You have to feel bad for Washingtonians. While the rest of the nation today enjoys the relief of surviving another National Tax Day (April 15), our friends in Washington instead woke up to the news that no fewer than five new tax increase bills were introduced on April 16. Also, despite legislative transparency rules requiring at least five days' notice before action on a bill, same-day public hearings were scheduled on these new tax increases. As reported by KIRO radio : "All five [tax increase] bills are scheduled for their first public hearing Wednesday, giving supporters and critics barely any time to digest the details.” Here are the new bills introduced today proposing billions in tax increases: SB 5811: Targeting Tesla with a new excise tax   SB 5812: Property tax increase SB 5813: Capital gains income and death tax increase SB 5814: Select sales tax increase and requiring certain businesses to prepay taxes SB 5815: Business tax increase (B&O)   While neighboring states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have spent the year adopting or considering “record” tax cuts, Washington lawmakers stand alone in their belief that they can tax their way to economic prosperity.   As for the poor public process being used, consider the bill page for one of the new proposed tax increases: This is not a good look for any bill (introducing and holding a public hearing on the same day). It is a totally unacceptable process for tax increases.  Per Senate Rule 45 : "At least five days' notice shall be given of all public hearings held by any committee other than the rules committee. Such notice shall contain the date, time and place of such hearing together with the title and number of each bill, or identification of the subject matter, to be considered at such hearing. By a majority vote of the committee members present at any committee meeting such notice may be dispensed with. The reason for such action shall be set forth in a written statement preserved in the records of the meeting." Sure, this transparency protection can be waived, but is that really the best way to govern when trying to impose billions in tax increases? The 2025 Legislative Sessions across the region have been one for the record books. Record tax cuts for states like Idaho, while Washington instead advances billions in tax increases despite strong economic headwinds. To those in the Evergreen State, good luck.

Have you ever wondered how your tax dollars are being spent in Idaho? State Controller Brandon Woolf has just the tool for you: Transparent Idaho . This fantastic government transparency website provides searchable details on state, county, city, and local district spending. As of April 7, additional education spending details are also now available. According to a press release by the Controller’s Office, here are the new education data points that can be searched:   “Education Enrollment Data: Access annual school enrollment data across Idaho’s public education system, including detailed data for individual districts and schools. Salary Data: View workforce salary information across various education providers. Transaction-Level Data: Track individual financial transactions made by education providers throughout the state, providing a more detailed view of how public funds are allocated and spent within the education sector.” Controller Woolf said: “Transparency isn’t just about opening up government records – it’s about giving Idahoans the tools they need to understand how their tax dollars are being spent. The addition of education enrollment, salary, and transaction-level data on Transparent Idaho is a step forward in our mission to build trust in government and empower citizens to be more informed and engaged. It is often noted that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and with more data at their fingertips, Idahoans can better participate in government decisions that directly impact their lives.” With his ongoing commitment to government transparency, you can see why Controller Woolf was one of Mountain States Policy Center’s first Elevation Award winners in 2023 . Even more improvements are planned for Transparent Idaho. As noted in the Controller’s April 7 press release: “The expansion of Transparent Idaho to include education data and visualizations marks just the beginning. We continuously seek opportunities to enhance the platform's offerings, providing deeper insights into Idaho’s education system and intergovernmental systems. Future updates will look to expand the platform, delivering even greater transparency into the financial and operational aspects of Idaho’s education system.” Perhaps the next information added to Transparent Idaho will pull from MSPC’s recommendation for a Public School Transparency Act . Among the education details that we believe should be easily accessible: Amount of total dollars (all funds – local, state and federal) spent by the district that year. Amount of total dollars spent per student, per year. Amount and percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom. Average administrator salary and benefits. Average teacher salary and benefits. Ratio of administrators to teachers to students. MSPC researchers earlier this year spent hundreds of hours going through every Idaho school district’s budget to create an example of what the Public School Transparency Act could look like. We’ll be publishing this report in the coming days. Hopefully, one day soon, these details will also be available on Transparent Idaho.

The United States Supreme Court ruled. Voters decided. Other states have acted. But all of this wasn't enough for justices on the Washington state Supreme Court. That court on Thursday brazenly tossed a 2023 initiative in Spokane that prevented homeless camping within 1,000 feet of public areas including schools, childcare centers and parks. Concluding the measure was "administrative" in nature, rather than a policy matter, justices claimed it couldn't be brought to voters. The state Supreme Court was the only court to rule that way, with other courts upholding the measure, calling it a "classic vagrancy ordinance." The ruling will have chilling effects on the future of enforcing homeless camping laws in Washington. The dissent warns that the ruling "effectively eliminates local initiative power." Indeed, it now seems impossible for any measure to be adopted in Washington unless local politicians approve and don't give voters a choice. Leadership of large northwest cities have been reluctant to fix the homeless problem via enforcement, even after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson. That case began when the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, enforced city ordinances that prevented camping and sleeping in public parks by issuing civil citations and fines to violators. The plaintiffs  in the case contested the citations received under these ordinances as ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ claiming that no other option for sleeping existed for them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go is unconstitutional. That ruling essentially handcuffed policymakers throughout the West. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, said: "California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue. The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.” The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said : "Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not." Local leaders in communities where homeless encampments are out of control applauded the ruling, not only from the standpoint of public health but also public safety. But for months after the voter initiative passed, and even after the court ruled, leaders in Spokane were slow to enforce the measure. Now, with an outrageous assist from the Washington state Supreme Court, they don't have to. The failed Washington state policies that led to the problem will continue. And it will likely only get worse. Voters tried to stop it. Government officials think they know better. Perhaps Washingtonians need to look toward states like Idaho to see how the issue can be successfully addressed.

During the 2025 Legislative Session, the Idaho Legislature allocated more money to the Department of Lands , especially to improve fire detection. One of the most future-facing features of this budget allocation is the provision for fire detection cameras powered by Artificial Intelligence, a neat complement to the state’s existing approach of harnessing technology to fight wildfires. This investment isn’t simply about keeping up with contemporary challenges, it’s about getting ahead of them. This potential AI-powered solution was discussed in one of our previous blogs . We noted: "Artificial Intelligence can be our first line of defense to mitigate the impact of wildfires." In that blog, we highlighted how AI-enabled systems, especially those using fire detection cameras, can track the presence of smoke or heat signatures in real-time while providing faster response times and improved firefighting efforts. Funding these AI fire detection cameras shows how the Idaho Legislature is acknowledging the critical role of AI in fire management and how it can revolutionize it. The state will be able to detect fires earlier than ever before with these cameras, so emergency responders can have more time to respond before a wildfire gets out of control. This approval by Idaho reflects a trend in wildfire management across the U.S. in which AI-powered fire detection technology is becoming more common. In fact, Arizona is leading the way in the usage of this technology, with utility companies such as APS already implementing AI-equipped cameras to help detect fires early. Arizona also enjoyed great success in its firefighting efforts, with improved detection times resulting in rapid responses and less map coverage of wildfires since these technologies were implemented. APS workers do not monitor these cameras 24/7. The AI cameras are constantly scanning, so when they detect a potential threat, the cameras send an alert to an incident command center. They are then reviewed by a person. As reported by Arizona Family News : "APS fire mitigation manager Wade Ward said the new gadgets APS 'to detect fires early on and early detection means early suppression.' First responders are on high alert for fires year-round, but they can’t be everywhere at once. The AI cameras look like building security cameras, but they can constantly scan for threats. 'Much like a Forest Service tower, where you have eyes looking for smoke, these cameras are looking 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,' Ward said." Additionally, on the West Coast, California has been nationally recognized for its innovative AI methods. The ALERTCalifornia system, developed by UC San Diego, utilizes AI to analyze video feeds from over 1,000 cameras statewide. In 2023, this system detected 1,200 fires, often faster than traditional 911 reporting.  This innovation was recognized as a Best Invention of 2023 by TIME magazine. ​ This additional funding in Idaho, specifically designated for fire detection cameras, will position the Gem State to integrate the technology of today into our wildfire prevention plan with the Department of Lands' best-in-class budget. It’s a bold, tech-savvy transition that keeps safety in mind while embracing innovation. As we stated in our previous blog post, AI fire detection systems are the cutting-edge tool that can help fight wildfires and will save both lives and hundreds of millions of acres of land. It's time to complement the nostalgic Smokey the Bear defense with the AI Terminator of wildfires. This fast, accurate, and relentless system will seek to save our communities and landscapes using these advanced tools.

Montana is proving itself once again to be an entrepreneur-friendly state by being named the best state in the country for business startups. According to data from Entrepreneur Media , the Treasure State has the advantageous combination of a low regulatory burden, a simple and reduced tax code, and a high business startup survival rate. The statistics show that Montana’s consistent efforts towards attracting and retaining businesses are paying off. Thanks to the work of state leaders like Governor Gianforte and Secretary of State Jacobsen, entrepreneurs continue to flock to Montana.   Governor Gianforte said :     “As an entrepreneur, I know firsthand the joys and challenges of starting and growing a business. With my experience, I am working every day as governor to make government more efficient and responsive to Montanans looking to invest in their dreams and in the Treasure State. To continue our positive momentum, we must continue cutting taxes so businesses can create good-paying jobs for Montanans across the state.”   Secretary Jacobsen stated : “Cutting red tape, becoming more business friendly, inviting businesses, we want businesses to come to the state. We invite businesses to start here.”   The report found that Montana saw roughly 4,800 startups in 2024, along with a calculated startup opportunity score of 9.55, and a 10-year survival rate of 41%. In January of this year, Secretary Jacobsen’s office reported that 6,000 new businesses were created, which is 400 more than January of 2024. Montana has consistently found itself to be ranked as a top state for its business climate, including being ranked as 5th in the country in tax competitiveness according to the Tax Foundation’s recent 2025 publication . This news also comes after Governor Gianforte and Lieutenant Governor Juras celebrated the milestone  of amending and repealing 25% of the state’s regulatory code. With that, Montana has grown its employment numbers by an average of 1.8% over the last five years.   Secretary Jacobsen has played a big role in fostering this favorable business environment. Jacobsen was thanked for her important efforts as one of Mountain States Policy Center’s Elevation Award recipients  at our Spring Dinner in 2023. After her election in 2021, Secretary Jacobsen has done a tremendous amount of work towards reducing the administrative and regulatory hassle when creating and maintaining a business. One example is from 2022 when Secretary Jacobsen announced business filing fees were reduced, saving Montana businesses approximately $1,139,000 . Montana continues to demonstrate that it is a top state in which to start a business. Last year, the 2024 Montana Business Economic Report  found that 63,808 new businesses were created, and over 324,000 businesses were in “good standing” according to the Better Business Bureau. The number of “good standing” operations has also grown each year. Creating an attractive business environment is arguably more important now than ever.  The most recent U.S Business Formation Statistics  tell us that in 2023, the U.S. saw the highest number of business filings ever. This 8% increase from 5.08 million to 5.49 million is also the highest jump between two consecutive years. The numbers exhibit that Americans are more ambitious and entrepreneurial than ever, and Montana offers a perfect spot for these business creators to call home.

Mountain States Policy Center - the region's premier free market think tank - will welcome a sold out crowd of more than 600 to its 2025 Spring Dinner at the Coeur d'Alene Resort on Friday night. The event begins at 7:00pm. Judge Jeanine Pirro, co-host of The Five on Fox News Channel will keynote the event. The organization will also announce the recipient of its 2025 Elevation Award - a closely-guarded secret. “Judge Pirro is a no-nonsense, highly respected former District Attorney and County Court Judge, politician, legal commentator, author and champion of victim’s rights,” explained Chris Cargill, President of Mountain States Policy Center. As District Attorney, Pirro crusaded on behalf of the vulnerable victims creating new specialized units to investigate and prosecute crimes involving hate and bias, elder abuse, domestic abuse, environmental crime, youth and gang violence, sex crimes, child abuse, pedophiles on the Internet and animal abuse.   She previously hosted the program “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” one of the most watched programs on cable news. In addition, Judge Pirro hosts a radio show on WABC New York opining on legal, political, and contemporary issues of the day.   “Judge Pirro’s message will come at a time when the legal system is under intense scrutiny,” Cargill said, adding “her presentation couldn’t be more relevant.” MSPC’s Spring and Fall Dinners are the region’s largest celebration of free markets, collectively attracting more than 1,200 guests annually in Coeur d’Alene and Boise. MSPC is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. The mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government. ### MEDIA NOTE: MSPC's Spring Dinner is open to the media. Those interested in covering the event should contact info@mountainstatespolicy.org .

Fairness and consistency in public contracts are essential for a healthy economic climate. When certain industries are subject to a competitive bidding process while others are not, we erode the foundation of accountability and transparency in contracting. Idaho Senate Bill 1081 seeks to establish uniform and competitive procedures for public contracts, which will level the playing field for all industries when seeking to apply for government work and projects. Currently, when public agencies are looking for professional services on projects over $50,000 the selection process can be based on subjective factors, which tend to focus on the credentials and past performance of firms, versus any definitive, measurable financial bidding processes. In some cases, final decision-making may not consider cost at all, which provides a public sector agency the freedom to negotiate fees. If qualifications are necessary, the lack of transparency can lead to choices that do not always serve taxpayers' best interests and ultimately hurt fiscal practices. As a member of the Nampa City Council in Idaho, I’ve witnessed firsthand how the current process for selecting professional service contracts for public projects can be flawed and inefficient. Many choices are made subjectively and not with a clearly or measurably devised bidding process. This can potentially raise industry costs and lead to bad financial management that wastes taxpayer funds. Senate Bill 1081 seeks to address this. The proposal makes it very clear that public agencies will select firms for professional services based on qualifications, demonstrated competence, and clearly defined publicly available scoring criteria. Agencies will not only have to rank candidates transparently, but they’ll also have to disclose how they made their decisions in the first place. The bill requires that fee schedules be factored into the selection process as up to 25% of the total score. This way, the taxpayers don't pay more than necessary, nor is the quality of work affected. A core component of Senate Bill 1081 is that industries that play a role in public contracts be subject to an equal competitive bidding process similar to how construction projects are treated. In construction, for example, the competitive bid process ensures that taxpayers will get the best price possible, usually by selection of the "low bid" option, from the most qualified companies. But in sectors like professional services, that’s not always so, leading to unvetted fiscal decisions which can often be not conducive to the market or public. The bill makes certain that all professional service contracts, including those for engineering, architectural services, land surveying, and construction management receive the same scrutiny and competition as other contracts. This is a crucial step toward fairness and market integrity as it prevents favoritism. Having clear and consistent criteria, including details on fees, will allow the best firm to be awarded a public contract in the most cost-effective way to handle taxpayer-funded projects.

The theme of the 2025 Legislative Sessions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has been pursuing record tax relief. The odd state out in this important tax relief bonanza, however, has been Washington which instead seems fixated on inventing new and even more damaging ways to tax businesses and individuals. Reviewing the billions in tax increases recently proposed by the majority party in Washington, one can’t help but hear the gleeful cheer of Prince John in Disney’s Robin Hood : “Taxes! Taxes! Beautiful, lovely taxes!” Unfortunately for Washingtonians, some lawmakers have taken this screech from Prince John too literally: “Double the taxes! Triple the taxes!” According to the Washington Research Council  (WRC), here are the details on the Senate's billions in proposed tax increases: “Senate Democrats released their  revenue proposals for the 2025–27 operating budget . They would impose a  wealth tax  (dubbed the financial intangibles tax) and a  payroll expense tax , increase the  property tax growth limit , and  repeal several tax exemptions . They would also  reduce the state sales tax rate  from 6.5% to 6% [in 2027]. There are no public fiscal notes yet, but the press release includes general revenue estimates. The wealth tax would increase revenues by $12 billion over the four-year period. The payroll expense tax would increase revenues by $6.9 billion over the four-year period. The property tax changes would increase revenues by $779 million over the four-year period. The elimination of tax preferences would increase revenues by $1 billion over the four-year period. Cutting the sales tax would reduce revenues by $3.250 billion over the four-year period. Thus, Senate Democrats are proposing $21 billion in new taxes over four years.” The WRC also notes the billions in proposed 2025 tax increases would be among the largest in state history. Allowing these massive tax increases to take effect immediately while not providing the proposed sales tax relief until 2027 reminds me of Wimpy from Popeye . The message appears to be that they’ll gladly give you sales tax relief on Tuesday for billions in tax increases today. The dreaded blank ghost tax bill  has also rematerialized in Washington with HB 2043 . As originally introduced, this transportation tax increase proposal simply said lawmakers plan “to establish additional transportation revenue sources from a range of sources to ensure that Washington's transportation system continues to deliver the level of service that residents depend on and that fuels the state's economy and growth.” That’s it. No other details were provided. HB 2043 was introduced this way despite the legislature earlier this year adopting rules to prevent  this type of Title Only bill. While Washington lawmakers appear to believe they can defy the law of economics by imposing burdensome taxes on economic growth factors, Canada’s new Prime Minister recently noted : “Cancelling the hike in capital-gains tax will catalyze investment across our communities and incentivize builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses in Canada, creating more higher paying jobs.” This is the basic economic lesson that policymakers in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are following by adopting what their governors call “record” tax relief this year to help grow their state economies and improve their economic competitiveness. Though Washington Governor Ferguson hasn’t commented yet on these tax increase proposals, he did say during his State of the State Address : “But let me start by stating that the era of assuming unrealistic growth in revenue is over. To be specific, I will not sign a budget that requires unrealistic revenue growth to balance.” He also  stated about the budget , “We’re not going to tax our way out of this thing. Not going to happen.” Perhaps Governor Ferguson can play the role of King Richard and finally stop the legislature’s Prince John-inspired tax insanity.

The Idaho State Tax Commission recently released its latest annual tax burden study  and the findings confirm that Idaho is on the right track for economic competitiveness. This outlook continues to improve with the additional tax relief provided over the last several years. The study is based on the census data from 2022 and shows that Idaho is one of the best states in the union at providing its residents with a manageable tax burden.   Idaho Tax Commission Chairman Jeff McCray commented ,  “2022 has been the most advantageous tax year for Idaho taxpayers in the last 25 years. Idaho is 15.7% below the U.S. average tax rate for personal income paid in taxes and 17.7% below the U.S. average rate for taxes paid per person.”   The Commission found from calculating state and local taxes that Idaho ranked 41st in overall tax burden and 43rd when comparing taxes per person (50 being the lowest burden). Idaho taxed $93 per $1,000 of personal income. This total includes $24.24 of individual income tax, $9.70 of corporate income tax, $27.23 of sales tax, $19.50 of property tax (local), and $6.06 of motor vehicle tax. It’s helpful to compare these figures to other states. In contrast, New Mexico in 2022 taxed $152 per $1,000 of personal income and New York taxed $168, which is 80% more than Idaho. As the graph shows, Idaho mainly relies on income, sales, and local property tax (there is no statewide property tax). Idaho’s rankings will likely look even better in the years to come because of the passage of new tax relief legislation over the past couple of years. This year the Idaho Legislature reduced the state income tax rate  for individuals and businesses from 5.695% to 5.3%. This will result in $253 million being sent back to Idahoans. Over the past four years, the state’s income tax rate has been reduced every legislative session. While Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have been working to reduce their tax burdens, Washington is heading in the wrong direction.   Over the last 10 years, Washington State has slid from being ranked 15th in business climate to 35th in the country. Washington technically doesn’t have a graduated income tax, due to a prohibition in the state constitution, but in 2022 it passed a capital gains income tax charging 7% on stock sales exceeding $250,000. State lawmakers continually raise taxes and yet are still facing a $10-12 billion budget shortfall . This year Washington is considering multiple tax increases that are estimated to be the biggest in 30 years . This includes imposing a first-in-the-country wealth tax on assets and worldwide wealth, property tax increases, a business tax increase, and a tax on paying certain employees high wages.   This tax and spend mentality of the past may be getting a needed check, however.  Recently elected Governor Bob Ferguson provides hope as he stated about the budget , “We’re not going to tax our way out of this thing. Not going to happen. ”   Wyoming on the other hand continues to stay on the right track. Forgoing a personal or corporate income tax, it ranked 1st in the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Competitiveness  Index . Wyoming holds a low tax burden, being 47th in the country with only $86 taxed per $1,000 of personal income . Wyoming lawmakers also acted this session on tax relief when they passed  legislation  that cut property taxes by 25% on homes valued up to $1 million.   Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon celebrated this effort saying , “I have always supported tax accountability, and this bill provides tax relief without transferring the burden to our core energy industry. This act, coupled with the bills I signed last year, responds to the call for property tax relief.” Montana is trending upward as well. Over the past couple of years, it has reduced the number of tax brackets from 7 to 2 and lowered the top rate from 6.9% to 5.9%. This legislative session legislators have focused on efforts to reduce the burden felt by the income tax even more. Governor Gianforte would like to do this by lowering the top tax bracket rate from 5.9% to 4.9%. No matter which tax relief version is passed, it’s encouraging to see the focus of the legislature be on making Montana even more business-friendly and easing the burden of everyday Montanans. Governor Gianforte said , “Since 2021, we’ve lowered the income tax rate most Montanans pay from 6.9% to 5.9%. We should go farther. We should reduce that income tax rate from 5.9% to 4.9%, providing tax relief to workers and small business owners alike. That’s why we should expand the earned income tax credit for hardworking lower- and middle-income Montanans… Our proposed tax cut provides more than $850 million in permanent relief, a new record tax cut that benefits Montanans at every income level. That’s $850 million that will remain in the pockets of Montanans who earn it.”   The Idaho Tax Commission’s findings are clear that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are moving in the right direction on tax burden. Washington is the odd state out with its continued fixation on a tax-and-spend budget mentality. Perhaps this is why it’s the only state of the four facing a budget shortfall.  Based on the ongoing regional state tax-cutting efforts since 2022, the next iteration of Idaho’s Tax Commission report should have even more good news for taxpayers in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

In its recently released “ 28th Annual Highway Report ,” the Reason Foundation ranked Idaho 15th in the nation when it comes to cost effectiveness and road conditions, but its authors cautioned officials when it comes to spending on roads and bridges. The Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank based out of Washington D.C., has a long history of providing key insights and recommendations on transportation spending at all levels of government. Its latest report found that, overall, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming ranked well when it came to overall road spending, safety and traffic congestion (15th, 16th, and 12th, respectively). Washington state, on the other hand, ranked 47th. Yet, despite the positive news in some states, transportation officials still have more work to do. Some key areas lawmakers and transportation officials should continue to focus on: Disbursements & Spending The Reason Foundation noted both Idaho and Washington’s poor rankings when it comes to spending on roads and bridges in 2022. In addition, all four states analyzed had above-average disbursements per lane-mile. While disbursements can be tricky due to the long timelines of projects, the authors urge officials to “focus on reducing capital-bridge disbursements and other disbursements.” In short, officials should watch spending carefully as it relates to capital expansion and maintenance in their eight- and twelve-year improvement plans. Project delivery methods , like public-private partnerships , along with the latest technologies (e.g. drones, probe analytics) can help reduce costs and improve the life of the bridge or roadway Performance Performance is best measured in terms of delay, which is the difference between observed travel times during the peak periods and free-flow speeds. As more businesses, people and freight move within an urban area, drivers experience increased delay, leading to lost time, wasted fuel, and excess emissions. The report pulls data from the INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, which notes that commute delays in the Boise area cost the typical driver $340 per year in lost time.    Pavement & Bridge Condition Structurally deficient bridges are bridges that are in poor condition and in need of rehabilitation. While both Idaho and Washington have a lower share of deficient bridges than Montana and Wyoming, more than five percent of bridges in these states are still at risk. Pavement condition is another measure of how state assets are maintained. In urban areas, Idaho and Montana ranked well, while Washington and Wyoming tended to have rougher roads. The authors did note improvements in arterial road conditions compared to the prior year rankings. Safety/Fatalities Safety should be a top priority of transportation officials across the country. As measured by fatality rates, Idaho ranked as 5th best in urban areas and 23rd on rural freeways, with fatality rates of 0.65 and 1.17 fatalities per 100 million VMT, respectively. Montana ranked far lower, with 1.44 and 1.69 fatality rates, respectively, the bottom 10 in each category. Fatality rates on Washington state’s urban and rural highways were 1.02 and 1.05 fatalities per 100 million VMT, respectively, while Wyoming’s urban and rural highways registered rates of 0.81 and 1.54, respectively. While the latest Reason report highlighted some positive shifts in road condition and congestion rankings, other areas, such as spending and safety, should garner extra attention from transportation officials and lawmakers. Officials should look at establishing performance-based benchmarks to ensure the road system is adequate to handle the influx of people, businesses and economic activity coming to the region. MSPC has outlined nine performance measures  lawmakers could put in place to ensure the movement of people and goods continues throughout the Mountain States.

Sometimes legislation can be very difficult to understand. This wasn't one of those times. Idaho's state House has approved perhaps the simplest bill introduced this legislative session. The measure - House Bill 416 , introduced by Representative Kyle Harris, requires money distributed to school districts or charter schools to be spent... where they are supposed to be spent. From the bill: A simple concept, to be sure, and one that should not be controversial. But approval of the legislation wasn't unanimous. Some legislators argued that school districts should have the flexibility to spend funds differently. One lawmaker called it "disrespectful" to local school leaders. State Representative Barbara Ehardt argues in favor of Idaho H416. The confusion over school district budgets and school funding is not new. In fact, with billions of dollars at stake, even some school district leaders may struggle to tell you exactly where the dollars are going. Unfortunately, school district budgets are a maze of jargon and information that is also not easily understandable by the general public. In addition to H416, lawmakers have the ability to improve transparency and give parents and taxpayers a clearer understanding of what is happening in public schools. In doing so, they can help school districts be committed to increasing educational opportunities for all children. A Public School Transparency Act (PSTA) - an MSPC idea and policy recommendation - would help taxpayers and parents determine whether their local district has enough funds and whether it is properly spending the cash in the classroom. The concept is simple: every school district should report the same data on page one of their budgets, and on their website. By doing so, parents and members of the community could clearly understand budget details and be able to compare district to district. Reported items should include: 1.  Amount of total dollars (all funds – local, state and federal) spent by the district that year 2.  Amount of total dollars spent per student, per year 3.  Amount & percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom 4.  Average administrator salary & benefits 5.  Average teacher salary & benefits 6.  Ratio of administrators to teachers to students Some schools may go further, reporting student outcomes, teacher retention rates and more. A 2024 Mountain States Policy Center poll found strong support for a Public School Transparency Act in Idaho - 82% support. As we wait for legislative action, Mountain States Policy Center will publish the first edition of the Public School Transparency Index this April. The data contained in the report comes directly from state and district resources, reports and budgets.

With four little boys, I frequently discuss Chicken Little and what does and does not constitute an emergency. Sometimes the screams of panic are totally justified but usually, it’s just an acorn that hits us on the head, not the sky. The Idaho Legislature seems to be creating a similar conversation with the bureaucratic authors of temporary rules, in the form of Senate Bill 1076 .   At federal and state-level governments temporary rules are an accessible tool of the executive branch. By their nature, temporary rules avoid the typical rulemaking process which would require feedback from concerned citizens and accountability to the legislature. Instead, these rules enjoy a flexible and quick promulgation timeline allowing them to be used for emergency or unforeseen situations.   In times of actual emergencies, temporary rules are a huge benefit to the speed and efficiency at which the government can respond to situations. However, every person’s definition of an emergency differs in varying degrees and the threat of an overenthusiastic executive or bureaucratic agency liberally designating emergencies is a real danger to the separation of powers.    For example, this loophole tends to be overused. At the federal level, a Government Accountability Office study  found that federal agencies avoided the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 35% of the time on 568 major rules and 44% on 30,000 nonmajor rules adopted from 2003 to 2010. To quote a professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, “It is simply implausible that such widespread use of interim-final or temporary regulations is either necessary or consistent with the APA."   State-level temporary rulemaking varies based on each state and the current administration’s directive. Idaho has already achieved major victories in regulatory reform and oversight, emergency power restrictions, and agency oversight of rulemaking, but supporters of SB 1076 feel the state can take additional steps in protecting the separation of powers.   Senate Bill 1076  recognizes that “temporary rules do not always follow the negotiated rulemaking process. Therefore, to ensure accountability of agency rules to the legislature to Idaho citizens, temporary rules shall be used only in emergency or other limited situations where negotiated rulemaking is not feasible. Agencies shall make every effort to promulgate rules utilizing the negotiated rulemaking process.”   The bill specifies the reasons for a governor authorizing a temporary rule be when “An imminent threat to the public health, safety or welfare from a specified danger that was unknown to the agency prior to or during the most recent session of the legislature or from measurable worsening of such threat or danger.” The bill will also require the governor to declare why the guidelines are needed at an earlier effective date.   The amended version of SB 1076 leaves more flexibility for the governor to extend the temporary rules and still allows for a person aggrieved by the rule to challenge it in accordance with the Idaho Code. The cost of the proposed legislation is expected to be minimal. The bill passed the Senate 35-0 on February 28 and has been referred to the House State Affairs Committee where it has sat since March 3, 2025.   Idaho has made great strides to limit government and teach the bureaucracy a couple of things about Chicken Little and real emergencies. Senate Bill 1076 goes a few steps further to ensure that even in unforeseen circumstances, more than one voice is involved in implementing temporary rules for “falling sky” events or avoiding unnecessary guidelines in the case of acorns. It remains to be seen if SB 1076 will make it across the finish line by the end of the session.

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.