States are in a fierce economic race for businesses and citizens to help grow their economies. Montana has been among the winners in this economic race, but more can be done to keep the state on the path to future success and remain competitive with its neighbors. Among the ideas that could be considered are requiring a legislative supermajority for tax increases, using revenue triggers to reduce income taxes, adopting Truth in Taxation to improve property tax accountability, creating a Tax Transparency website, using a taxpayer receipt to provide a snapshot of government spending, and adopting Truth in Labeling for gas taxes. One way to ensure that tax increases are the last resort of policymakers is by adding requirements to a state’s constitution that require a supermajority vote or voter approval to raise taxes . This type of taxpayer protection already exists in 17 states, but not in Montana. Whether requiring voter approval for all tax increases like in Colorado or needing a 2/3 legislative threshold as occurs in Florida, increasing the tax burden imposed on Montana families and businesses should first secure a broad consensus and always be the last resort when budgeting. Lawmakers in Montana have been working hard on income tax reform by reducing rates. While these efforts in Montana are welcome, the Treasure State risks falling behind its neighbors if it doesn’t take further action. So how can Montana lawmakers ensure the income tax burden remains low? One option is to use a revenue trigger for automatic reductions . By using automatic triggers tied to revenue growth, there would be no need for special sessions of the legislature or one-time tax rebate checks. The reduction would happen automatically. What about the concern about property taxes? One way to help bring greater transparency to the fact that spending is the main cause of property tax increases is with a reform called Truth in Taxation . Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985 (it currently exists in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Tennessee). Before moving forward with property tax increases, government officials in Utah need to first fill out a “ Tax Increase Checklist ” and comply with the “ Tax Increase Requirements ” details under Truth in Taxation. Truth in Taxation was one of the recommendations made by Governor Gianforte’s 2024 Property Tax Advisory Committee . This reform would help empower Montana taxpayers to better engage and understand their local property tax burden and the connection to spending decisions. There are even more opportunities for tax transparency. Montana’s Department of Revenue reports there are nearly 1,400 taxing districts in the state. This means the typical home and business could be subject to numerous taxing districts at the same time. The ability to hold the appropriate level of government accountable for that tax burden means knowing how much of the total tax bill they are responsible for and if the cost is worth the level and quality of service provided. Now imagine if you could go to a tax transparency website  and enter your home or business address to quickly see all the taxing districts you are subject to, at what rates, and perhaps be provided an educational calculator on your total estimated tax liability based on where you live. This is the benefit of providing taxpayers with a tax transparency website to help make it clear which level of government is responsible for the taxes being imposed. We’re also familiar with the shopping experience of seeing the total amount we owe ring up on the register and then being provided with an itemized receipt showing what we purchased. Now imagine if you were provided with a taxpayer receipt  providing the same information for your tax dollars and how it relates to government spending. By combining a taxpayer receipt with a tax transparency website and state budget transparency resources, Montana policymakers can help put taxpayers in the driver's seat to understand where their tax dollars are going and how much they are paying for those government services. Finally, gasoline is one of the few products we purchase where taxes and fees are built into the price. This means there is little transparency about the true financial burden placed on consumers. The fix to this lack of transparency is what has been called “ Truth in Labeling .” This reform can be as simple as placing a sticker on gas pumps showing the breakdown of state and federal taxes per gallon of taxes. In Montana, the current state gas tax costs consumers 33 cents per gallon. This does not include the 18.4 cents federal gas tax, meaning the total cost of taxes is 51.4 cents per gallon for drivers in the state. Unfortunately, gasoline taxes are not transparent. In an age of data transparency, a “Truth in Labeling” policy is a reform worth pursuing. The Treasure State has taken impressive steps to improve its tax climate and set businesses and citizens on the path to economic success. Montana’s neighbors have also been acting  in this competition to attract and maintain residents, meaning more can still be done to help make the state the preferred place to live and open a business. By adopting additional policies to improve the transparency and structure of Montana’s taxes, policymakers can keep the state’s “Open for Business” sign shining bright.

Experienced voices are critical when developing public policy, especially when we are trying to advance free market solutions. Laws should not form in a vacuum or theoretical world without those who understand the industry realities being in the room to help inform the discussions. The Idaho Legislature has approved House Bill 299 , which would strengthen the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board and bring qualified professionals from the broadband industry to the table when discussing any broadband policy. This approach will make grant distribution more efficient and ensure the best decisions are being made for the people of Idaho. The advisory board currently consists of legislative members and public appointees. HB 299 also makes a big change by adding nonvoting members with broadband-specific expertise to the board. These members can lend real-world experience and important thoughtful perspectives that members of both the advisory board and the legislature cannot always bring. This helps ensure that the policymaking process is informed by firsthand experience, and decisions are made based on the insights of those who understand broadband systems and infrastructure the best. The bill also adds an essential component in the determination of grant awards, which will be considered by an independent third party. Adding this new portion of code ensures decisions related to broadband grants are made in a transparent manner and free from outside influence. The third-party will review broadband proposals based on their merits and potential and will make recommendations to the advisory board in order to shape the state’s broadband future efficiently and fairly. Bringing in experienced voices doesn’t just enhance the quality of decisions, it helps to remove roadblocks that are delaying the progress of the industry. For policymakers, it is important to facilitate an environment that propels the free market rather than being an obstacle to it. HB 299 is a positive step working toward broadband policies that are meant to be innovative and to be guided by those with the best knowledge of the industry. HB 299 is currently awaiting action by Governor Little.

Everyone has seen the stories.  A homeowner goes on vacation only to return and find strangers in their bed and half their furnishings sold. Or a widow vacates a family home, puts her house on the market and then finds out someone moved in and changed the locks while the house was unoccupied. Or a former tenant rents out property to others and collects rent instead of the owner. Horror stories abound of people taking advantage of lax laws and lengthy legal processes to live rent free at property owners’ expense, often damaging and ruining homes in the process. Homeowners in Wyoming haven’t been immune from people illegally occupying homes, either. That’s why Wyoming legislators should be commended for upping the consequences for squatters and strengthening property owners’ rights during this year’s legislative session. SF 006  makes it a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or up to $10,000 in fines—or both— if a person illegally occupies and knowingly damages or destroys property. It also allows homeowners to seek the immediate removal of those illegally occupying their property via law enforcement and doesn’t hold law enforcement responsible for any damage that might occur during the process. Under the new law (approved without signature by the Governor) those who create false leases or other documents in order to illegally use property will be charged with a misdemeanor and could be fined $750.00 and face up to 6 months in prison. Mark Miller, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, who testified before the Wyoming legislature in support of the legislation, said, “With a national housing crisis and a growing threat of squatters, states like Wyoming recognize the importance of property rights and the ability of homeowners to keep and maintain control over their property.” He said most states haven’t addressed the issue legislatively, which can lead to homeowners not being able to live in or rent their properties for months or years as they wait for the eviction process to play out in the courts. (Currently, Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia, in addition to Wyoming, have passed laws against squatting.) Another factor leading to the explosion of cases nationwide is the lack of housing. The Pacific Legal Foundation said, “restrictions on where and what you can build—including outright prohibitions on duplexes and granny flats in many places—have limited the supply of affordable housing options.” It advocates loosening regulatory restrictions to increase the supply of housing as well as laws that protect homeowners who evict squatters on their own. Common sense and civic duty also say that property owners should get to know their neighbors and law enforcement officers to be better able to quickly address squatting when it occurs. Detractors of the Wyoming legislation have said landlords could abuse the law to kick out legal tenants. But they can be held legally liable if that happens. And law enforcement would quickly learn who was abusing their time and trust. Most important is that property owners in the Cowboy State can now seek redress immediately to remove those who want a free ride. Taking what is not yours is not “social justice.” It is stealing and thankfully will be treated as such going forward.

Having already enacted enhanced education choice options for families ( HB 93 ), Idaho lawmakers are continuing their education reform efforts this session with two new proposals. The first is SB 1097  sponsored by Senator Janie Ward-Engelking. According to the Statement of Purpose of SB 1097 : “The purpose of this legislation is to allow any school district the flexibility to convert to a charter district, or any configuration that includes schools as public charters. It gives school districts more flexibility as we reimagine our future schools. It provides the opportunity for all schools to be innovative and incubators of creative ideas. This decision would be left up to the local school board. Interested schools shall submit proposals to the Idaho State Board of Education for consideration.” SB 1097 was unanimously approved by the Senate on February 27 and is currently awaiting action by the House.  The second proposal is HB 392 sponsored by Representative Jack Nelsen. According to the Statement of Purpose for HB 392:   “This legislation creates a new chapter which allows for Idaho public school districts to be designated as ‘districts of innovation.’ With this designation, districts would be exempt from certain Idaho statutes, administrative rules, and State Board of Education policies, freeing up resources to pursue local priorities to meet ambitious student achievement goals. The legislation outlines district eligibility requirements, the process to receive authorization from the State Board of Education, requirements from which districts may request exemption, and the process of amendment and review of the local innovation plan. This is an important shift for our traditional public school districts, allowing them to pursue innovative local policies similar to the public charter school sector.” HB 392 has not yet been acted on by the House Education Committee. There is a major case study we can review to see what the impact of these types of changes could be. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, New Orleans public schools were largely transitioned into charter schools. This innovation and flexibility lead to significant improvements in student outcomes. A report from the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans notes : “Our findings reveal the New Orleans reforms led to large gains in average student achievement and increased rates of high school graduation, college entry, and college graduation in the first decade after they were implemented. Student outcomes have stabilized since then . . . A key factor driving improvement in average academic performance was the gradual process of closing and taking over low-performing schools.” Although the New Orleans Public School District has changed some since this experimentation, the district still notes : "NOLA Public Schools (NOLA-PS) stands apart from traditional American public school districts as a system that gives schools the flexibility to set their own educational models, hire their educators, and be innovative to best develop the whole child, academically, socially, and emotionally." It is clear from the charter reforms enacted after Hurricane Katrina that providing public schools more flexibility and then holding them accountable for results will lead to improved student outcomes. SB 1097 and HB 392 help put the focus of education back where it should be, on what’s best for students to help them succeed instead of checking the boxes of a traditional system heavy with regulations. Ideally, all public schools should have the freedom to be like charter schools with the ability to innovate to meet student learning needs while being held accountable for results.

Though Idaho doesn't have a statewide property tax, taxpayers would have a better understanding of their local property tax burden under a new legislative proposal introduced today. Sponsored by Rep. Cannon, the Chair of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, HB 369 would bring Truth in Taxation to Idaho. This important property tax transparency tool has been used by Utah for decades and would be a helpful reform for Idaho to adopt as well. According to the Statement of Purpose for HB 369 : "This 'Truth in Taxation' legislation would require a local taxing district to publish in the newspaper and to send to owners of property located within said taxing district a Notice of Proposed Tax Increase, containing specified information aimed at making the act of raising taxes and the process of raising taxes more transparent." Property taxes are an important part of the tax base for school districts, local governments, and many states. Though based on a relatively straightforward calculation, they are among the least understood taxes by taxpayers. Although there are variations in each state, the general formula for property taxes is the value of the property multiplied by the tax rate. Too often taxpayers focus on assessed values instead of the spending decisions made by government officials when considering their property tax burden. First, taxpayers need to know that assessments are just a part of the calculation. The main driver of property taxes is spending increases approved by policymakers and voters themselves through levies. The assessor is not responsible for any property tax increase, the local budget writers are. This is why efforts to restrict property assessments are often misplaced and lead to other problems . The better way to control property tax increases is on the spending side and/or with levy restrictions. One way to help bring greater transparency to the fact that spending is the main cause of property tax increases is with a reform called Truth in Taxation. To bring more transparency to property tax increases, Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985 . Along with Utah, Truth in Taxation exists in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Here is how the Utah Legislature describes the property tax transparency process: “The basic concept of the system is that taxing entities may only budget the same amount of property tax each year, unless they have ‘new growth’ (not just change in value on existing properties) or go through a very public process of notifying the public and holding a public hearing on the proposed revenue increase . To achieve this, as taxable values change, the tax rate automatically adjusts to provide a constant amount of revenue. When values increase, the tax rate adjusts down to provide the taxing entity the same amount of revenue as it received in the prior year. When values decrease, the tax rate adjusts up to provide the same amount of revenue.” Utah’s Property Tax Division further explains : “Property Tax increases require a Truth in Taxation process of public disclosure. Taxing entities are required to follow a series of date specific steps, including notification to the county, newspaper advertisements, parcel specific notices, and a public hearing , before adopting a property tax rate above a calculated certified tax rate.” Before moving forward with property tax increases, government officials in Utah need to first fill out a “ Tax Increase Checklist ” and comply with the “ Tax Increase Requirements ” details under Truth in Taxation. Here is an example of the Utah Truth in Taxation postcard that is sent to taxpayers: There was some discussion when Idaho's HB 369 was introduced that a Truth in Taxation postcard may not provide enough context for why the property tax increase is being proposed. To address that concern, a QR code could be added to the postcard that would take taxpayers to a landing page on the taxing district's website with additional explanatory details. As we noted in our Policy Manual , even though Idaho doesn’t have a statewide property tax and the legislature recently enacted property tax rebates to help with the local tax burden, Truth in Taxation is still needed to help empower taxpayers to better engage and understand their local property tax burden and the connection to spending decisions.

With overwhelming support, the Idaho legislature has adopted House Bill 345 - a measure that includes work requirements for able-bodied adults on Medicaid. The measure - a MSPC recommendation - also includes cost containment measures if the federal government changes the financial setup of the program. 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 financially is 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 percent. MSPC's Chris Cargill testifies on Idaho House Bill 345. 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. Many officials unfortunately look at the Medicaid program as “free” federal money. Unlike other state budget items, for every state dollar legislators spend on Medicaid, they get at least one matching federal dollar. Of course, state and federal taxpayers are the same individuals, families, and businesses. The Medicaid program is one of the federal government’s largest non-discretionary spending programs. Inflation adjusted spending 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. There has never been a federal work requirement to receive Medicaid benefits. However, the first Trump administration encouraged states to seek federal waivers and institute their own work requirements. Thirteen states had work requirements approved, but only Arkansas actually established a plan that had the consequence of losing Medicaid for non-compliance. Either courts or the Biden administration rescinded all the approved waivers, with the exception of Georgia which won its own court battle . Many states, including Idaho, are now seeking a work requirement waiver from the second Trump administration. Spending on Medicaid in Idaho is revealing . In 2016, Idaho taxpayers paid $2.10 billion on the Medicaid program. The state expanded the entitlement as allowed under Obamacare in 2018. By 2019, the state spent $2.45 billion, which grew to $4.68 billion by 2024. Obviously, enrollment in the program increased, but the burden on Idaho taxpayers almost doubled in those eight years adjusted for inflation. 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. This is not exactly a partisan issue with 71 percent of Republican respondents and 58 percent of Democrat respondents favoring a work requirement. Currently, 68 percent of adults in Idaho’s Medicaid program work either full or part-time. This is higher than the national average of 64 percent.

We don’t want plastic in the ocean. Most plastic degrades slowly and we have all seen pictures and videos of marine life being harmed by plastic. While many environmental issues are controversial, this one isn’t. The simple goal of keeping plastic out of the ocean – which I share completely – is what drives some politicians to support banning plastic grocery bags. It would appear that plastic bag bans are tailor-made for government intervention. The environmental costs of plastic pollution are not borne by consumers or producers. When these kinds of negative impacts exist – like with air pollution – it can make sense for government to set rules. However, it only makes sense if the cure devised by politicians is not worse than the disease. The experience with plastic bag bans is that the alternatives do more damage than the plastic bags. There are several reasons for this. First, the impact of plastic grocery bags from the United States is very small. A study published in Science magazine in 2015 demonstrates that the vast majority of plastic in the ocean comes from developing countries. China and Indonesia alone account for more than one-third of worldwide ocean plastic. The small island country of Sri Lanka contributes about five times as much plastic to the world’s oceans as the entire United States. Completely eliminating the U.S. contribution to plastic of all kinds, not just plastic bags, would reduce the amount of ocean plastic pollution by less than one percent. Despite that, it could be that we still have a big impact. In fact, we don’t really know how much impact plastic bags have on marine life. As the Ocean Conservancy itself admits , “the population-level consequences of marine debris from ingestion, entanglement and contamination remains relatively unknown.” This doesn’t mean there are no impacts. Making public policy without critical information, however, is crap shoot and the risk of doing more harm than good is significant. That is exactly the problem with plastic bag bans. The United Nations Environment Programme looked at numerous studies of alternatives and found that in many categories of environmental impact, the alternatives are worse. The UN report notes that “Reusable bags can be environmentally superior to [single-use plastic bags], if they are reused many times. For example, a cotton bag needs to be used 50-150 times to have less impact on the climate compared to” using plastic grocery bags. Cotton and paper bags are also the worst when it comes to creating “eutrophication” – runoff of nitrogen into water that can lead to oxygen depletion and dead zones at the mouth of rivers where it accumulates. The report sums up the tradeoffs this way: “A shift to paper or cotton bags will help reduce impacts from both littering and microplastics. However, paper and cotton bags are likely to have more impacts on the climate, eutrophication and acidification, compared to the conventional plastic bags.” Banning plastic grocery bags, when the impact from the U.S. is very small and the overall impact unknown, risks increasing the use of alternatives that end up doing even more environmental damage, including to ocean and marine life. So, what is the solution? The key is to prevent plastic from reaching the ocean and there are a growing number of ways to do that. Perhaps my favorite is a company called Plastic Bank. Plastic Bank works in developing countries, where plastic pollution is most prevalent, and pays people to collect plastic waste and exchange it at a community location for goods and services. More amazing is what Plastic Bank does with the plastic it collects. In partnership with SC Johnson, the plastic is recycled to use in Windex bottles. As the founder of Plastic Bank wrote recently, “For too long, we've been waiting for big businesses and governments to lead the change toward regenerating our planet. But what if we've had it wrong? What if we unleashed their power by democratizing environmental and social impact? Imagine a world where small businesses are empowered to end poverty, stop plastic pollution, and grow with purpose.” Exactly. Actions by small businesses and individuals are more nimble and effective and we have only begun to harness the power of these types of approaches. As I outline in my book Time to Think Small , Plastic Bank is just one of a growing number of companies and non-profit organizations that are taking environmental stewardship into their own hands and solving problems where politicians and government have failed. The standard response is that while these efforts are nice, they don’t add up to much. With the multiplying effect of technology, that is simply wrong. This is the message I shared with students at Mountain States Policy Center's recent plastic bag ban debate at Boise State University. We all have a role in making thousands of small decisions to create a big impact. While the United Nations has repeatedly failed to reach agreement on plastic pollution, Plastic Bank has prevented the equivalent of 8 billion plastic bottles from entering the ocean. We can take action to reduce the amount of plastic that goes into the ocean and protect marine wildlife. Plastic bag bans, however, may end up doing more harm than good. Rather than relying on government-imposed regulations, it is time to take action that is effective and targeted. That’s the best way to help protect our oceans and marine life.   Todd Myers is the Vice-President for Research at the Washington Policy Center, a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy based on free-market solutions. He can be reached at tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org .

It finally happened. Education choice became law in Idaho this legislative session when Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 93 . Now, thousands of families will have access to a lifeline that has proven successful in increasing educational outcomes. Getting here wasn't easy. And unfortunately, implementation may not be either. Why, in conservative Idaho, did it take so long? Like any state, there are a variety of factors at play. The dominance of a teachers' union, apprehension in rural areas, real commitment by legislative leadership and even simple messaging can make or break any policy change. Opponents of the new law claim the Governor has "betrayed" Idaho teachers and students by signing the legislation. Some announced plans to sue before the ink was even dry. This overreaction is as typical as it was wrong. Many of the claims made against HB 93 were also wrongly made by opponents of charter schools before they were adopted by Idaho in 1998 . It's hard to comprehend the anger being expressed by some about providing families a tax credit that could help a child get a better education. The reality is HB 93 doesn't take any money from the state's K-12 budget - not a penny. If you want to compare the two, you'll find that a $50 million tax credit accounts for .0185% of the state's nearly three billion dollar K-12 budget. If you want to call the program a voucher , you'd be factually wrong. The state will not be writing checks to any private school. And families taking advantage of the credit may not even use the help for private school tuition but rather other educational expenses. If you want to say there's no accountability, you'd insult the thousands of parents in Idaho who consider their number one priority to provide their child with access to a high-quality education and an opportunity to succeed. When we first launched Mountain States Policy Center in 2022, I met with editorial boards and lawmakers from across the state. When I informed them that, based on the overwhelming research , MSPC would stand for more education choice options, the reactions caught me off guard. Numerous newspaper writers and editors responded by saying "so you support closing public schools," contending that both the left and the right seemed to agree that public schools would or should be discarded. The answer, of course, was and still is an unequivocal no. Public schools are part of education choice, and most families like their public school and want to keep their public school. Idaho's Parental Choice Tax Credit is about providing more options for children who might not fit into the public school box. Nothing more, nothing less. In the end, the passage of education choice isn't about the Governor, legislators, the teachers' union, activists or even school administrators - it's about the children. As Governor Little rightly said, there's no reason Idaho can't provide both a quality public school system and more education freedom options, just as more than 30 other states have now done.

A new bill introduced in the Idaho Legislature would preserve mobility for most travelers in the state by eliminating “road diets” on highways and arterial roads, thereby preserving much-needed capacity to accommodate the state’s rapid growth. Senate Bill 1144  seeks to improve mobility by reducing or eliminating the controversial practice of taking away general travel lanes for other modes on high-volume streets. It would also require that cycle lanes only be improved as a secondary or tertiary priority, rather than a primary justification for a project. The proposed legislation does create exceptions for bike facilities in need of safety improvements and repairs. Residential and city streets would not be affected should the bill pass. The State of Idaho has continued to see an influx of new residents, businesses and commercial facilities – with growth rates far above the national average – leading to more traffic congestion, less productivity and wasted fuel. In fact, the Ada County Highway District estimates vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) will increase more than 70%   in Ada County alone by 2040, further emphasizing the need to preserve, maintain and increase road capacity. While cycling is important in Idaho, it represents just one percent of commute trips. Car commuting, on the other hand, makes up 81%. Even in the Boise Metro Area, the state’s most populous region, both driving and working from home make up a stunning 95% of commutes in 2023, based on the latest data available from the Census Bureau. Source: “Means of Transportation to Work,” Table B08301, American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2023 1-Year Estimates The State of Idaho, along with many of its cities, counties and regions, is expected to grow rapidly over the next few decades, resulting in more travel demand on the road network. Senate Bill 1144 would help preserve and maintain road capacity on high-volume roads to accommodate that growth, while ensuring other modes can be considered and included in project delivery.

Concluding that "Idaho can have it all," Governor Brad Little has signed into law H93 - the parental choice tax credit.   "Providing high-quality education for Idaho students will always be our top priority,” Little said in a news release . H93 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.   "We are grateful to these lawmakers for their leadership on the issue and to the Governor for his careful consideration," MSPC President Chris Cargill said.   "As the Governor said, Idaho can provide both a quality public school system, as well as additional education freedom options."   H93 is universal (any family can apply) but priority will be given to low income families.  Our exclusive Idaho Poll shows strong support for a $5,000 tax credit, with the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in Idaho in favor. "We are absolutely thrilled for the families who need other options," Cargill added. "They're the winners today." ### Governor Little's complete statement: “With the passage of the $50 million Parental Choice Tax Credit program, Idaho boasts even more abundant schooling options for Idaho students and families. Combined with the continuation of Idaho’s astoundingly successful LAUNCH program, Idaho has become the first state to offer education freedom from kindergarten through career.  “Idaho’s commitment to education is growing every year. I am proud that we have put close to $17 BILLION into our K-12 public school system since I took office and increased public school funding by close to 60 percent in just a few years. Our investments in education initiatives have increased 80 percent overall since my first year in office. In addition, Idaho ranks first in the nation for our return on investment in public schools.  “Idaho can have it all – strong public schools AND education freedom. Providing high-quality education for Idaho students will always be our top priority."

There are two fundamental truths about open government laws. First, it is essential for citizens to have robust and easy access to public records to hold their government accountable. Second, bad actors will take every opportunity to abuse this process to engage in mischief and harass public officials while also increasing taxpayer costs. Realizing these two facts are often on a collision course, what is the best way to protect our right to open government while mitigating the abuse from bad actors? This dilemma continues to vex policy makers across the country. The first step is to clearly define the problem and then study best practices to ensure that stopping bad actors doesn’t thwart the people's right to know about the actions of their government. One idea that is gaining attention in various states  is to create an official Open Government Ombudsman to help citizens access public records and monitor and make recommendations to stop the abuse of bad actors. Authorizing an open government ombudsman is one of the recommendations from our Policy Manual . This type of citizen-focused open government expert would help reduce the possibility of litigation when a public records dispute occurs. A similar concept is currently used in Connecticut. That state uses a Freedom of Information Commission  to help mediate access to public records. Wyoming is one of the states that currently has an open government ombudsman. According to a release by Governor Gordon : “The Ombudsman position was created with the passage of Senate File 57 in 2019. The Public Records Ombudsman serves as a resource for the public to resolve issues regarding public records requests submitted to state and local government agencies. In addition, the position provides aid to state and local governments to understand their obligations in response to such requests. The Ombudsman is also charged with mediating disputes relating to the timeliness of a records production, an agency's claim of privilege or confidentiality, and fees.”  The National Freedom of Information Coalition (NFOIC) created a white paper in 2018 discussing some of the possible solutions to stop bad actors from ruining open government laws. NFOIC said : “Federal case law has set forth guidelines  on what kinds of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are unduly burdensome. Among the factors considered when determining the burden on an agency are 1) the ease with which the records can be searched — whether they are indexed, catalogued, digitized or physical, 2) the scope and specificity of the request, and 3) the sheer number of documents requested. But state laws are less clear on what ‘unduly burdensome’ really means regarding their own open record laws . . . There are two types of requests that can be considered unduly burdensome, and the trick to a successful FOIA request is avoiding a classification into either of the two. The first is a request that is unduly burdensome because the request is vague or asks for an unreasonable amount of records. The second category is unduly burdensome because the individual or an organization makes a request too frequently or is doing so to harass the agency.” A new proposal in Idaho (HB 253)  attempts to stop bad actors from abusing the system, but it may go too far and create unintended consequences that unduly impact the people’s right to know. A February 27 email to lawmakers from the Idaho Press Club says about HB 253 (in-part): “This bill would affect the fee schedule and timeline for public records requests at every level of government, from city councils and school districts to state agencies and constitutional officers. We understand that one state agency has struggled with requests from a national news agency, but we strongly feel that changing the entire public records law in response to that issue is an overreaction that will harm news organizations in the West . . . This bill also allows for an indefinite extension for fulfillment of the records request. Without a public records ombudsman, citizens already lack a way to challenge public records denials or timeline violations outside of taking an agency or official to court. This would make it nearly impossible for an out-of-state journalist to challenge an agency for not responding or delaying indefinitely.   We're also concerned about the arbitrary fee schedule. Without parameters, any government entity could add exorbitant fees for out-of-state journalists, making it impossible to access information that’s critical to shining a light on government spending and practices.  We understand the concern over burdensome records requests, and we're not unsympathetic. This has been an issue nationwide, but we ask that you hold this bill so we can work together to find a solution that doesn't affect journalists' ability to do their jobs, nor dismantle Idaho's commitment to government transparency.” So, what is the current state of open government in Idaho? There are several resources available in Idaho to help citizens participate in their governance. They include open meetings and public records laws as well as Transparent Idaho  (a government transparency website run by the Controller’s Office). Idaho has traditionally been strongly committed to facilitating the people’s right to know. The state’s Public Records Law Manual clearly explains :“ Open government is the cornerstone of a free society." Idaho’s constitution also proclaims : “All political power is inherent in the people.” The foundations for an accountable government can be found in strong citizen oversight, and one of the most critical tools to achieve this is open government laws. Authorizing an open government ombudsman would provide a helpful resource for citizens and potentially reduce the possibility of litigation relating to the enforcement of state public records and open meeting laws. A state open government expert could also help to monitor and make recommendations on national best practices to stop the abuse of public records laws by bad actors.

As DOGE works to streamline federal processes in D.C., Montana leaders  are celebrating a historic milestone in cutting red tape. In 2021, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte created the Red Tape Relief Task Force in his first week in office. He appointed Lt. Governor Kristen Juras to head up the initiative, joined by the leaders of 13 executive departments .  On February 21 of this year, they celebrated the impressive milestone of amending and repealing 25% of state regulations over the past four years.   At the inception of this effort, Lt. Gov Juras noted, “By thoroughly and carefully reviewing, rolling back and repealing unnecessary regulations, while also ensuring safeguards for public health and consumer safety, we will reduce the burden everyday Montanans face.”   This task force did just that - producing 188 bills, 170 of which were passed into law. They took the time to look at the fine print to remove unnecessary barriers and meticulously reviewed the regulatory code across the entire state government. From 2021 to 2023, they found that the agencies that did not participate in the red tape relief initiative increased their regulatory burden by 2.5%, while agencies that did participate decreased it by 2.8%   One example from 2022 is when Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen announced business filing fees were reduced, saving Montana businesses approximately $1,139,000 . The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks also utilized technology to develop a way to fill a hunting tag through a mobile app.    In September of 2024, Montana was ranked  as the 4th best state in the union for regulatory freedom by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  Dr. Patrick McLaughlin, the Director of Policy Analytics at the Mercatus Center said, “There's a simple way for states to boost their economies: eliminate unnecessary regulations. Policymakers in a handful of states, including Montana, have realized this, and begun identifying red tape and getting it off the books. More states should take note of this proven and low-cost strategy.” The tangible results have been undeniable. The statistics show that there is a strong correlation between simplifying statutes and growing an economy. The Montana Business Economic Report showed  that 63,808 new businesses were created in Montana in 2024, making it the 4th year in a row that this number has grown. Montana also achieved a state record  of 324,000 businesses in “good standing” by the Better Business Bureau. Business owners want to create and employ in states where permitting is streamlined, technology is utilized, and unnecessary government interference is cut. Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen attributes the growing business environment to red tape being cut.   Throughout this assessment from the task force, the members have consistently engaged public opinion. Across all departments, a resident can submit a suggestion as to how they can specifically make different processes and codes easier to understand and access.   Governor Gianforte celebrated the milestone of repealing 25% of Montana’s regulatory code by saying , “Working with the dedicated employees at our state agencies, we got to work to repeal code and regulations that have been on the books for as long as 130 years. When I took office, I made a commitment to making government more responsive and efficient and we’re getting it done.” Lt. Governor Juras added, “While I am proud of our progress, there is still more work to do to serve Montanans better. I look forward to seeing our bills get across the finish line,”   Governor Gianforte and Lt. Governor Juras did a fantastic job tackling this initiative head on. They have proved that states need to regularly audit their regulatory code across every sector to experience efficient processes, increase satisfaction of their citizens, and to grow their economy. A very simple step that other states could take would be implementing more sunset laws for specific programs. This guarantees that regular review will take place, and there aren’t outdated methods being used in the modern legal landscape. Montana’s Red Tape Relief Task Force followed through on its promises. The rest of the country should look at states like Montana for guidance in shrinking the regulatory burden and growing an economy.

Childcare is an expensive cost for working families. This financial burden gets exacerbated when there isn’t adequate availability or options. Many families can’t find available childcare allowing them to work, especially in rural communities and low-paying areas.   Idaho’s House Bill 243  hopes to address this concern by eliminating the age-based child-to-staff ratios, prioritizing parental discretion over government mandates, and preventing local jurisdictions from adding additional unnecessary burdens. Idaho is one of only four states allowing local jurisdictions to regulate childcare.   In Idaho, childcare availability is a pressing concern, with Care.com ranking Idaho 46th nationally for availability. Although Idaho’s childcare cost (9th nationally) and quality (11th nationally) are better than the national average, Idaho is short on providers. A different, more detailed analysis  by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows that Idaho has a 22-33% gap in childcare depending on congressional district, which is one of the better states in the region (refer to map below).   Though some may not want to acknowledge it, childcare providers are overregulated. For example, after recently watching a friend become a certified childcare provider, I saw firsthand how the regulatory hoops are extremely excessive . This regulation reform conversation needs to happen. Current regulations work to the detriment of improving the cost and availability of childcare. Just look at the results of such tactics.   Regulatory protectionism is an absurd tactic that avoids uncomfortable conversations and ignores fact-driven research. Research shows that increasing the ratio by one infant can reduce costs by 9 to 20%, saving families $850 to $1,890 per year, but regulators ignore this. Favoring regulatory tactics that increased dramatically  at the same time as small-family child care providers (1 person) declined by 35%, large-family child care providers (2 or more care persons) declined by 8%, and child care centers by 2% (from 2011 to 2017). An unintended consequence of group size regulations is reduced staff wages , deterring the most qualified teachers from working at child care centers and resulting in higher turnover. Only staff education  improves the quality of safety according to research. Regulations on child-staff ratios have no significant statistical effects, but repeated analysis shows more educated directors are correlated with fewer accidents.   Multiple testimonies on February 21, 2025  opposed HB 243 due to safety concerns, but the data supports easing child-staff ratios. Idaho already has one of the highest child-to-staff ratios (6 infants at a time) in the country (tying with Georgia and New Mexico), but heavy-handed regulations haven’t improved availability.   Neighboring Utah recently allowed unlicensed care providers to care for up to 8 unrelated children without a license (capped at 10 if related children are present), reducing the burdens of licensure from small in-home care providers. Utah Rep. Susan Pulsipher said, “We have two problems with childcare that we hear about a lot. One is the cost and one is the capacity. [The new rules are] a tool [that will give parents more choices].”   Safety of our children is of our utmost concern, and the associated policy choices need to be supported by facts. Idaho’s Director of Health and Human Resources Alex Adams said in a June 24, 2024 memorandum :   “While data is mixed, there does not appear to be definitive data supporting one child-staff ratio over another, though it is logical that smaller ratios can be beneficial for certain quality-related outcomes and may even be preferred by parents. What, then, is the role of state licensure versus private accreditation versus parents making prudent decisions that are in the best interest of their children? If a state ratio is set too tight, it might limit the number of available settings, reducing access and therefore denying parents opportunities that they would have sought in the absence of state intervention. Parents may judge the pros and cons of various facilities that are state licensed and make decisions in the best interest of their family judging cost and quality.”   Idaho’s HB 243 acknowledges the overregulation of childcare providers, maintains a level of oversight on facility size, prevents local authority from adding unnecessary restrictions, and empowers parents to use their own intuition. The Idaho House passed the bill on a 54-15 vote on February 27th, 2025. We’ll soon see if the Senate supports the childcare regulatory reforms proposed by HB 243. Here is MSPC's testimony on HB 243:

With the federal government facing a debt of $36 trillion and realizing that 49 out of 50 states have to balance their budgets, Americans are losing patience with the ability of Congress to enact meaningful fiscal discipline. This is why resolutions have been introduced in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming this year calling for a Convention of the States to impose much needed fiscal discipline on the federal government. 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.   Under the constitution, states can exercise their rights under Article 5 for purposes of amending the constitution. For this to occur, 2/3, or 34 of the 50 states are required to pass a resolution requesting a convention to take place. The first and last convention was in 1787 when states met originally to revise the Articles of Confederation. They soon realized that the best way forward was to create a whole new system of governance, which resulted in the U.S. Constitution.   Each of the resolutions from Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming call for an Article 5 Convention using similar language saying, “The federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending…the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent…the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.” Idaho’s Concurrent Resolution 10  includes three separate applications for a convention. They are for the purposes of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to balance the budget and impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office for the federal government’s officials and members of Congress. The bill has passed out of committee with a do-pass recommendation. As early as 1979, and as recent as last year, Idaho has signed off on multiple applications urging for a constitutional convention to balance the federal budget and restrain spending in D.C.   Montana and Wyoming also have a very similar call to action. Wyoming’s SJR 1  passed the Senate by a vote of 22-7 but failed in the House. Montana’s SJ 4  passed through the judiciary committee and is moving on to its 2nd reading. Washington's SJM 8011 hasn't received a public hearing yet.   The ongoing decisions made by federal officials to continue out-of-control spending have massive impacts on everyday Americans. The $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. Money spent on interest payments for the federal debt is 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.   Some skeptics believe that state delegates would carry out extreme action to the Constitution if a convention occurred. Because 3/4 of the states need to ratify any amendment, it would take 38 states to agree to any changes. This high threshold would keep a “runaway convention” from occurring.    According to polling , 88% of Americans support term limits, and 71% support restraint of power on the federal government. As Convention of States Action Senior Vice President for Legislative Affairs Rita Peters says , “At a time when the two parties don’t agree much, this poll tells state legislators that the convention of states is a unifying issue.” A common theme of these resolutions is reining in federal power and returning more control back to the states as was originally envisioned by the constitution. The 10th Amendment states, “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The 4th President of the U.S., James Madison, explained , “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Of course, there are many matters that seem to be in the gray area. But lawmakers all across the country can agree that the federal government has been encroaching on state powers too often.   These resolutions recognize states must take the lead and exercise their powers under Article 5 to amend the constitution to put needed fiscal restraints on out-of-control federal spending. At a time when the nation is largely divided on partisan issues, most Americans agree that federal spending and debt have gotten out of hand. State lawmakers now have the opportunity to come together to fix these issues, and put the country back on the path to fiscal discipline.

Parents and children are two of the biggest victors of this year’s legislative sessions in Wyoming and Idaho with strong backing from President Donald Trump . Universal choice bills in both states provide parents with financial means to pick the public, private, and homeschool options, along with other educational services, to help their children thrive academically. Idaho’s Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 93 on February 27, writing that “providing high-quality education for Idaho students will always be our top priority.” The legislation provides a $5,000 tax credit for families and will be paid for without touching public school budgets. It’s available to all, but low-income families will be given priority in the selection process. The credit is capped at $50 million. Parents receiving a credit will be required to respond to a yearly parent “satisfaction and engagement survey” that questions the quality of curriculum, instruction, school leadership and safety, among other issues. In Wyoming, House Bill 199 provid es all parents with $7,000 to use towards the above options. It will also provide money for pre-k schooling costs, but only for families earning up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $80,375 for a family of four. As with Idaho, the law does not impact public school budgets. Scholarships will be funded with federal dollars, lessees or mine operators, and money earned from the sale or production of mineral leases and will be granted on a first come, first served basis in case demand outpaces funds available.  It requires that students be assessed on academic progress and take reading, writing, math, civics, history, literature and science. Some school choice supporters rejected the bill because it requires government testing, but if parents don’t want that obligation, they always have the option of not taking the money. Gov. Mark Gordon signed the bill into law on March 4. Also in Wyoming, homeschool parents achieved a big win with the passage of HB 46, The Homeschool Freedom Act, which ends the requirement that parents submit paperwork outlining the curriculum for each of their children educated at home. Gov. Gordon signed that legislation into law on February 27. Opponents said eliminating the requirement will lead to an end to all oversight. But as those who homeschool know -- including our family--the school district never followed up on the information and sent all communication via certified mail at exorbitant expense. Ending the practice has nothing to do with accountability and everything to do with wasting time and money for performative purposes. What the laws will do is open the door to creating a whole new ecosystem of schools and services that have the potential to help every student, not just those enrolled in the program. As Mountain States Policy Center found in a review of 187 school choice studies , “the growing body of rigorous research demonstrates that well-designed education-freedom programs improve student achievement and cause nearby public schools to improve their performance.” Speaking of achievement, student performance in both Wyoming and Idaho leaves much room for improvement. A large majority of students are not proficient in math and reading in 4th and 8th grade in Idaho and Wyoming, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress . The states like to point out that their students outperform national averages, but that’s like celebrating an “F.” For too long state governments have judged their education system by the money allocated to schools instead of the learning achieved by students. These bills put parents back in charge of deciding which educational options are best for their children and provide incentives for many different school environments to thrive. Governors Gordon and Little should be applauded for supporting legislation designed not to beat national averages but to help the people and economies of both states to excel while providing families more education options.

With a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate, Idaho lawmakers have sent to the Governor HB 40 to continue the state's impressive income tax reduction efforts. Along with reducing the state's income tax rate from 5.695% to 5.3%, the bill includes a recommendation from one of our Sawtooth Leadership Academy Students to exempt military pensions from income tax liability. Speaker Moyle tweeted today : "The Senate just passed our $253 million income tax reduction, and the biggest single tax cut in Idaho history is headed for the governor’s desk. Taxpayer money belongs in taxpayer pockets!" The additional income tax relief provided by HB 40 will help continue to grow Idaho's economy and ensure that local businesses remain competitive with those across the region. Here are some of the current regional income tax rates Idaho is competing with: Montana - 5.9% (Gov. Gianforte 2025 proposal would drop to 4.9%) Idaho - 5.695% (HB 40 reduces to 5.3%) 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) There have been some complaints that these income tax reductions only benefit the wealthy. A couple of things to keep in mind about this. First, the tax code shouldn’t exist to redistribute income. Its focus should be on funding the core functions of government using the principles of transparency, simplicity, neutrality, and stability while causing the least amount of economic distortions possible. Second, when talking about taxes based on a percentage of income, the relief will be proportional to the tax paid. There are many exemptions, deductions, and targeted credits specifically designed to help alleviate the tax burden for low-income individuals. Finally, don’t overlook the impact of corporate income tax cuts on increased economic activity, including more business investment, increased employment and higher wages. Here is a good primer from the Tax Foundation  on how corporate income tax cuts impact those important economic variables. By further reducing the income tax burden and the economic drag these types of taxes create, lawmakers are putting families, businesses, and Idaho's economy in a strong position for the best overall tax climate for success.

Debanking is a maddening process that presents significant financial hardship to its victims. A banking customer is returned their banked money and told their accounts are closed. No reasons are provided nor is there an appeals process. Customers are left without access to basic economic activities like depositing checks, processing digital transactions including debit cards, and issuing payments on loans and bills.   Anger and frustration with debanking are understandable, as some believe financial institutions may do away with business that doesn’t fit a certain political agenda. However, the proposal before the Idaho legislature in Senate Bill 1027  may make matters worse for banks and their customers. SB 1027 attempts a heroic defense of victimized banking customers, but it attacks the wrong enemy.   Who is the real enemy? The language of SB 1027 targets the largest financial institutions with assets over $100 billion, alleging that only the big banks practice debanking. But in reality all banks face the same federal legislation that would require them to debank certain customers. Idaho’s SB 1027 started off as one of the broadest debanking proposals in the nation. A recent amendment provided more safeguards for banks to allow debanking in the case of unlawful actions by customers.   In no way is debanking an issue that needs to be ignored, but policies making banks the enemy are fruitless endeavors. Banks use debanking as a risk management tool, protecting their operations from the financial repercussions of fraudulent and criminal activities, financially risky customers, or the wrath of federal regulators. Banks are a heavily regulated industry, with a 2016 Government Accountability Office report  showing that “ fragmentation and overlap ” in the system has created confusion.   With over 15 regulating agencies, a significant gap has been created in coordination and transparency in the banking industry. A recent presentation from Brian Moynihan CEO of Bank of America said , “There’s a 100-plus regulators in our building every day.”   This gap is the playground of federal unelected bureaucrats furthering political ideologies into the banking regulatory process. With examples under the Obama and Biden Administration of weaponizing debanking against political opponents. Senate Banking Committee Hearing Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said :   “It is incredibly alarming and disheartening to hear stories about financial institutions cutting off services to digital asset firms, political figures, and conservative-aligned businesses and individuals. The message is crystal clear: no regulator, and no bank, is above the principles of fairness and market access.”   The historic federal apathy and stalling on anti-debanking legislation motivated states like Florida and Tennessee to adopt their fair access laws . These laws prohibit banks from denying, canceling, suspending, or terminating services to customers based on political opinions, religious beliefs, non-quantitative factors, and social credit scores. Idaho’s SB 1027 follows a similar structure to Tennessee and Florida.   Federal regulators have expressed concerns that these state-level fair access laws will undermine federal regulations that prevent criminal activity. These new laws raise preemption concerns of federal law over state banking laws. However, over 10 states proposed anti-debanking legislation in 2024 and Idaho is trying to do it again.   Idaho’s Transparency in Financial Services Act (SB 1027) is the product of years of federal apathy. Understandably, Idaho lawmakers want to protect Idahoans from debanking practices, but SB 1027 complicates an already murky issue without going after the real culprit. First of all, there is little evidence that debanking practices are actually occurring in Idaho and adding this policy would hinder the ability of financial institutions from managing financially risky customers to protect their business.   Testimony supporting SB 1027 mistakenly blames the financial institutions as the cause of debanking, where research and recent federal testimony reaffirms debanking is a result of federal regulations. Stacey Satterlee of the Idaho Bankers Association said, “It is simply not the case that a bank would debank or exit a customer based on their connection to a specific industry or their political affiliation. We feel that this bill goes against free market principles and invites government overreach into business.”   In our current political climate, with a sympathetic federal executive and congress, now is not the time to add to the complexity of banking regulations. Federal changes  need to include: reforming the Anti-Money Laundering Act to reduce the reliance on debanking, fixing bank examinations to prevent regulators from weaponizing debanking, and adjusting the limit for Currency Transaction Reports to inflation from $10,000 to $75,000, reducing required filings by 90%. Yes, political debanking needs to end, but the change needs to happen at a federal level, not with a patchwork of state responses.

Whether ecstatic or demoralized about the recent election, Americans should all welcome a fresh review of how the federal government carries out its work. For too long, the massive federal bureaucracy has been allowed to grow while becoming less and less efficient in how it spends tax dollars. In fact, it would be an exercise in futility to name any government program in anyone’s lifetime that achieved its intended goals in the time frame predicted and within the budget allocated. This reinforces the principle that the government should be the last option to fix a problem, not the first. Perhaps the most glaring example of government ineffectiveness is the Department of Education (ED). Established near the end of the Carter Administration in October 1979 when Congress passed the Department of Education Organizing Act (Public Law 96-88), the actual operation of the department began in May 1980. Prior to that, items related to education had existed as a unit of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). With the creation of the new department, the federal government has played an increasing role in both K-12 and higher education. The intent of the 1979 legislation was to give the federal government a more significant role in improving the educational level of America’s young people. However, in the 44 years of its existence, the department has proven to be an expensive failure. Expensive is an understatement. Since 1980, ED has cost American taxpayers over $2.3 trillion . Take a minute to let that sink in. But the costs don’t end there. When I served on the Seattle School Board, I learned that the federal government accounted for only 9% of the district’s funding but nearly half of the regulations. Consequently, I suggested to my colleagues that we forego accepting federal dollars since the regulations cost much more than the funding provided. Alas, my colleagues would not support that suggestion. However, I’m confident it was (and still is) an accurate assessment. Where does the money go? Mainly to fund a 4,400-person bureaucracy that constantly promulgates new regulations, ranging from dictating lunch menus to DEI rules. Scores of regulations dictate the operation of K-12 schools and universities. Even private universities that accept government funding are forced to comply with the various regulations. What has been the impact of these regulations? The Nation’s Report Card documents that there has been no meaningful improvement in the education of our children as a result of the ED efforts over the past 50 years. Test scores in our K-12 system have remained flat or have declined. It’s no wonder that this poor performance has resulted in a lack of support for public education and more parents pulling their children out of the public system. At the higher education level, the stature and reputation of America’s universities have declined while adjusted for inflation college tuition has increased 180% since 1980 . One of the main culprits for this astronomical increase is the federal government loan program, funded by the ED. That program gave universities a carte blanche opportunity to increase tuition without worrying about losing students. Tuition increases became almost a rite of passage. The end result is that the federal government’s involvement in higher education has made education more expensive and less effective. Given all the above, it’s very hard to find any meaningful contribution to the education of our youth from the $2.3 trillion spent by the ED. The good news is a review of federal government efficiency is right around the corner. There’s no more low-hanging fruit than the expensive failure named the Department of Education. Donald P. Nielsen is a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute and Chairman of the Institute's program on public education reform. For nearly 30 years, he has devoted his life work to transforming public education. For two years, he traveled the country studying America's public education system and authored, Every School: One Citizen’s Guide to Transforming Education . Mr. Nielsen was awarded the Harvard Business School's 2004 Alumni Achievement Award. In 2009, he received the Leadership Award from the Foster School of Business at the University of Washington.

Enrollees in the Medicaid health insurance program have never had a work requirement to receive the entitlement. Montana Senate Bill 334 would add a work requirement in Medicaid for those individuals who are physically able. Some background is helpful to understand the context of the bill. 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 financially is 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 percent. For example, it currently pays 62 percent of the original Medicaid program costs in Montana. 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. Montana is one of 40 states that chose to expand Medicaid under Obamacare and did so in 2016. The Biden administration allowed states to further expand Medicaid during the COVID pandemic and Montana added over 70,000 individuals to its expanded Medicaid program. This COVID-related increase sunsets on June 30, 2025, and Montana officials must make a decision to eliminate or continue this specific expansion. State officials unfortunately look at the Medicaid program as “free” federal money. Unlike other state budget items, for every state dollar legislators spend on Medicaid, they get at least one matching federal dollar. Of course, state and federal taxpayers are the same individuals, families, and businesses. So as states expand Medicaid, their taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the costs. The Medicaid program is one of the federal government’s largest non-discretionary spending programs. Inflation-adjusted spending 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. There has never been a federal work requirement to receive Medicaid benefits. However, the first Trump administration encouraged states to seek federal waivers and institute their own work requirements. Thirteen states had work requirements approved, but only Arkansas actually established a plan that had the consequence of losing Medicaid for non-compliance. Either courts or the Biden administration rescinded all the approved waivers, with the exception of Georgia, which won its own court battle . Many states, including Montana, are now potentially seeking a work requirement waiver from the second Trump administration. Although the numbers are elusive, it is safe to say that some percentage of the new Medicaid enrollees are able-bodied and could hold down a job. In addition, satisfying the work requirement includes community service and/or further education. None of the waiver requests would force disabled or enfeebled individuals to find a job or lose Medicaid. Opponents of a work requirement argue that low-income people will decline to enroll in Medicaid because of the work mandate and will go uninsured. This begs the question – why would anyone not sign up for free health insurance? Likewise, do taxpayers have the right to ask recipients of a free entitlement to give back something to society? A job gives a person a sense of self-accomplishment and self-worth. A work requirement for the able-bodied enrolled in Medicaid provides an escape route from the welfare entrapment. It seems only logical and fair that if an individual can physically work, they should be required to do some type of job or community service to receive the welfare program. With a favorable Trump administration, Montana officials should seriously consider the proposed work requirement in SB 334 and apply for a Medicaid waiver.

In 1998, America Online was introducing the nation to the internet. Bill Clinton was president. Michael Jordan was still playing basketball. And the first iteration of education choice was going to ruin public education. Prior to 1998, Idaho was one of the many states that outlawed public charter schools. The legislature finally acted that year to permit the new form of education , but not without a huge fight. A trip in our time machine has produced an eerily similar set of statements to today's dispute over House Bill 93 in Idaho. (As of Wednesday afternoon, the Governor has still not signed the measure, amid heavy pressure from those that oppose change to the current system.) Here's what education choice opponents said in the 1990's: "This past winter, Senate Education Committee Chairman Gary Schroeder, R-Moscow, let it be known he isn’t receptive to the idea, fearing that charter schools might siphon badly needed funding from the regular public school system." Charter Schools Scrutinized Advocates Must Overcome Funding Doubts, Other Woes," The Spokesman-Review, June 30, 1997 "Judd said she was worried about the possible effect on rural areas. If a number of students left the regular school system for a charter school, it might hurt a district’s ability to keep another school going, she said." House okays public charter schools, The Spokesman-Review, February 14, 1998 “Everyone says it won’t take any funds away, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t.” Charter Schools Still Raise Doubts Lawmakers Say Issues Resolved As Bill Heads For House Debate, The Spokesman-Review, January 20, 1998 As Marty McFly would say, this is heavy. History has a way of repeating itself. Nearly all of the same arguments are now being used again as the state is on the cusp of the biggest expansion of choice since the 1990's. Despite the predictions of doom and gloom, none of the terrible outcomes predicted in the 1990's actually happened. Charter schools in Idaho are flourishing and a model for the nation. They supplement the traditional K-12 public school system and make it better. And even though they get less funding, thousands of parents remain on charter wait lists throughout the state. Great Scott! Change is scary. But we cannot be afraid to innovate and find new educational models that allow more children to succeed. Some will fail, some will succeed, but failing to try is not an option. As the history indicates, this isn't the first time we've had this discussion on education reform, and likely won't be the last. Someone keep the time machine warmed up.