “ The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” Short-term rentals are often scapegoated  by policymakers looking to deflect culpability for their own failed housing policies. From Miami  to Los Angeles , local governments frequently champion harsh restrictions and taxes on short-term rentals under the guise of addressing housing shortages. Yet these same officials consistently ignore the bigger factors driving housing affordability, such as input and labor costs, restrictive local zoning codes, burdensome environmental review processes, and overly complex building permit procedures. It is wrong to blame a small subset of citizens as the cause of a shortage, where multiple economic and political factors are in play. Lawmakers also rarely pause to consider why property owners are increasingly opting for short-term rentals over long-term leases. The answer often lies in state laws that heavily favor tenants, making eviction of problematic renters costly and complicated. Landlords facing capped rents, limited security deposits, and stringent eviction regulations naturally prefer the flexibility and less regulatory hassle of short-term rentals. Local governments might be best suited to handle many community-specific issues, but there must be clear limits when they start infringing upon fundamental property rights. Local governments, often influenced by vocal minorities, should be restricted from targeting property owners with punitive measures and heavy-handed regulation. Idaho’s approach looking to establish statewide standards and protections would ensure a predictable regulatory environment. Property owners gain assurance that their rights won’t change dramatically from county to county. Washington’s patchwork, by contrast, creates an uncertain and hostile environment that discourages investment, reduces housing supply, and ultimately harms property owners and the local economy. One state is trying to solve the problem. The other is just pointing fingers. Property rights form the bedrock of American economic freedom. Idaho’s legislators deserve praise for understanding these rights, while Washington’s approach of blaming and punishing property owners for decades of legislative policy failures should be rejected.  The path to affordable housing isn’t more government interference—it’s respecting the rights of the homeowners who make the housing market work.

Recognizing that Montana imposes the region's highest income tax rate, state officials are looking to increase economic competitiveness and provide taxpayer relief this session with additional income tax cuts. How much, however, is in question. Here are some of the current top regional income tax rates: Montana - 5.9% Idaho - 5.3% ( reduced this year ) Utah – 4.55% Colorado – 4.25% (temporary – capped at 4.40%) North Dakota – 2.5% Nevada/South Dakota/Washington/Wyoming – No personal income tax (though Washington does have a standalone 7% capital gains income tax) Understanding the lack of competitiveness that comes from having the highest regional income tax rate, Governor Gianforte kicked off the 2025 Legislative Session by proposing an income tax rate reduction from 5.9% to 4.9%. Governor Gianforte noted : “As I meet with Montanans in every corner of our state, I hear loud and clear: tax relief is a priority. That’s why we’ve proposed to cut taxes again this session, to once again deliver the largest tax cut in state history. Our tax cuts will let Montanans keep more of what they earn, help folks navigate the nationwide affordability crisis, and create a more prosperous future for our state and people.” While a major income tax reduction effort sailed smoothly in neighboring Idaho this year, the waters are getting choppier than expected in Montana. As reported by the Montana Free Press  on April 2: “The Montana Senate Taxation Committee voted down two major tax bills backed by Gov. Greg Gianforte Wednesday, killing a measure that would have cut a full percentage point off the state’s primary income tax rate and another that would have increased property taxes on second homes as part of efforts to lower homeowner tax bills.” Governor Gianforte responded saying : “I fundamentally believe Montanans sent policymakers to Helena to address the challenges they face. Our focus remains on delivering meaningful solutions to those challenges: cutting taxes, creating a high-quality education system, and standing up for the most fundamental responsibility of government – to keep our people safe . . . Now there are a lot of proposals out there about how to reduce income taxes this session. Some only benefit some taxpayers. Our proposal benefits Montanans at every income level, just like our past proposals.” As mentioned by Governor Gianforte, there are several income tax reduction bills in play this year:   SB 323 : Governor’s proposals to reduce the top income tax from 5.9% to 4.9% and expand the low-income tax credit. Approximately $300 million in taxpayer savings. SB 203 : Raises income tax threshold so that more qualify for lower rate (Montana has a split rate of 5.9% and 4.7%). Approximately $230 million in taxpayer savings. SB 546 : Creating a targeted tax credit for low-income. Approximately $200 million in taxpayer savings. HB 337 : Reducing the top rate to 5.65% and increasing the income threshold. Approximately $260 million in taxpayer savings.   As this income tax reduction debate continues in Montana, other states are looking to phase out their income taxes entirely. According to the Associated Press : “About 45 years have passed since a U.S. state last eliminated its income tax on wages and salaries. But with recent actions in Mississippi and Kentucky, two states now are on a path to do so, if their economies keep growing . . . Some other states also are pushing to repeal income taxes. The Oklahoma House passed legislation in March that would gradually cut the personal income tax rate to zero if revenue growth benchmarks are met. That bill now is in the Senate. New Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, also wants to phase out the income tax. The House and Senate have advanced legislation that would take an incremental step by exempting capital gains income from taxes.” When the final gavel sounds in Helena this year, what type of income tax relief will the Treasure State have: An across-the-board rate reduction to boost economic competitiveness and shed the label of having the highest tax in the region, or more targeted relief while other states take bolder action?

The fundamental problem with the ever-rising cost of health care in the United States is the fact that a third party, either employers or the government, pays for over 70 percent of that cost. Patients, therefore, are somewhat isolated from the true cost of their health care. Even if patients wanted to be informed consumers of their own care, they face the reality that prices are unknown or unknowable. The first Trump administration put forth an Executive Order (EO) requiring hospitals to post prices for common medical procedures and treatments. The order required hospitals to list prices for “common and shoppable items and services” by late 2019. The executive order did not have any penalties for non-compliance. The Biden administration was very lax in enforcing the EO and hospitals were reluctant in their compliance. The second Trump administration has again published an EO , with essentially the same language as the original order. In addition, the order adds the following research: “One economic analysis from 2023 estimated the impact of these regulations, if fully implemented, could result in as much as $80 billion in healthcare savings for consumers, employers, and insurers by 2025. Another report from 2024 suggested healthcare price transparency could help employers reduce healthcare costs by 27 percent across 500 common healthcare services. Recent data has found the top 25 percent of most expensive healthcare service prices have dropped by 6.3 percent per year following the initial implementation of price transparency during my first term.” No references are provided, nor does the new EO include any penalty for non-compliance. Only when people can see the true costs and direct their medical spending intelligently through a free market will costs become transparent and likewise come under control. Health services are like any other economic activity, and because of their highly complex nature, they can only be managed through unregulated interactions of patients and providers. No centralized plan dictated by Executive Orders can account for all of the factors involved in patients’ decisions and care. The best motivator for providing cost awareness in health care for patients as consumers would be to eliminate third-party payer systems and allow patients to control their own health care dollars. This change would increase competition, increase innovation at lower costs, assure quality, and improve access to services. No one would suggest that people should not make their own decisions about daily nutrition, housing, education, or marriage and family. The same should be true of health care.

Tired of waiting for federal action on the nation’s $36 trillion national debt, Governors are banding together to press for state action. Florida Governor DeSantis met with Idaho Governor Little on March 24 to discuss adding a balanced budget amendment to the U. S. Constitution. From the beginning, the Governors were clear that they are asking states to urge lawmakers to vote for a constitutional convention. The main focus of the convention would be federal fiscal accountability.   DeSantis told reporters  during the joint Idaho press conference: “ I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”   He continued :   “If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there's a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the  states for ratification."   Governor Little posted on X: “The freight train of federal spending has to stop. Under Donald Trump’s leadership the size of the federal government is being reduced, now it’s time for Congress to put an end to the ever-growing debt. Grateful to Ron DeSantis for his efforts promoting a balanced budget!” Convention of States Progress Map DeSantis acknowledged the federal fiscal problem has bipartisan blame: “As a proud conservative and as a proud Republican, I have no problem pointing out the truth that this is both parties in Washington that have created this mess. As much as I'd like to come up here and blame the Democrats, the fact of the matter is it's happened under both parties.”   During the 2025 Legislative Session, Idaho lawmakers rejected 3 different applications  for a constitutional convention. They were for the purposes of balancing the budget and imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for the federal government’s officials and members of Congress. Gov. DeSantis continued his balanced budget tour on March 24 by visiting with Governor Gianforte in Montana to promote the same initiative. Montana also proposed an application for a convention with SJ4 , but it too was rejected. Governor Gianforte stated :   “In Washington, they’ve been spending like drunken sailors – that is not what our Founders envisioned, we need a change, and fast, to prevent our children and grandchildren from inheriting this mess and we can’t expect Washington to impose permanent fiscal restraints on itself. That’s why we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”   According to a recent poll , 68% of Americans are in favor of a constitutional convention to propose amendments that would establish term limits, impose spending ceilings, and curb the power of the federal government. The federal government’s $36 trillion in federal debt equates to roughly $106,000 per person in the country. In 2024, the United States spent more on interest costs than on any federal program except Social Security.   There are numerous reasons why this problem must be addressed quickly. A large and growing national debt puts the U.S.  at a greater risk for a fiscal crisis, being vulnerable to foreign creditors, and reducing public and private  investment. Another massive reason is that funds spent on interest payments for the federal debt are not available for infrastructure, defense, or other important national priorities.  In 2020, the average interest rate   on America’s debt was 2.344%, and it has grown to 3.211% as of this year.   In April 2024, U.S. Bank estimated that the federal government was on pace to acquire $1 trillion in new debt every 100 days . If a national emergency were to happen, the government wouldn’t have any other choice but to borrow or print new money. This is why balancing a federal budget is a must. If 49 out of 50 states have to balance their own respective budgets, why shouldn’t the federal government be required too?   On March 26, Moody's Investor Service also published a study on U.S. debt. It originally changed its   rating from “stable” to “negative” when looking at the U. S. credit score in November of 2023, and the findings of this recent study reached the same conclusion. It found that federal policy decisions could lead to worsening debt and higher interest rates for the U.S. The study said: ”T he potential negative credit impact of sustained high tariffs, unfunded tax cuts and significant tail risks to the economy have diminished prospects that these formidable strengths will continue to offset widening fiscal deficits and declining debt affordability.”   Critics claim that the vehicle of a constitutional convention will result in a “runaway convention” that will meddle with the entire constitution. But there is a high threshold of a 3/4 vote, or 38 states needed in order to ratify an amendment to the Constitution to ensure order and stability. Supporters of a constitutional convention acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that a constitutional convention won’t happen. If there are enough applications, one stream of thought is that Congress will propose appropriate ratification to send to the states, rather than having the state legislatures call the shots.   The last time the federal budget was balanced was in 2001. Spending has gotten so out of control that states must step up to act. This push by Governors Little, Gianforte and DeSantis shows that there is a real desire and momentum for a constitutional convention. Lawmakers in Idaho, Montana, and around the country should seriously consider moving forward with their applications to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government.

The Inland Northwest came out to support free markets on Friday night in a very, very big way. Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) - the region's premier free market think tank - hosted its 2025 Spring Dinner at the Coeur d'Alene Resort - welcoming a sell out crowd of more than 600 to see Judge Jeanine Pirro. "If you ever wonder about change - we can make change, just like you do at the Mountain States Policy Center," Judge Pirro said. Her speech focused on the current direction of the country, her time as a prosecutor in New York, and the work to advance free market ideas. The yearly event is a fundraiser for MSPC, and the amount of funds raised for the organization hit a record Friday night. "We are so very grateful to our supporters, who know that they are part of something special by joining our effort," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. MSPC also announced the recipient of its 2025 Elevation Award - the organization's highest honor, given to the leader who has advocated for the advancement of free market ideas and solutions. Idaho Speaker of the House Mike Moyle was named the Elevation Award recipient for his work to cut the tax burden in the state.

A packed house at the Coeur d'Alene Resort Friday celebrated free markets and the announcement of Mountain States Policy Center's 2025 Elevation Award recipient. The award is the highest honor of MSPC, given to the individual(s) who advance free market solutions and ideas. Mike Moyle, Idaho's Speaker of the House, was named the 2025 honoree, for his work to lower the tax burden on Idaho families. MSPC President Chris Cargill called Moyle "Idaho's tax-cutting king." "Under Speaker Moyle, the effort to reduce Idaho's income tax just keeps happening," Cargill said. "That is good for businesses, families and the state's economy." Speaker Moyle is Idaho's longest-serving legislator, having served since 1998. “Most of the things you remember, are the personal experiences," Moyle said. "When someone comes through with a personal problem and you’re able to fix it. That’s what this whole building is about. It’s about family. It’s about keeping our country, and doing what’s right.” VIDEO:

Imagine being assigned to a grocery store based on your zip code. Would you be able to find all the products you need at the right price? How would the grocery store adjust its pricing and offerings if it knew you didn’t have any other choice? This is the dilemma public school families often face – a situation wherein a quality school and equal opportunity can simply depend on where you live. For decades, millions of American children have been assigned to a public school. Those who live in neighborhood A, for example, must go to school A. The reasons for this were, initially, easy to understand – transportation ease and neighborhood cohesion were thought to be part of the equation. But policies of racial discrimination were also at play. There are two kinds of open enrollment policies – intradistrict and interdistrict. The first, intradistrict, allows families to transfer to a different school, but only within the same school district. The second policy, interdistrict, allows families to transfer to any school within the state, regardless of district. Currently, 43 states have an open enrollment policy, but they can vary wildly. Some may be voluntary; others may choose a limited number of students who qualify. Some states use open enrollment for students who face geographic challenges, while others use open enrollment as a means for school integration. Unfortunately, there has also been a dark side to assigning children to schools based on neighborhood or zip code – segregation. In the early 1900s, the federal government adopted a practice known as “redlining,” which based the approval of federally backed home loans on the economic well-being of a neighborhood. Congress reversed the policy some 50 years later, but the ripple effects were enormous, and in many states, there was a strong correlation between the redlining maps, and a school district’s boundaries. Since the COVID lockdowns, and even before, families in every state have been asking for more education options. Recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work, more than 30 states have expanded choice programs. Education choice can mean various things, including attendance at a public school you may choose, a private school, homeschooling, magnet schools, charter schools and more. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have recently passed choice expansions to include tax credits and education savings accounts (ESA’s). Polling shows both options are popular. But the most popular form of public education choice is open enrollment. Polling completed by the Yes, Every Kid Foundation shows more than 60% support for ending a federal requirement that students be assigned to the public school closest to them. Other polling has shown support in the mid to high 70s . Idaho has one of the strongest open enrollment laws in the nation. The Public Schools Without Boundaries report gives Idaho a ranking of second among the 50 states. In particular, researchers give the Gem State high marks for its cross-district enrollment and within-district enrollment. School districts are required to post capacity by grade level and all policies regarding open enrollment on their website . Washington state receives poor marks for its open enrollment policies. While the state allows for limited cross-district open enrollment, it allows districts to reject transfers for various reasons, including a student’s ability or disability. Furthermore, districts are not required to provide the public with information about cross-district enrollment – citizens must ask for it first. Montana’s open enrollment policy has improved but could still use adjustments. The Montana State Legislature adopted a cross-district open enrollment plan in 2023 and required that school districts could only reject students for limited reasons, such as truancy or disciplinary reasons. Unfortunately, Montana does not require school districts to post anything about open enrollment policies on their websites. Furthermore, school districts are not required to adopt within-district open enrollment policies. Wyoming receives low marks for its open enrollment policies. While school districts are allowed to have cross-district open enrollment, the state doesn’t require it. Furthermore, cross-district enrollment is only allowed if a school district’s Board of Trustees approves. The state does not require any information about open enrollment on school district websites, and districts can even charge transfer students for tuition. Even states with the best open enrollment policies can improve their policies and transparency, thereby making it easier for children to access a quality education. Public schools are very much part of education choice. Most families are satisfied with the performance of their local schools. But not every child is the same, and families must have the opportunity to seek other options. Open enrollment is a popular form of public education choice that is supported by those on the left and the right. Children should not be assigned to a school simply based on where they live, but rather whether that school offers the best opportunity for them to succeed. As states seek to innovate and improve public schools, open enrollment for all children must be at the top of the list of policy reforms. And transparency regarding a state’s open enrollment policies should be paramount.