Baffling is the only word to describe the Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners’ decision earlier this month to sell the 640-acre Kelly Parcel in Teton County to the National Park Service for $100 million. $100 million is a lot of money, especially compared to the $2,800 per year the school trust parcel earned from leases on it for state public schools. And Gov. Mark Gordon said the sale would generate $64 million in investment income over the next decade while allowing the state, if the sale is finalized, to pursue buying Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property. But the land is located in Teton County, where the average list price for a single family lot is $5.56 million, according to The Viehman Group’s most recent Jackson Hole Real Estate Report.  The lots range in size from 0.17 acre in town to 35 acre plus lots, according to the report. So, is the Kelly Parcel really worth $100 million or could it be $640 million or over a billion dollars? Gov. Mark Gordon, Treasurer Curt Meier and Auditor Kristi Racines won the 3-2 vote against Secretary of State Chuck Gray and Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder on the State Board of Land Commissioners. Ms. Degenfelder said in a statement she was “stunned” by the sale. She added, “This was clearly weeks, if not months, in the making, and I was not notified until the day before it was posted on the agenda of the Board of Land Commissioners.” Mr. Gray also complained about the short notice. Over the past year Degenfelder said she had been working with Ms. Racines and the BLM to find land to swap for the Kelly Parcel that would have higher earning power for state schools. That option is also favored by Rep. Harriet Hageman, who has proposed legislation  to prevent the federal government from increasing the number of acres under their control. She has said federal land ownership in Teton County is one of the major reasons for astronomical real estate prices in the area. Whether or not the pending sale, which would be bought with a combination of federal tax dollars and private philanthropy ($62.5 federal and $37.5 private dollars), would generate the estimated revenue in coming years, what is abundantly clear is that it likely would be dead on arrival in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration given his plans to cut trillions in government spending. The bigger issue, however, is how the sale is in the best interest of Wyoming residents when the price is utterly decoupled from market prices. And why did the three who voted in favor of the sale have to rush the vote? Why couldn’t a land swap have been pursued and why was so little time given to Ms. Degenfelder and Mr. Gray to analyze the proposal, much less citizens and real estate professionals who could have provided a more accurate assessment? And who benefits the most from the sale: Wyoming taxpayers or the federal government, which already controls 48 percent of Wyoming’s land? Especially in light of the changing federal priorities expected under President-elect Trump, the sale should be postponed to give the state more time to deliberate what would be in the best interest of Wyoming taxpayers and students. Wyoming residents deserve both transparency and fiduciary responsibility from their elected officials.

The federal government aptly fills the role of Ebenezer Scrooge in the ongoing production of western land management. In the words of Charles Dickens, “he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone… a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!”   This holiday season Utah wants control over the millions of acres of “unappropriated” land within their state, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In August, Utah filed a lawsuit asking the United States government to decide if the federal government has the legal authority to hold unappropriated lands within the state indefinitely. This lawsuit excludes the millions of appropriated acres within the state already designated as national parks, forests, and monuments, wilderness areas, tribal lands, and military properties.   Federal land ownership dominates the West. Over 60 percent of Alaska is federally owned and the rest of the 11 contiguous western states have 45% federal ownership. A sharp contrast to the eastern states where federal ownership amounts to 4%. The most frustrating issue for the western states is that almost half of this acreage is unappropriated. Unappropriated ground is managed by the BLM, sitting in limbo, inefficiently utilized, and horribly underserved because of the overwhelming volume of acreage. Romantically imagining the federal government as a proactive, efficient, and conservation-minded manager is as foolish as asking Scrooge for a donation – Bah humbug!   Early America was shaped by the principle that “ ownership  of property gave not only economic independence but also political independence to the average American.” George Washington wrote , “An enterprising man with very little money may lay the foundation of a noble estate.” This was the generous philosophy instilled in early American land management policies. But as western states obtained statehood, public lands were trusted to the national interest with the promise that eventually the federal government would sell these lands back. That never happened.   Federal shackles were tolerated initially, because early conservationists like Theodore Roosevelt, believed active land management involved local interests. Good intentions were spoiled when out-of-state narratives overwhelmed the local voices, slandering the communities who lived and worked with these resources. Environmentalists criminalized local communities, motivating laws and administrative rules which have held public lands hostage for decades, for the mental well-being of a few people who rarely or never visit these areas.   These policies were an “all-purpose tool for stopping economic activity.” Wilderness acreage rose more than 716% between the 1960s and 1980 and grazing use plummeted. In 1976 the interests of local communities were completely erased from policy considerations with the passing of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which enshrined all public lands into federal oversight for perpetuity.   Today, western communities and taxpayers face the culmination of these decisions, living next to public lands stifled by protection and resembling the opposite of any imagined picturesque landscape. New growth of trees is 48% of mortality, and of those dying trees only 11% are harvested. Instead, federal lands are consumed by wildfires and disease, with fire size averaging five times that of nonfederal lands. Taxpayers are also forced to fund federal inefficiency when every dollar spent on federal land returns only $0.73 and state lands have revenue of $14.51 per dollar spent, with just a fraction of the land base. Anemic timber sales and other resource harvesting, combined with the lack of federal fiscal obligation, starves rural communities from economic opportunity and school systems from abundant funding.   Public lands yet to come will see more land lost, western communities fall into deeper levels of poverty, and America struggles to compete with foreign resources because environmental activists have a stranglehold on our domestic interests. This stranglehold has choked off access for rural communities since the 1970s and is now suffocating the environmental prosperity of the public lands themselves. Along with Scrooge, western communities ask, “Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of things that may be, only?”   In recent years, about 20 states have attempted  to obtain more local control over federal lands but have met with little success. Utah’s lawsuit against the federal government is the latest attempt to introduce the early values of America back into the public land discussion. Though concern looms over selling public lands for profits, the West needs a solution that fosters more state influence in public land decisions. Federal generosity would foster local management and influence on public lands, allowing western lands to become a thriving environmental and economic opportunity that will “bless us, everyone!”

There’s bound to be some sticker shock when you shop for your holiday meals this year. While the federal government claims inflation is subsiding, it still costs much more than it should for all the fixings.   Idaho is one of just 13 states that add to the pain with a sales tax on groceries. At a full 6%, the tax is higher than most. For every $100 you buy in groceries in Idaho, you pay $6 in tax.   But because the state offers a $120 per person rebate, a family of four could buy up to $8,000 per year in groceries and not have to pay a single dollar in tax. Out-of-staters pay the tax and don’t get a rebate.   Still, the grocery tax rebate is not indexed for inflation. As such, its value decreases each year.   Taxing food is not popular. And taxing work shouldn’t be either.   I would respectfully suggest that focusing exclusively on repealing the grocery tax takes our eye off a much bigger and even more important prize – reforming and lowering the state’s income tax.   Montana just announced plans to lower its income tax below 5%. Arizona has lowered its income tax below 3%. Utah’s income tax is just 4.65%. Many other states have lowered their income tax rates to be competitive.   At 5.8%, Idaho is quickly gaining a reputation of having one of the higher income tax rates in the nation. With a median household income in Idaho of $70,214 , the total estimated state income tax liability for the average family is $4,072.   Rate Average estimated tax per month   Average estimated tax per year Total liability   Sales Tax on Groceries (Average family of 4) 6.0% $72 $936 $456* (after rebate) Income Tax (Median Household Income) 5.8% $339 $4,072 $4,072 Meantime, the average family of four is spending roughly $250-300 per week on groceries. This means, on average, an Idaho family of four is paying about $15,600 per year on food, which equals a total grocery tax liability of $936. With the state’s grocery tax credit, the liability falls to $456 – or $38 per month.   A yearly grocery tax bill of more than $400 is still painful for many families, and we shouldn’t discount the plea for more relief. In fact, Idaho lawmakers should increase the state’s grocery tax rebate to keep up with inflation.   But the data shows that sales taxes are more stable and pro-growth than other forms of taxation – especially income taxes. And sales taxes are paid by a larger swath of the population. Income taxes, in contrast, are only paid by those who work in the state.   Idahoans would see more savings if policymakers would immediately reduce the state income tax and add a revenue trigger for further reductions . Income tax rate reduced to New average income tax liability (based on median household income) Savings 5.5% $3,862 $210 5.0% $3,512 $560 4.5% $3,160 $912 4.0% $2,809 $1,263 3.5% $2,457 $1,615 3.0% $2,106 $1,966 2.5% $1,755 $2,317 2.0% $1,404 $2,668 Lawmakers could also then increase – perhaps even double – the state’s grocery tax rebate while indexing for inflation. This would still allow the state to collect the tax from those coming in from out of state, while reducing the burden on families in Idaho.   Putting all the focus on the grocery tax is small potatoes. State revenues are strong enough for the full meal deal.

Working for the Bureau of Land Management as an initial attack firefighter during my summers in college, you would learn pretty fast how to properly move the hose to quickly fight the flame. During my last summer, our engine had a firefighter on our crew whose only experience was digging lines and not moving water. One night we were trying to quickly catch a growing wildfire but our new crewmate kept getting tangled in the hose.   Federal forest managers seem to be tangled in their own hose reel as they attempt to manage escalating fire concerns. Inundated with too much federal land, overwhelmed with bureaucratic red tape, and heavily reliant on distant oversight federal forest managers are failing to adequately manage their wildfires. Idaho Congressman Russ Fulcher alongside U.S. Senators Crapo and Risch recently wrote to the U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore saying : “The scale and severity of these incidents can be attributed to inadequate federal preventative measures and delayed response times.”   In the Boise and Payette National Forests, the Lava Fire continues to consume precious public timber resources, amounting to almost 100,000 acres of federal and state-managed land. Even at the end of fire season nearby complex fires still intensify the severity of the situation, though containment has increased. As of September, the state is facing an estimated $45.8 million bill for wildfire expenses for 2024 (not including the recent fires that burned in October) compared to $14.6 million in 2023 .   A portion of this increased expenditure can be attributed to the large fires on federal lands that were not promptly contained and grew into large complex fires. Governor Little said: “They [the federal government] have got to do more containment, and they’ve got to do more management.” The Idaho Legislature will need to decide in the coming session if they will pre-fund the emergency fire suppression fund. If they choose to not increase funding, the Idaho Department of Lands will need to wait until 2026 for a supplemental request.   Defenders of the federal government’s role as public land managers only need to look at the findings of the Congressional Budget Office  to realize that they are poor managers of our forest resources. Less than 1/3 of the fires start on federal lands, but these grow hotter and larger than five times the average size of non-federal fires. Slow containment, poorly managed, unhealthy forests, and excessive lands overwhelm federal managers, and western states, like Idaho, continue to bear the consequences. First, federal officials need to prioritize quick containment and that can only be accomplished if personnel and experience match the need. In July of 2024, federal wildfire managers increased to a Preparedness Level 5, signifying ‘all hands on deck’. But according to reports from on the ground, there were not enough hands to meet the need (despite finally hitting the hiring goal of 101% in July). As of July 2024, 2,417 nationwide requests for necessary fire resources had gone unmet, with a critical lack of experienced firefighters.   In the past three years, the Forest Service has lost 45% of its permanent employees, meaning in-fill into these positions is from firefighters with less experience. A firefighter serving on the fires in Idaho’s Boise National Forest said: “There were not enough firefighters to fill the crews to catch them all. The new fires are all big now too, but hardly anyone is on them.”   Second, under-utilized and poorly managed forests define federal lands in the west, accompanied by the excessive and binding red tape for project initiation. Federal managers need to utilize the best available science to remediate the excessive fuel loads and accelerate management projects. Harvesting is one tool in which the states excel far beyond any federal program. For every dollar spent on federal lands, the payback is $0.73, but states earn $14.51 per dollar spent , with a much smaller land base. Not to mention that new growth of trees is less than half of the number of trees that are dying every year, and harvesting only accounts for 11% of the tree mortality, the rest is attributed to disease and fires. Leaving federal forests to rot or burn is an economic waste and an even bigger environmental tragedy.   Finally, the federal government is overburdened with western land that goes unutilized and unmanaged. The federal government owns 45% of lands in the lower 11 contiguous western states, contrasted with the 4% ownership in the eastern states. Utah’s recent lawsuit against the federal government’s hoarding of unappropriated federal land is a positive assertion that Western lands need the influence of state management and resources, not outsourcing to bureaucratic management on the East Coast.   State officials have demonstrated their superior protection of our forest and wildland resources as the federal government continues to get tangled in its own hose reel. Fires will continue to rage out of control unless the federal government learns from the western states how to properly steward western lands with sufficient and experienced personal, efficient, and scientific forest management practices, and finally by reappropriating land back to the citizens and communities who live and work near these resources.

In the important race for tax competition, Governor Gianforte has announced a major income tax reduction proposal for the Treasure State. Montana’s current income tax rate is 5.9%. The proposal for Governor Gianforte’s 2025 budget would reduce the income tax rate to 4.9%, leap-frogging Idaho’s 5.8% rate. Highest regional income tax rates Governor Gianforte made the following comments when announcing his new budget : “To achieve a more prosperous future, I am proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish to lower taxes. Over the last four years, we’ve cut taxes for Montanans at every income level, reducing the income tax rate most Montanans pay from 6.9% to 5.9%, substantially increasing the earned income tax credit to benefit lower-income, hardworking Montanans, and reduced the burden of the business equipment tax for more than 5,000 small businesses that fuel job creation. We can’t, and shouldn’t rest on our laurels, especially with inflation from the Biden-Harris administration eating away at paychecks, making it harder to make ends meet, and creating a nationwide affordability crisis. We should do what we can to help Montanans keep more of what they earn and to give them more certainty well into the future. Because ultimately, this is your money – not the government’s. That’s why my budget includes the largest income tax cut in state history. We propose reducing the income tax rate most Montanans pay from 5.9% to 4.9%. We propose expanding the earned income tax credit to help hardworking lower- and middle-income Montanans. Together, these proposals total more than $850 million in permanent tax relief for hardworking Montanans – a new record tax cut that benefits Montanans at every income level. We also propose to further reform the business equipment tax to provide relief to small business owners, and family farmers and ranchers by raising the exemption to $3 million per business. This reform will take nearly 700 additional Montana small businesses and ag producers off the business equipment tax rolls and better allow them to invest in their business and create more good-paying jobs.” I asked the Tax Foundation how these proposed tax changes would impact Montana’s national tax rankings. Here are the initial comments: “Under our current State Tax Competitiveness Index , Montana boasts a very competitive tax code, with an overall rank of 5. If the top marginal personal income tax (PIT) rate were to be reduced to 4.9%, the overall rank would likely not change, but the PIT component could improve from 10 to 9. This improvement is based on what the rank would have been had the reform been in place on July 1, 2024, and without regard to what reforms states may pursue in the coming legislative session. They are not large moves, though they show the reforms are competitive, if financially feasible. The business equipment tax exemption increase is also a positive development.”   Though Montana is making a strong move for regional tax relief bragging rights, don’t count Idaho out of the race yet for further income tax rate reductions. Idaho’s Governor Little and state lawmakers have consistently prioritized tax relief  and the next legislative session in the Gem State should be no exception. As reported by Boise State Public Radio : “State revenue forecasts have collections during the upcoming fiscal year pegged at more than $6.1 billion as lawmakers are preparing Idaho’s next budget. That prediction comes from the Legislative Services Office Budget Division, which is the nonpartisan office advising state lawmakers on their spending plan. ‘Our revenue forecast is suggesting that Idaho’s economy has some real strength in it and we’re going to continue growing,’ said Keith Bybee, LSO’s budget division manager, in a presentation to the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee Tuesday.” Details on any additional tax relief plans in Idaho for 2025 will be available on January 6 when Governor Little releases his budget proposal. One idea both Montana and Idaho lawmakers should consider is the use of automatic triggers to reduce income tax rates based on revenue growth. This would allow the race for income tax relief to continue at full speed without needing to take any pitstops. As we noted in our new Policy Manual : “By using automatic triggers, there would be no need for special sessions of the legislature or one-time tax rebate checks that show the government has over-collected. The reduction would happen automatically. The exact revenue percentage over expectations, the period of time required to make sure it is consistent, and the corresponding income tax rate reduction would all need to be set by lawmakers. Adopting this type of policy would send a clear message that Idaho and Montana will continue to lower the income tax burden it is placing on families and businesses. And the more the economy booms, the lower the rate.” For example, Louisiana lawmakers are considering automatic triggers to reduce income taxes as part of their tax-cutting efforts. According to the Louisiana Illuminator : "House Bill 1 also contains trigger provisions that will automatically reduce the income tax rate if state general fund revenues reach a certain threshold." By further reducing the income tax burden and the economic drag these types of taxes create, lawmakers can put families, businesses, and a state’s economy in a strong position to win the race for the best overall tax climate for success.

One of the most important responsibilities of government is to ensure transparency. While some states and government agencies excel at achieving this goal, others often fall short. Fortunately, Idaho's State Controller has taken a major step forward in promoting transparency with the latest updates to the Transparent Idaho platform. This tool, managed by the Controller’s Office, is a valuable resource that allows citizens to access thousands of pieces of data and information about how their tax dollars are spent, all in an easy-to-use format. This month, Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf, an MSPC Elevation Award Recipient , launched a new local component on Transparent Idaho, which now provides insights into county, city, and school board data like never before. For the last year, citizens have had the ability to track how COVID-19 relief dollars were spent, view state workforce and budget details, and even search real-time data on state agency spending. But now, with the addition of the local transparency feature, Idahoans can go a step further and explore data across 198 cities throughout the state. Previously accessing this kind of information required visiting multiple city websites or submitting requests for public records. But now, with just a few clicks, users can easily compare budgets, track spending trends, and analyze financial data for cities across the Gem State. The new feature gives citizens direct access to municipality budgets and even allows citizens to examine the salaries of city employees. As a City Councilman for Nampa, this new transparency tool is an incredible resource for myself, my colleagues, and my constituents. It allows us to engage with the data directly and make more informed decisions when it comes to budget-setting. I can now easily compare Nampa’s budget with those of other cities, helping to ensure that we are making responsible financial decisions that align with the needs of our community. This will be particularly valuable in future budget discussions as we strive for increased fiscal responsibility. Transparent Idaho’s impact goes beyond just providing data, it’s about creating trust and transparency between the government and its citizens. When people have access to clear and full financial information, they are empowered to ask better questions, hold leaders accountable, and advocate for the issues that matter to them. As reported by the Idaho Capital Sun : "In the words of Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf, the new city features 'empower everyone' to compare data between cities and 'see exactly how their tax dollars are spent.'" The success of Transparent Idaho is a testament to the collaboration between the State Controller’s Office, city leaders, the Association of Idaho Cities, and Idaho-based technology partner In Time Tech. This partnership has resulted in a uniform reporting system for city revenue and expenditure data, which ensures that the information available is both accurate and comprehensive. The Local Transparency Project Team worked diligently to establish this template, giving Idahoans the opportunity to analyze city budgets and fund balances with ease. For Idahoans who are passionate about understanding how their local governments function, Transparent Idaho is a game-changer. It not only provides a window into public spending but also encourages greater citizen engagement in the decision-making processes of their cities and counties. Controller Woolf and his entire team should be congratulated for their dedication to making government more transparent and accessible. The launch of this new platform is a major victory for the people of Idaho, and I’m excited to see how it will shape future conversations around budgets and spending at both the state and local levels.

Expanding education choice will no-doubt be on the mind of legislators who return to state capitols during their 2025 legislative sessions. Some states have been eager to expand their choice offerings, while others have been more reluctant.   One of the most common arguments made against offering more choice options for families is that it would be too expensive for state taxpayers, or that families who choose to send their child to a school outside of the public K-12 system should be left to fend for themselves financially. These arguments center the conversation of choice on money, rather than on what’s best for the child’s education. They also have a fatal flaw: they ignore the overwhelming savings – in the billions of dollars – that private and home school families are voluntarily offering to the state by paying their taxes while refusing the government offering of public schooling.   A public accounting of the private and home school savings has, to our knowledge, never been released. That is, until the publication of a new Mountain States Policy Center report. Idaho: $2.089 billion savings In Idaho, our research shows more than 36,000 students attend class in a private or home school setting. Like many other states, Idaho has dramatically increased K-12 spending over the past decade. In fact, Idaho has more than doubled the state allocation to public education. On average, Idaho now spends $8,472 per student, per year on K-12 schooling. This does not include large sums at the local level, approved via levies and bonds, as well as any federal dollars. In some of the state’s largest districts, the amount spent per student increases to as much as $15,000 per student, per year. The state spending alone means that private and home school families in Idaho are offering a $310 million savings to taxpayers in the most recent school year. Over the past decade, families in Idaho who have chosen private or home schooling have saved the state more than $2 billion – nearly as much as the entire Idaho K-12 budget. Washington: $11.3 billion savings Washington state lawmakers are spending more on K-12 public education than ever before. In fact, at more than $14 billion per year, it makes up roughly 50% of the state’s general fund budget. State only funding is more than $13,000 per student, per year on K-12. Again, this does not account for local or federal funds, which in some areas push the total to nearly $20,000. Enrollment in K-12 public schools in the Evergreen State peaked in 2019 but has declined by more than 40,000 since Washington state implemented drastic COVID lock downs and kept schools closed for months on end. Nearly 90,000 students attend private schools in Washington, and another 30,000 students are home schooled. Our analysis shows the state of Washington is now saving more than $1.4 billion a year thanks to the 118,000 families who send their children to a private school or home school. Over the past ten years, those families have provided the state with more than $11 billion in savings. Montana: $710.6 million savings Unlike in Washington, the population of K-12 public school students has increased nine of the past ten years in the state of Montana. Roughly 150,000 students attend K-12 public schools in the Treasure State, which makes up just under 90% of the total eligible population.   Montana’s state budget for K-12 has jumped 32% since 2014, to a current total of more than $873 million per year. When just state funds are considered, Montana spends $5,879 per student, per year. Montana’s enormous geographic size and limited population make private schooling more challenging. Still, 5.5% of the state’s eligible population attends a private school and there are 130 private schools in the state. Another 4.5% attend homeschooling. The Treasure State is a home school friendly state, with only a handful of requirements. The analysis shows Montana taxpayers have saved $710.6 million over the past ten years thanks to the number of families sending their children to either a private school or deciding to home school. That savings is nearly enough to pay for one year of the state’s total K-12 spending. Wyoming: $707.1 million savings Roughly 90,000 students attend K-12 public schools in Wyoming. These numbers have steadily declined since 2014. Still, a large percentage of the state’s eligible children – 93.4% - attend one of the 361 public schools.   Wyoming has a unique funding formula for public schools, using a pool of different revenue sources that can be used to fund school districts adequately. As a result, despite its small population, Wyoming’s K-12 allocation of more than one billion dollars each year for K-12 public education remains remarkably consistent. This equals roughly $16,649 per student, per year, and includes local funds. Only 1.8% of the state’s eligible population of students attends a private school in Wyoming, while 4.1% are home schooled. There are only 30 private schools throughout the entire state. Charter schools are also few and far between in Wyoming. With Wyoming’s unique funding mechanism for public schools, per student amounts spent each year are relatively high. We can calculate that taxpayers have saved more than $707 million over the past ten years thanks to the roughly 6,000 families that have either sent their child to a private school or home schooled. Why this matters Families who choose to send their child to a private school or decide homeschooling is best do so for a variety of reasons. Some may be religious, while others may need a better educational environment. Too many families considering such an arrangement are forced into financial difficulty, most being required to pay twice – once for the system they don’t use, and again for the option that works better for their child.   The various education choice proposals discussed in Idaho, for example, have had a price tag of anywhere from $50 to $90 million per year – less than a third of what private and homeschooling families are saving the state, according to the research.   There have been zero proposals seeking to reimburse families for the entire amount that would otherwise have been spent on their K-12 education. This means the state collects more money for a benefit it does not provide, despite the educational promises made in state constitutions.   Families and children saving state taxpayers millions, and, in turn, reducing overcrowding in schools, deserve more options for education. They deserve praise, not scorn.   At the very least, they deserve a thank you.

Idaho is one of 17 states  that requires a fiscal impact statement for a proposed ballot measure. While this is an important transparency tool to help provide voters with details on the potential fiscal cost of citizen initiatives, the debate surrounding the recently defeated Proposition 1  demonstrates the need for reforms to this process.   Here are the current requirements for Idaho Title 34-1812  (in part): “After receiving a copy of an initiative petition from the secretary of state as provided in section  34-1804 , Idaho Code, the division of financial management, in consultation with any other appropriate state or local agency, shall prepare an unbiased, good faith statement of the fiscal impact of the law proposed by the initiative. The division of financial management shall complete the fiscal impact statement and file it with the secretary of state’s office within twenty (20) working days of having received the initiative petition from the secretary of state’s office. The secretary of state shall immediately transmit a copy of the fiscal impact statement to the person or persons who filed the initiative petition pursuant to section 34-1804, Idaho Code.” Requiring these details on the initiative petition helps provide basic fiscal context for voters before they decide whether to sign a proposed ballot measure. Due to how complicated some citizen initiatives can be and how quickly economic and budget conditions can change, there should be an ability to update these fiscal impact statements if a ballot measure is certified. A good time for this type of fiscal update would be just before the publication of the General Election Voters Guide. The need for this type of reform came into clear focus with the most recent debate surrounding Proposition 1. Consider the following changing fiscal context for that proposal. Here is the original fiscal impact statement  included in the petitions for Proposition 1. After having more time to study the potential impact of Proposition 1, however, Secretary of State Phil McGrane told lawmakers in July : “Transitioning vote tabulation systems would be a very significant undertaking. Currently, multiple systems are certified and in use from both ES&S and Hart in Idaho. Each county determines what system best fits its requirements and purchases the equipment needed. Without a competitive request for proposal process, it is not easy to estimate the cost of replacing our tabulation equipment. Our office has contacted other states to try. Still, there are too many differences between states to reliably predict what this might cost in Idaho. However, based on previous purchases made by counties, it would likely cost at least $25M to $40M dollars to replace the existing equipment throughout the state.” McGrane continued: “Any person or group circulating a petition is required to propose a funding source as required by Idaho Code §34-1804(2). Additionally, Idaho Code §34-1812 provides the Division of Financial Management (DFM) twenty days to develop a fiscal impact statement. This process is relatively new. If you review each of these statements in this petition, you will see that they are broad and vague. The funding source statement generally identifies the same expense areas I have identified here. The fiscal impact statement is similar but less clear. This is not a reflection of DFM. Our office worked with DFM and made multiple attempts to contact Alaska during the 20-day window to help develop the fiscal impact statement, but we were unable to do so. Much of the information contained here was learned over the past year while the petition was circulating. Additionally, some were subject to potential change over the course of the year. Since this was a novel proposal that the state had not previously evaluated, the 20-day timeframe for developing the fiscal impact statement seemed insufficient. Further, there is no statutory ability to amend the statement after it has been issued. Having worked through this process, I recommend a statutory change to allow the fiscal impact statement to be amended with new information on future petitions after the completed petitions are filed with the Secretary of State, but before the question is added to the voter pamphlet and goes to voters. This would add greater transparency to the process, and a letter such as this may have been avoided.” I asked Secretary McGrane after the recent election what should happen next. He told me: "Now that we have some experience with the fiscal note process on petitions, it's clear that the process can be improved to help ensure voters have the best information possible, which has always been one of my priorities. We are looking forward to working with the legislature to better refine things and learning from this experience." Secretary McGrane is correct. Idaho Title 34-1812 should be amended to allow the Division of Financial Management to either reconfirm or revise the original fiscal impact statement for a certified ballot measure, perhaps in July or August before the election. This would ensure that when the Secretary of State publishes the General Election Voters Guide it has the most recent fiscal estimates available for voters to help inform their decision.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be better named the Farmer Aggravating and Regulatory Threats Department (FARTD). Its recent move to require electronic ear tags on cattle and bison crossing state lines will not increase food safety, but will financially burden small farmers, raise food prices and may lead to more onerous regulations in years to come. First, current regulations already provide for rapid tracing of animals. Since new guidelines were adopted in 2013, it’s now 42 times faster to trace an animal than prior to that time. And in 2020, additional changes were made. As a result, “by 2022, more than half of States were able to complete any one of the four trace exercises in about a half hour,” according to an analysis by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a division of the USDA. If anything the mandate could cause more errors, as metal tags have nine numbers that need to be transcribed manually and electronic tags have 15 that must also be transcribed manually as ranchers don’t yet have the hardware and software to automate the process. Furthermore, electronic tags won’t stop the spread of fast moving diseases like foot-and-mouth disease, but can only act after detection. If they acted as electronic disease detectors they could be very helpful, but at this point they can’t and with tracing capabilities already very fast, why must they be mandated instead of suggested? Besides, only about 11 percent of cattle and bison meet the criteria for the tags, which means their impact will be extremely limited. In addition, unsanitary conditions at slaughterhouses are the source of many illnesses connected to beef – something tags can do nothing to prevent. The USDA estimates that the mandate will cost farmers a total of $29.3 million nationally – but that only includes the cost of the tags, which are about $3 apiece. By comparison, metal tags cost between 10 to 15 cents. It has not estimated what it will cost to buy scanners and software necessary to fully automate the process, which will be millions more, especially if the mandate becomes universal in the future, which is the stated goal of the USDA. Evidence out of Michigan does not bode well for small producers, which are in the majority in Wyoming. (The Small Business Administration defines small beef cattle farm and ranch operations as those with less than $2.5 million in annual sales. APHIS data shows that about 99 percent of beef cattle operations are below that threshold.) That state lost 4,445 farms that had less than 500 head of cattle between 2007— when it implemented mandatory electronic identification for intrastate cattle—and 2022, the most recent agricultural census. The loss rate was 28 percent above the national average, according to Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance , an advocacy group suing to stop the mandate in federal court in South Dakota. Large cattle operations in Michigan also consolidated much more quickly than the national average during that time period. Given that Wyoming lost 12 percent of its farms between 2017 and 2022 , a rate higher than the national average of 7 percent, adding this new regulation will only make it more difficult to survive for smaller producers and means consumers will face higher prices as ranchers pass on their costs. As Kenny Fox, a third generation South Dakota rancher who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the USDA, said, “this whole thing is nothing more than tagging companies selling tags and technology companies technology to people who can’t afford it. It should be a voluntary program.” With the heightened surveillance of tags will come the ability for the federal government to expand its reach into ranchers’ operations. Knowing exactly how many cattle ranchers own means the ability to tax cows based on their greenhouse gas emissions as has been enacted in Denmark starting in 2030. It could also mean forced slaughter if, for example, the USDA decided that the number of heads of a particular operation was adversely impacting federal lands or violating climate policy. So, while tags may be advocated as a means to more efficiently trace disease, they could be used for a number of totally unrelated purposes. A new secretary of agriculture in the Trump administration could and should reverse the mandate on arrival. But the USDA should immediately revoke the order and let producers decide how to best contain and prevent disease in their herds. It should be in the business of increasing American food security and supporting state and national ranchers, not accelerating their demise. As Wyoming Republican Congressman Rep. Harriet Hageman said in a statement , “this is an unreasonably expensive unfunded mandate that will lead to the elimination of small producers, vertical integration of our livestock and meat supply, put herds and ranches at risk through invasive Freedom of Information Act requests, and imposes an unbearable cost burden on all but the largest corporate producers.”

A citizens committee in Idaho has unanimously recommended increasing the pay of Idaho legislators from $19,913 to $25,000 per year - a roughly 25% hike. Based on some of the reactions, you'd think lawmakers won the lottery. The nearly $5,000 hike means, collectively, Idaho would be spending about $525,000 more on legislative salaries. This represents .00009% of the state's general fund revenues in 2024. Whether these numbers are too high or too low is up to citizens, and ultimately Idaho's citizen-lawmakers, to decide. The state Senate and House could ultimately reject or reduce the proposal. It's worth considering how the states compare when it comes to legislative salaries. Idaho's current legislative salary is higher than in Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, South Dakota, South Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Rhode Island. New Hampshire, notably, pays legislators just $100 in salary. New Mexico doesn't pay its lawmakers a dime of salary (though they do receive mileage and a travel stipend during session). Idaho ranks below most other states and even U.S. territories, including Guam and American Samoa. State legislator pay in some states depends on the number of days lawmakers are in session. Here's the current breakdown of base legislative salaries across the country: Alabama $53,913 Alaska $50,400 American Samoa $25,000 Arizona $24,000 Arkansas $44,356 California $122,694 Colorado $41,449 Connecticut $40,000 Delaware $49,202 Florida $29,697 Georgia $23,341 Guam $54,080 Hawaii $72,348 Idaho $19,913 Illinois $85,000 Indiana $29,749 Iowa $25,000 Kansas $87 per day during session Kentucky $188 per day during session Louisiana $16,800 Maine $16,245, first session, $11,668 second session Maryland $52,343 Massachusetts $73,655 Michigan $71,685 Minnesota $51,750 Mississippi $23,500 Missouri $37,711 Montana $105 per day during session Nebraska $12,000 Nevada $130 per day during session New Hampshire $100 New Jersey $49,000 New Mexico No salary New York $142,000 North Carolina $13,951 North Dakota $592 per month Northern Mariana Islands $32,000 Ohio $69,876 Oklahoma $47,500 Oregon $35,052 Pennsylvania $102,844 Rhode Island $17,626 South Carolina $10,400 South Dakota $14,779 Tennessee $28,406 Texas $7,200 Utah $294 per day during session Vermont $811 per week Virginia $17,640 Washington $57,876 West Virginia $20,000 Wisconsin $57,408 Wyoming $150 per day during session Is $25,000 for Idaho lawmakers too high or too low? We'll soon know what legislators and their constituents decide.

The results of the 2024 election may blow away the controversy surrounding the proposed Lava Ridge wind energy project. More on that later. Federal government priorities have recently collided with the Lava Ridge energy project as the pursuit of green energy initiatives conflicts with the preservation of historical sites. Last month the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) notified the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that they “cannot ensure the project won’t cause damage to the nearby Minidoka National Historic Site.” This is a difficult hurdle for the Biden administration which has been trying to force the Gem State to align with their green energy efforts that burden Idaho while benefiting California.   It seems to have given frustrated Idaho officials and communities, a much-needed respite in its conflict with the Bureau of Land Management. The additional reality of Trump winning the 2024 election is set to drastically change the future of Lava Ridge Energy and many other government overreach schemes. Here is a brief history of the Lava Ridge project.   The Lava Ridge wind energy project was submitted to the Bureau of Land Management in 2020, with plans that massively outgrew most other wind energy sites in the United States. Almost 200,000 acres of federal, state, and privately owned land would be occupied by 400 wind turbines taller than the Seattle Space Needle. The local outrage was understandable.   Public comments, frustrated citizens, and legislation opposing the project all ensued, but the project continued forward . The federal government obstinately ignored the protests of locally affected communities and citizens. In June, the BLM announced it would still move forward with the project, on a smaller scale, reduced by almost 50%, despite the concerns of Idahoans.   The case for the Lava Ridge wind energy project may have finally met its match, as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 section 106 comes into play. Section 106 requires federal agencies “to consider the effects on historic properties of projects.” If a project affects historic properties a Section 106 review is required, giving an opportunity for affected and concerned communities to share their voice on the matter.   On August 9, 2024 the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) formally terminated its consultation with the BLM due to “overwhelming opposition to the project demonstrated by area residents, local elected officials, the Idaho State Legislature, Idaho’s Congressional Delegation, Idaho’s Native American tribes, and constituent communities, including the national voice of the Japanese American Community.”   In September Idaho’s Congressional Delegation wrote to the Chair of the Federal ACHP expressing their concern over the project's impact on the Minidoka National Historic Site, saying: “As you may recall, you were even asked about the impact of the proposed Lava Ridge project on the Minidoka National Historic Site during your confirmation process, to which you responded that 'the Advisory Council would urge the lead federal agency to carefully consider the views of these stakeholders as part of its consulting process.' Unfortunately, the views of these stakeholders—Minidoka survivors, descendants, and allies, along with the vast majority of Idahoans—have been largely disregarded.”   The ACHP responded in September that it would terminate consultation for the Section 106 agreement with the BLM for the Lava Ridge wind project, saying , “The SHPO’s local expertise was essential for effectively implementing the PA’s phased identification and evaluation efforts in addition to mitigating adverse effects to historic properties. Without the SHPO’s participation, the ACHP concluded it could not assume the SHPO’s role or effectively resolve the adverse effects outlined in the PA. Given these limitations, the ACHP determined that further consultation would not lead to feasible measures to resolve these effects and therefore terminated consultation.”   Where does the outgoing Biden administration go from here when its different bureaucratic arms conflict on priorities? The Bureau of Land Management may finally be in a position where it is forced to listen because a fellow bureaucracy has the legislative authority to demand a response. BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning is now required to address the concerns of the stakeholders and propose a plan to protect the Minidoka site.   Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho said , “Today’s decision by the ACHP to terminate consultation on Lava Ridge is a win for Idahoans and underscores that this project is obstructive and entirely unwanted. This battle is not over, and I am committed to fighting until the Biden-Harris administration understand the people of Idaho unequivocally do not want Lava Ridge.”     Today, it’s understandable why the steady creeping of government control on the western states is leading to lawsuits over unappropriated federal lands. Utah initiated the lawsuit this summer, but other western neighbors are joining in the protest by filing a joint state amicus which says, “In short, western States’ sovereign authority to address issues of local concern is curtailed, and billions of dollars are diverted away from western states.” In specific regards to the Lava Ridge project:   “Unsurprisingly, Idahoans vehemently oppose the project, including through a resolution passed by the Idaho Legislature and a bill proposed by Idaho’s entire Congressional delegation. But the BLM doesn’t have to care; the citizens of Idaho have exactly as much power over this project as the citizens of Illinois or New Jersey—or perhaps less, since there are fewer of them.”   The changing winds of a new federal administration is predicted to dial back government overreach and give western states power in their own lands. During his 2016 administration, Trump reduced the size of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah and is known to prioritize oil and gas energy production. Western lands are certain to experience a new management strategy in the coming administration. That includes possibly silencing the windstorm that's been surrounding Lava Ridge.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) was on the ballot this year in six states and voters are currently rejecting the controversial voting measure across the board. Earlier this year Mountain States Policy Center released a video  exploring the problems with RCV. Based on the 2024 election results, it looks like Americans across the country agree with our concerns. 51% of Alaska voters are supporting the repeal of its new RCV process ( narrowly adopted in 2020 ). 69% of Idaho voters are rejecting Prop1 to require a Top 4 and RCV. 60% of Oregon voters are rejecting Measure 117 to require RCV. 55% of Colorado voters are rejecting Prop 131 to require a Top 4 and RCV. 54% of Nevada voters are rejecting Measure 3 to require a Top 5 and RCV. 68% of Missouri voters are approving a constitutional amendment to prohibit Ranked Choice Voting. The only place to support RCV during the 2024 election was the city of Washington, D.C. for local elections ( 72% support for I-83 ). Voters across the country also are rejecting proposals to replace partisan primaries with open primaries. 58% of Arizona voters are rejecting Prop 140 to require open primaries. 66% of South Dakota voters are rejecting a constitutional amendment to require a Top 2 open primary. 52% of Montana voters  are rejecting a constitutional amendment to require a Top 4 open primary. 61% of Montana voters are also rejecting a constitutional amendment to require 50% support to win an election (using possible RCV or runoff election). By rejecting Ranked Choice Voting, the message from voters this year appears to be a desire to keep voting simple with one vote per race while keeping partisan primaries intact. (Please note these election percentages may change in the coming days)

Education choice is the biggest civil rights issue of our time, and Tuesday night's election results in Idaho and many states across the nation show broad support. At the federal level, President-elect Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to expand choice options nationally - and with Republicans likely to control both houses of Congress, that looks more possible. Polling done shortly before the election shows nearly 70% of voters approve allowing families access to tax dollars to use for education that best fits their child's needs. It didn't take long for national political pundits to point to education choice as a large factor in last night's results, especially among Latino voters. “Latino voters, in many ways, are driven by the same issues, and there’s one issue in particular actually that Republicans align closer to Latino voters, or Latino voters align more closely to the conservative party, and that’s school choice,” NBC's Chuck Todd said. “Both Florida and Texas have been very aggressive about expanding school choice. Where have Republicans made the greatest gains among Hispanic voters? Florida and Texas.” Congressman Adrian Smith of Nebraska, who represents a mostly rural district, and Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, have proposed the Educational Choice for Children Act  (ECCA)  that would provide credits against federal individual and corporate income taxes for donations to scholarship granting organizations.    Scholarships would be awarded to as many as two million students nationwide, including more than 13,000 in Idaho, which can be used for private school tuition or educational services and materials akin to how a “529” plan works for higher education expenses. This latter option means that a child who remained in a district public school could still obtain a scholarship to address learning gaps. Education choice comes in many shapes and sizes. It can include: Charter schools Tax credit scholarships Tax credits Education Savings Accounts Idaho Republicans have kept - and even expanded - their super majority in the state legislature, with more advocates for choice set to take office in the next 60 days. Polling by Boise State University shows support for education choice in Idaho. Mountain States Policy Center will release the results of our 2024 Idaho Poll in December, which will also feature questions about education choice and reform. The table is set for policymakers at the state and federal level to expand education options for families.

The 2024 presidential election has been called a “landslide” by some analysts. It appears Donald Trump will win the popular vote and 312 electoral college votes. But should he be awarded more than that? Welcome to the debate over the National Popular Vote (NPV) compact – a scheme created to work around the Electoral College.   The compact requires a state to award its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular  votes nationwide – regardless of what the voters of that state decide. Washington and Oregon were eager to sign on to the law, as were 17 other blue states.   So far, Vice President Kamala Harris has won nearly 60% of the vote in Washington state. But under the National Popular Vote compact, Donald Trump should be awarded Washington’s 12 electoral votes.   Technically, the compact doesn’t become binding until the number of participating states reaches 270 electoral college votes. But why wait? For the sake of consistency, should Washington send Trump electors to DC when the counting begins? That probably wouldn’t go over well.   It is not unusual for a state to decide to allocate electoral votes differently. Two states, for example, allocate electoral votes based on the winner of their Congressional districts. Other states have a winner-take-all system.   But the NPV is problematic for several reasons. First, as the example of this election has shown us, a state can overwhelmingly vote for one candidate, while having its votes go to another.   Second, arguments about who won a close election would never end. Instead of being confined to one state or another based on the number of electoral votes a candidate may need, disputes would go national, and parties could pick and choose areas to contest based on how many supporters they have.   Third, there are serious constitutional questions, specifically regarding whether states can create a compact such as this without Congressional approval, and perhaps more importantly, whether the NPV violates the 14th Amendment, which says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”   The NPV compact specifically nullifies a citizen’s vote if the state’s electoral votes are simply transferred to the winner of the national popular vote. Analysts at the Cato Institute have noticed another trend now appearing in more conservative states to counteract any implementation of the NPV compact :   “In North Dakota, the Republican‐​controlled state senate passed a bill saying their state will withhold its popular vote totals for president until after the Electoral College has voted in December. Instead, the state would only publish the rough percentages. This is deliberately aimed at making it impossible to properly calculate the national popular vote total in time to award electors on that basis. Similar bills have been introduced in other states.”   As of 2024, Washington state has joined the NPV compact, but Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have not. To protect the legitimacy of elections and to preserve a voice in the Electoral College, they should avoid doing so. And Washington and Oregon may want to think long and hard about their support of the compact.

I don’t know about you, but I’m excited to go to my mailbox again and have it stuffed with bargain shopping deals instead of political ads. While many of us may be suffering from election fatigue, the real work will begin after election day as our elected officials start the important task of governing and making critical policy decisions. No doubt there will be an equal number of us feeling hope or despair after the ballots are counted, but one fact won’t change: our government does not belong to Democrats or Republicans but to all American citizens. It is important for the “winning” side to remember this. Our elected leaders must focus on policy solutions that leave the election political messaging behind and exchange that for the hard work of making fact-based decisions to protect important constitutional rights while working to empower families and businesses to have more control over their individual lives and pocketbooks. This is one of the reasons Mountain States Policy Center is excited to have our new Policy Manual available to help provide policymakers with the information they’ll need to advance free-market-oriented policies. While it is critically important to hold government officials accountable, we should not spend our time rooting for the “other side” to fail. As we leave the election behind us, let’s work together to encourage a civil, thoughtful, and fact-based policy debate in our coming legislative sessions so that all of us on Team U.S.A. are in a better position for success.

Earlier this year Mountain States Policy Center wrote studies analyzing several ballot measures across the region. Here are the current election results for those proposals ( please note these percentages may change in the coming days ): IDAHO PROP 1 : To enact Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for statewide elections while using a non-partisan Top 4 primary system to determine which candidates advance to the general election. Result - YES: 31%; NO: 69% MONTANA CI-126 : CI-126 would require a non-partisan Top 4 multi-party primary system to determine which candidates advance to the general election. Result - YES: 48%; NO: 52% MONTANA CI-127 : CI-127 would require 50% support to win an election. Result - YES: 39%; NO: 61% WASHINGTON I-2066 : Reverses the state's natural gas bans and prohibits future energy restrictions. Result - YES: 51% ; NO: 49% (Washington is 100% vote by mail and ballots only need to be postmarked by election day. These numbers could shift significantly in the coming days). WYOMING SJR 3 : Property tax changes for owner-occupied primary residences. Result - YES: 59% ; NO: 41% BOZEMAN PLASTICS INITIATIVE :  Bans food containers made of polystyrene foam, packing materials made of polystyrene foam, plastic bags, plastic straws and plastic stirrers. Straws and stirrers would only be allowed at businesses by customer request. Result - YES: 63%; NO 37% CITY OF SPOKANE PROP 1 : To increase the sales tax by nearly $8 million per year to fund police, fire and "community resilience." Result - YES: 58%; NO: 42% OREGON MEASURE 118 : Increases highest corporate minimum taxes; distributes revenue to eligible individuals; state replaces reduced federal benefits. Result - YES: 21%; NO: 79% Here are details for election results on other ballot measures across the region: Idaho election results Montana election results Washington election results Wyoming election results

It is no secret that America’s national debt is tremendously high. As of October 2024, we are in a $35.7 trillion hole that we need to climb out of. This roughly equates to $106,000 per person in the country. Recent polling revealed that more than 9 in 10 swing state voters say that it’s important for the next president to have a plan for the national debt. In April 2024, U.S. Bank estimated that the federal government was on pace to acquire $1 trillion in new debt every 100 days . Of great concern is that the national debt is currently growing quicker than the overall national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Over the last 10 years, the national debt rose 86%, while the GDP grew by 63%. In the past decade, the federal government has drastically increased the debt held by the public. A little over 30% of the U.S. debt is now held by foreign governments. Japan holds the most, at $1 trillion, with China right behind them at $859 billion, and the United Kingdom third at $728 billion owed. Other foreign governments that hold less than $500 billion of America’s debt include Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Canada, Belgium, India, Ireland, and Switzerland among many others.   This debt is on track to double within the next 30 years. The largest contributors to this debt are mainly mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Manhattan Institute predicts that Social Security and Medicare will make up 80% of the federal deficit increase in the next 8 years . The COVID-19 pandemic also has had a massive effect on this problem. The pandemic-related stimulus checks and aid for businesses and local governments increased the national deficit by $3.1 trillion in 2020. Recent federal legislation has also had a massive impact on debt as well. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed in 2021, is estimated by independent economists to add $250 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. Due to the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the U.S. will also be spending around $500 billion over the next 10 years on climate-related policies.   America’s interest on its debt is also very troubling. Every day, the U.S. government spends $2.4 billion on interest alone. It is also estimated that in 2023, the U.S. spent $429 billion on interest, which is 240% of what the government currently spends on transportation, housing, and commerce combined. Due to the ongoing Congressional inaction on this massive federal spending and debt problem, there were multiple resolutions introduced on this topic during Idaho’s 2024 legislative session: SCR 112 : “This concurrent resolution is an application to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, calling for a convention of the states, the purpose of which is to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States that would be limited to: (1) imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government; (2) limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government; and (3) limiting the terms in office for its officials and for members of Congress. Currently, identical applications have been sent to Congress by other state legislatures.” SCR 115 : “This Concurrent Resolution recognizes the growing national debt as a legitimate threat to the United States of America and calls upon the United States Congress to send to the states for ratification, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the absence of such action, after a date certain, the Idaho Legislature files application for an Article V Convention for the sole purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the States for Ratification.” Idaho Governor Little also discussed this issue in his 2024 State of the State address : “I am signing on as a member of the Governors Debt Council for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The runaway freight train of federal spending has got to stop. It's not right. It's not what the founders envisioned for our great country. The U.S. Constitution gives the states the power to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment, and in the coming weeks I will announce new steps we’ll take to force Congress to live within the people's means.” Despite the clear need to address this growing debt problem federal officials have consistently failed to act. This is why many budget reformers across the country are now calling for a convention of the states. Congress has shown that it is not capable of enacting the reforms needed to change the course of runaway federal spending. That duty now falls on the states to secure the nation’s economic outlook for continued prosperity.

It is time to put the patient back in control of their health care. Over seventy percent of Americans’ health care is paid for by a third party, either by the person’s employer or by the government through Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the Veterans Administration. This fact, coupled with the lack of price transparency and competition among providers and hospitals, isolates patients from the true cost of health care and limits the ability of patients to make their own health care decisions.   There are solutions, however, that put patients in charge of their own health dollars and their own health care decisions.   Half of all Americans receive their health care benefits from their employers or their spouse's employer. This is a cost of doing business, yet companies receive a substantial tax write-off for providing these benefits. The United States is unique in having this employer-paid model and at the end of the day, it is the U.S. tax code that drives health care financing for millions of Americans. Employers don’t provide food or housing for employees. It would make more sense for employers to pay their workers higher salaries and have the government give employees the same tax deductions that companies are now taking for their health care.   Health insurance reform is necessary and a person’s concept of health insurance must change. When a patient says that they have good health insurance, what they really mean is that their insurance covers many different things, for example glasses, hearing aids, and routine medical treatments. Health insurance should function just like auto and home-owners insurance. A person should have a catastrophic health insurance plan for major medical expenses, coupled with a tax-advantaged health savings account for day-to-day medical expenses.   Private health insurance is now controlled by individual states, as is provider licensing. To increase competition and bring down costs, insurance and licensing should be offered on a national basis. Likewise, telehealth was a tremendous benefit to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth should be expanded and should be available nationally, with no state restrictions.   Provider and hospital price transparency should be mandatory. There is no way a patient can be an informed consumer of health care without having access to cost comparisons. Providers, clinics, and hospitals should compete not only on quality but also on pricing.   Patients who require a large amount of medical care, high-cost patients, and patients with pre-existing conditions should be managed in high-risk pools. This will accomplish two things. It will ensure these people have their health care needs taken care of and it will lower insurance costs for everyone else. High-risk pools have a bad reputation simply because they were never adequately financed. Costs of high-risk pools need to be socialized and could be covered by either a small fee on all insurance premiums or through the general tax fund.   Medicare, government-controlled insurance for seniors, is not financially sustainable in its present form. Life expectancy when Medicare became law in 1965 was 70 years of age. In 2024, life expectancy is 79 years of age. The age for eligibility for Medicare should gradually be raised. Seniors should be means-tested with premiums based on income and net worth. Finally, seniors need to be treated with respect and should be given a generous tax credit for health insurance in a resurrected private market.   Medicaid began in 1965 as a safety-net health insurance program for the most vulnerable in the U.S. It was designed as a temporary plan. It has expanded tremendously and now is used for not only health insurance, but also for transportation, housing, and food assistance. The program now includes medical and maternal care for able-bodied 18 to 64-year-old people. Medicaid should be returned to a welfare entitlement for the most needy in the U.S., should be temporary, and when possible should have a work or community service requirement.   Waste, fraud and abuse should be diligently monitored with frequent eligibility and financial checks in both Medicare and Medicaid.   Many people in the U.S. are concerned about “information asymmetry” in our health care delivery system. The argument is that providers have much more knowledge of medical care and patients are at a disadvantage because of their lack of information. Yet, this is the situation any time a person consults a professional specialist, regardless of whether that specialist is an attorney, a dentist, an auto repair person, or any other professional. Americans are some of the most savvy shoppers in the world and are very accustomed to using second and third opinions. We essentially have two choices when considering the future of our health care delivery system. America can go down the road to a single-payer government-controlled system that allows unseen bureaucrats to make more of our medical decisions. Or we can push our elected officials to enact the above recommendations and give patients the ability to make their own health care decisions.

The city of Bozeman could be in a legal world of hurt if it passes a proposed plastics ban on the ballot next week. The “Bozeman Plastics Initiative” collected 6,739 signatures this year to place the measure before voters in November . The measure specifically targets five items: food containers made of polystyrene foam, packing materials made of polystyrene foam, plastic bags, plastic straws and plastic stirrers. Straws and stirrers would only be allowed at businesses in Bozeman by customer request. If voters approve the ban, it would theoretically take effect in May of 2025, with stiff penalties of $1,000 for a first violation, and $2,000 for a second. But that assumes it gets over some pretty large legal hurdles. A legal analysis obtained by Mountain States Policy Center finds the measure violates state law in numerous ways. First, the measure's initial civil penalties are twice the maximum of $500 allowed by Montana state law. Second, the proposal gives enforcement officers the ability to provide notice, warnings and potentially fines to not only the person committing the violation, but also potentially "the owner of the property." This puts landlords at risk of being fined for a tenant's actions. Third, the ordinance may try to control more than just Bozeman, as it says it applies to "any other unit of local government and to those entities purchasing, acquisition and contracting practices." This would seem to violate state law, as the city cannot regulate the operations of other government agencies, such as a school district. There is no question the proposed ordinance violates state law and is unenforceable. But even it was legally sound, it would still be poor policy. We've previously written about the poor environmental results of banning plastics elsewhere . Nearly 20 other states have preemptions that block local plastic bag bans. The question is whether banning plastic bags and similar items is an effective way to help the environment? The University of Georgia’s school of Forestry and Natural Resources completed a comprehensive review  of California’s plastics policy, looking at plastic trash bag sales in counties with bans or fees in place, versus those without. Researchers found that small trash bag sales simply increased dramatically – by as much as 25% - in communities with a ban, indicating that consumers were not reducing their use, just getting them someplace else. “After the regulations came into effect, consumers’ plastic bag demand switched from regulated plastic bags to unregulated bags,” researcher Yu-Kai Huang wrote. Alternatives to plastic bags or other banned items may be even more harmful. The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a report in 2011 that highlighted the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic, and cotton bags is higher  than single-use plastic bags. In fact, scientists said you’d need to reuse a cotton bag more than 130 times  to have an impact on the environment. Similarly, researchers in Demark in 2018  concluded cotton bags are far more environmentally harmful than plastic bags. Banning plastic bags also raise sanitation concerns. Most people who carry around reusable, cloth bags do not necessarily take care to make sure the bag is clean. Some may keep the bag in their backseat or the trunk of their vehicle. Others might only wash the bag once a month. The concern about sanitation was especially high during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a number of states that had adopted plastic bag bans suspended implementation due to hygiene concerns .

Utah may have fired the first shot , but Idaho and Wyoming  are also rallying to defend the right of western states to have more control over unappropriated federal lands within their borders. These states, along with Alaska and Arizona, have joined together in an amicus to encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to review this important case.   From the joint state amicus : “These unappropriated lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and encompass a significant portion of Amici’s landmass. The BLM manages 28% of the land within Wyoming’s boundaries, 22% of the land in Idaho, 17% of the land in Arizona, and 16% of the land in Alaska. And while not all lands managed by the BLM are unappropriated lands, the vast majority are. In Idaho, for example, roughly 80% of BLM lands (17% of all land in Idaho, more than 9 million acres) are not reserved for any designated purpose. Amici agree with Utah’s legal analysis of the constitutional questions governing these lands. Rather than repeating Utah’s analysis, Amici submit this brief to explain the tangible harms that federal ownership of unappropriated lands uniquely imposes on western States on a daily basis. In short, western States’ sovereign authority to address issues of local concern is curtailed, and billions of dollars are diverted away from western States. Amici are no less sovereign in law than the older 38 States without substantial federal lands, but—lacking control of much of their territory—they are effectively less sovereign in fact. Granting the relief Utah requests would begin to level the playing field for all western States, and restore the proper balance of federalism between western States and the federal government.” Among the examples of harms listed in the amicus is the current controversy in Idaho concerning Lava Ridge and windmills: “Encroachment on State sovereign authority is not merely hypothetical, nor are its consequences imagined. Clashes between State and federal authorities rear their heads every day in western States. Consider a few examples. The BLM is nearing final approval of the Lava Ridge wind farm project to build hundreds of 660-foot wind turbines, each twice as tall as the State’s highest building, on unappropriated federal land in south-central Idaho. The turbines will generate electricity primarily for California, and their operators will pay land-use fees to the federal government—but Idaho will bear the costs: the eyesores towering over local historic sites, the damaged roads, the reduction of water supply available to ranchers, and an effective no-fly zone for the crop-dusters that local agriculture depends on. Unsurprisingly, Idahoans vehemently oppose the project, including through a resolution passed by the Idaho Legislature and a bill proposed by Idaho’s entire Congressional delegation. But the BLM doesn’t have to care; the citizens of Idaho have exactly as much power over this project as the citizens of Illinois or New Jersey—or perhaps less, since there are fewer of them. This is precisely the sort of local decision that Idaho should have the sovereign authority to address. If any other landowner proposed a 100,000-acre farm of titanic windmills, it would need the State’s approval—it would need to lobby, to adjust the project to reduce local impacts and find ways to compensate its neighbors and Idahoans generally for what it was doing to their State. But because the landowner happens to be the federal government, acting not as a sovereign exercising enumerated powers but merely as proprietor, Idaho is powerless. It has no sticks and gets no carrots.” The amicus brief concludes: “That’s why this Court’s intervention is necessary. Granting the relief requested in Utah’s bill of complaint would make clear that western States are not second-class sovereigns. They have not ceded power to the federal government to own and regulate their territory in perpetuity, and they have the same right as other States to manage land within their boundary that the federal government is not using for enumerated purposes.” Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to hear this case it could have profound implications for all western states and their ability to better manage what occurs within their borders.