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.

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.

As we head into the 2024 elections, the fight for reliable polling data is more competitive than ever. The political landscape is rapidly shifting, and traditional polling methods, like anything politically related, are increasingly under scrutiny. Voter behavior has become more dynamic, making accurate predictions challenging for analysts relying on limited data sources. Phone and door-to-door surveys, once the bedrock of election season, have seen significant declines in participation. Artificial Intelligence has become a major tool changing how we gather and interpret massive amounts of data, providing more nuanced insights into what the electorate may be thinking. AI's ability to review vast amounts of data quickly and effectively is its greatest strength in the context of election polling. While traditional polling methods rely heavily on small sample sizes and direct questions to predict outcomes, AI systems can analyze much more than just polling responses. AI isn’t just taking over the task of gathering data; it’s enhancing how pollsters ask questions, track responses, and analyze trends in real time. For example, in a recent study by Siena College Research Institute , AI-powered tools like the chatbot Engage enabled pollsters to gather insights quickly and efficiently, even from those classified as "persuadable voters." Engage doesn't just collect responses, it interacts with voters, asking follow-up questions to delve deeper into their belief systems. According to Leib Litman, co-CEO of CloudResearch, AI allows pollsters to “interview thousands of people within a matter of a couple of hours, and then... analyze it and derive the insights very, very quickly.” Another groundbreaking AI method being used is sentiment analysis. This technology allows pollsters to analyze the tone and meaning behind publicly available data, such as social media posts, news articles, or even voting records . While a vast majority of Americans feel negatively about AI and its potential impact on their futures, especially regarding job opportunities, there’s more optimism in specific sectors. Heartland Forward worked with AI-powered polling group Aaru to measure public perception on artificial intelligence  by scraping demographic data and publicly available opinions from platforms like Twitter. According to Heartland Forward’s survey across nine states, more than 75% of respondents were skeptical or even scared of AI. The study highlights the complexity of public opinion on AI. While there are widespread concerns about job displacement and privacy risks—87% of respondents doubted AI’s ability to make unbiased ethical decisions. How will this impact public perception of polling data shifting to an AI model? While AI’s clearly has demonstrated strengths, it’s important to recognize that this technology is still in development, and its results are not always flawless. Polling, whether AI-driven or traditional, always carries a margin of error, especially in highly competitive elections. However, AI offers a more comprehensive approach to analyzing public sentiment, using data far beyond traditional surveys. This technology could also level the playing field for smaller campaigns or less well-known candidates, who may not have access to traditional polling services. With AI, they can gather insights that help guide their strategy more effectively, making the political landscape more democratic and responsive. Additionally, AI-driven polling can also help pollsters access harder-to-reach populations. Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, adds that AI could fill in the gaps when traditional polls leave certain groups out, either because they’re less responsive or harder to reach through phone calls. "The science of polling is huge and complicated, and adding AI to the mix is another tiny step down a pathway we’ve been walking for a long time using, you know, fancy math combined with human data," Schneier explains. Looking ahead to 2024, AI will undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping how polls are conducted and interpreted In this election and beyond. Its ability to process a multitude of data points, correct for bias, and provide real-time insights offers exciting potential for both campaigns and voters. However, as with any technology, AI-driven polling must be used in conjunction with traditional methods and human oversight to ensure the most accurate and reliable results. Realizing that every vote matters, the ability to gauge public opinion accurately is more important than ever. AI might just be the key to getting us closer to a true understanding of where the electorate stands.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) – the region’s premier free market think tank – has announced best-selling author and former Judge Jeanine Pirro – co-host of The Five on Fox News Channel – will be a keynote speaker at its 2025 Spring Dinner in Coeur d’Alene on Friday, April 11th at the Coeur d’Alene Resort. Early bird discounted tickets are currently available at here .   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. “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.”   Mountain States Policy Center’s Spring and Fall Dinners raise money to advance free market solutions in Idaho and beyond. Past speakers include Dr. Ben Carson, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, and many. Former Congressman Trey Gowdy and U.S. Senator Tim Scott speak at MSPC's 2024 Fall Dinner and Anniversary Gala in Boise on October 4th.   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. Our 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.

Note: A version of this article ran in the Wall Street Journal on 9/9 . Four years after the near collapse of the Argentine housing market, President Javier Milei’s repeal of the socialist government’s disastrous rent control law has led to a surge in the nation’s housing supply.   The rent control repeal was just one part of President Milei’s “ shock therapy ” plan announced in December 2023. The strategy tackled the country’s bloated public sector—eliminating government jobs, suspending government contracts, removing subsidies, and slashing spending in a bid to reign in the country’s triple-digit inflation and revive its failing economy.   The jury is still out on many of President Milei’s policies, but the verdict on his rent control repeal is decisive. In the six months since the repeal, available rental units in Buenos Aires increased by nearly 200% and rental prices have dropped between 20 and 30%, according to Argentine brokers . The deregulatory effect was almost immediate. Source: Frederico González Rouco  based on DGEyC and INDEC via Mises Institute .   Argentina’s strict rent control law was passed in 2020. In a bid to provide renters more economic security, landlords were locked into tenant-controlled, three-year minimum leases and rent increases were capped. The policy consequences were swift and brutal. Forty-five percent of landlords elected to sell their properties rather than continue renting them out. The remaining properties were either converted to short-term rentals or had their rental increases front-loaded to hedge against inflation. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment soared  from nearly 18,000 pesos per month ($300 USD) at the end of 2019 to 334,000 pesos ($600 USD) in December 2023, well beyond the 210,000 pesos per month ($378 USD) if the rate had tracked inflation.   In December 2023, Milei explained his rationale for repealing rent control and the other changes he would bring to Argentina’s stagnant, socialist economy: “Ideas that have failed in Argentina have failed all over the planet.”   Milei was not just posturing. Economic theory on rent control is continually vindicated by empirical evidence  and supported by broad consensus among economists. Nearly a century of documented case studies by economists F.A. Hayek , Friedman and Stigler , and others across the political spectrum decisively expose rent control as destructive public policy, both theoretically and empirically.   Harvard professor Jason Furman, who served as a top economist for the Obama administration also came down hard on the idea : “Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit.”   Opposition to rent control is about protecting people from unintended consequences, like housing shortages, under-investment, tenant discrimination, and falling property values. Rent ceilings don’t relieve housing shortages; they exacerbate them. Secured tenants in a rent-controlled environment may not give up their rent-controlled units  for decades, even when their housing needs change. Meanwhile, the units fall into disrepair as landlords decline basic maintenance or upgrades since they cannot recoup their investments through rental increases. Rent-controlled units that cannot be converted into owner-occupied units are eventually abandoned, leading to blighted and abandoned neighborhoods.   In a market economy, whenever there is a “shortage” of any product, rationing occurs by price, and the price is determined by the choices of many consumers “bidding” for the product by their purchase choices at any given price point.   Rationing will happen. As economists Milton Friedman and George J. Stigler point out , “Everything that is not as abundant as air or sunlight must, in a sense, be rationed.” If rationing is not done by price (consumer-driven free market), then it will be done by force (government-driven central planning).   Meanwhile, national rent control in the U.S. is having its moment in the sun after President Biden proposed federal rent control measures.  In an equally breathtaking display of economic sabotage, one of the presidential candidates has also vowed to “take on corporate landlords and cap unfair rent increases.”   Of course, those decrying the steep increase in rents and evictions  in many U.S. markets exclude mention of the Covid-fueled federal  and 43 state-enforced eviction moratoria. Due to emergency executive orders in many states, landlords went months or years without being able to evict non-paying tenants. Combined with general inflation, migration, and housing regulations a significant increase in rental rates  occurred—both to recoup costs and hedge against existing government laws that make eviction very time-consuming and expensive.   Rental markets are complicated. Rent control proposals come in various forms and the consequences will vary equally. The more restrictive the policy, the more drastic the effects. Rent control is arguably the worst idea we have for fixing the housing problem. Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck wrote , “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”   Each generation must apparently relearn the tragic lessons of government rent control, after some upbeat politician has the brilliant idea to light the house on fire again to stay warm. No matter how many times we try, we cannot outsmart Econ 101.

Let’s do a thought experiment. You walk into a grocery store and there are no prices posted for any food item. You fill your cart with what you want, with basically no consideration of costs. When you get to the check-out counter, the clerk knows the prices of the various groceries. You have no idea how the clerk arrived at the prices, but you do know that they are different at every grocery store. Before you actually pay for the groceries, however, someone else steps up and pays for over 70 percent of the food in your cart.   From an economic standpoint, this is the health care system in the United States, where a third party pays for the majority of our health care even though prices are unknown to the patient. It is a fundamental economic principle that when someone else is paying for a service or a good, people will use as much of that service or good as possible.   Beginning in 1943, employers in the U.S. started paying for health care benefits for their employees. At the same time, the government gave employers a tax break for providing those benefits. In 1965, the federal and state governments began paying for health care for seniors and for the poor through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In 2010, the government expanded its role in health care financing via Obamacare. So while many Americans are experiencing increases in their out-of-pocket expenses for health care, the fact still remains that the vast majority of a person’s medical care is paid for by a third party, either their employer or the government.   Health care spending in the U.S. in 2022, the last year of complete data, was $4.5 trillion, which may or may not be an appropriate amount. A recent study, however, projects that by 2032, spending for medical care will almost double to $7.7 trillion . This increase is unsustainable.   Whether you believe that health care is a “right,” everyone can agree that health care is a necessity of life. Other necessities of life include food, shelter, and clothing. Yet no third party pays for these items for most Americans. It is the free market that allows people, as consumers, to access these necessities and gives them choices.   At the end of the day, health care is an economic activity, albeit the most personal economic interaction we as patients experience. The reality is that patients today cannot act as savvy consumers of medical care because the existing system will not allow it. Prices are unknown, competition is virtually non-existent, and someone else is paying for over 70 percent  of an individual’s costs.   We now have over 80 years of experience with our existing health care system. Without meaningful reform which puts patients in charge of their own health care decisions and health care dollars, the country is on a trajectory that puts government bureaucrats further in charge. When that happens and because of exploding costs, we can look forward to price controls, fewer provider options, less individual decision-making, and ultimately rationing and less medical access.   The most important person in any health care delivery system is the patient, not employers or government bureaucrats. Any proposed medical care reform in the U.S. must treat the patient as an individual and not force Americans into a one-size-fit-all system. Employers and the government don’t tell us what food to eat, or what clothes to wear, or where to live. We rely on the free market to allow us to make our own choices and decisions. We should let the free market work in health care as well.

This year, I’ve had a new experience as a father: parenting a teen who has their own phone. My wife and I were holdouts compared to many of our son’s friends’ parents, but when he reached sixteen, we knew it was unavoidable. Smartphones, for better or worse, are deeply integrated into our society, and we didn’t want to hold him back from the social and educational benefits that phones can provide youth.   Our hesitation was mainly born out of fear after hearing too many stories about teens being negatively impacted by online content or exploited by malicious strangers online. This is where my first job, father, intersects with my day job. It's important to empower parents - not bureaucrats - with better tools to keep their kids safe online.   At the start of this year, I wrote about actions taken at the state level to address this issue. Legislators in states like Utah and Florida sought to prioritize youth safety by strengthening protections for teens. However, the digital world does not recognize state borders, which means federal legislators must do their part to avoid a patchwork system that creates easy workarounds for tech-savvy teens.   One such proposal is to require app stores to secure parental approval before teens can download new apps. This approach could implement an important layer of security that enables parents to have better oversight over their child’s phone and block app downloads that are against the rules they’ve set for their teens.   Since I last wrote about this policy, there has been significant movement in Congress. Representative John James (R-MI-10th) recently proposed an app store amendment at an Energy and Commerce Committee markup on two proposed online safety bills, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0), and has stated plans to introduce stand-alone legislation when Congress is back in session next month. In his testimony, Rep. James pointed out that Apple and Google’s app marketplaces already have the mechanisms to implement this policy, explaining that “Apple and Google's App Stores already set age-related content restrictions for [apps], filter online content, and control privacy settings.” He also pointed out that this is how age-gating works in most cases – the store is responsible for checking IDs and blocking access to underage teens. That’s why, Rep. James argues, “Going through Apple and Google would leverage tried and true policies to make the [app] store age-gate the addictive or harmful products.”   Rep. James is a junior member of the committee, which could’ve indicated an uphill battle for his legislation. However, chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA-5th) has voiced support for the bill and said the committee is backing Rep. James’ efforts. This is a hugely positive sign since the Energy and Commerce Committee is the major launching pad for tech-focused policies in the House.   This progress comes at a good time because another youth safety proposal is facing significant pushback from Speaker Mike Johnson. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has raised serious concerns over a provision that would give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power to determine what online content is ‘harmful’ to youth. This vague, sweeping provision opens the door to government censorship. Given Speaker Johnson’s comments that KOSA is ‘very problematic,’ this bill is not likely to get a vote on the House floor without major changes.   The app store proposal is not without its own critics, who believe that this policy does not ‘do enough’ to protect our youth and others who believe the government should simply enforce laws that already exist. We don’t disagree, but that does not mean it’s not an important idea to discuss. This issue is larger than any one policy. Requiring parental approval in app stores may be the bipartisan solution that will go a long way to help parents like me, who fear not having proper oversight over what content their children are interacting with on their phones.

Today's high school and college students are tomorrow's leaders. That's why Mountain States Policy Center's Board of Directors has launched the Sawtooth Leadership Academy. ​ This yearly, limited enrollment and no-cost program is dedicated to broadening the perspectives of emerging young minds in the principles of free markets, civics and civility. This year, six students were selected to participate in six courses, both in-person and virtually. In the end, four completed a final research project of their choosing, ranging from taxes on veteran income to weather modification. Please note: The contents of the Sawtooth Papers represent the work, research, views and opinions of the student authors. These papers do not constitute an endorsement by Mountain States Policy Center of the views reflected. Joseph Fruehauf Joseph Fruehauf, a graduating student with a Bachelor's in Political Science and Financial Economics from Northwest Nazarene University, is driven by a desire to serve his community and advocate for free enterprise and liberty. Through his work at a public affairs and consulting firm in Boise, Joseph channels his passion for business and public service into meaningful contributions to society. With ambitions to pursue a career as a Business Analyst or Management Analyst, Joseph aims to leverage his skills and knowledge to effect positive change in the realms of law and politics. Grounded in his Christian values, Joseph is committed to upholding principles of integrity and empowerment in all his endeavors. His Sawtooth Leadership Academy paper, which won the $5,000 scholarship in 2024, was dedicated to occupational licensing reform. Jonas Yengst Jonas Yengst, a freshman at The Ambrose Bridge School, epitomizes versatility and ambition. Balancing his interests in the stock market, project work, and soccer, Jonas seamlessly integrates his passions into his daily routine. Whether he's trading stocks in the morning, refereeing soccer matches in the afternoon, or delving into Roman History, Jonas approaches each endeavor with enthusiasm and dedication.   With aspirations of entrepreneurship and legislative involvement, Jonas envisions a future where he can contribute to his community through volunteer work and establish his own investment company. Despite being far from his California roots, soccer remains a constant source of joy and motivation for Jonas, serving as a reminder of the rewards of perseverance and hard work. His Sawtooth Leadership Academy paper focused on education reform. Christopher Sheftic Christopher Sheftic, a freshman at Moscow High School, stands out as a scholar and leader in his community. His academic achievements, coupled with his active involvement in extracurricular activities like Business Professionals of America and National History Day, underscore his commitment to excellence and learning.   Having lived in various states due to his father's military service, Christopher has embraced opportunities to engage with diverse communities and pursue his interests, such as running his own lawn mowing business and participating in math competitions. Looking ahead, Christopher looks forward to continuing his academic journey at Lake City High School and exploring his passions for cars, basketball, and economics. His Sawtooth Leadership Academy publication focused on tax exemptions for members of the military. Avery Nichols Avery Nichols, a driven 14-year-old from Meridian, Idaho, embodies a spirit of service and dedication to his community. Through his involvement in student government, legislative campaigns, and volunteer work, Avery has demonstrated a strong commitment to making a positive impact in the lives of others.   With a diverse range of interests, including reading, woodworking, and playing guitar, Avery is not only passionate about personal growth but also actively engages in local politics and anti-vaping advocacy. As a certified community trainer for CATCH My Breath, Avery is poised to educate and empower younger generations to make healthy choices. His Sawtooth Leadership Academy publication highlighted the debate over weather modification. Applications for the 2025 Sawtooth Leadership Academy will be accepted starting December 1, 2024.

There are two programs: one covers the cost of schooling at private or religious institutions, the other covers the cost of schooling at private or religious institutions. If you are in favor of one, it follows that you'd likely favor the other. But politics can often get in the way of common sense. The Idaho Launch program was passed by lawmakers in 2023 to help students cover about 80% of the cost of tuition at in-state colleges, universities and workforce training , specifically for in-demand careers at an educational institution that works best for their needs. There have been more than 10,000 applicants. Putting aside the arguments for and against Launch, helping students cover some of the cost of a tailored education plan is no doubt a popular policy and might sound familiar. In fact, lawmakers have had a similar debate regarding a plan to allow parents to take a $5,000 tax credit to help them cover the cost of a K-12 education program that best fits their child’s needs.   Opponents of a K-12 tax credit, or any other education choice program, have insisted that state taxpayers should only cover the education expenses of those who stay in the public school system. No private help. No religious institutions. No assistance, even for those who need it most. But the Idaho Launch program? Well, there's a bit of irony. The Idaho Workforce Development Council just sent us an updated list of the schools where Launch awards are being used. Brigham Young University- Idaho? 705 awards. Northwest Nazarene University? 70 awards. Dozens of other education businesses not run by the state, including Evans Hairstyle College and Vogue Beauty School, are also covered. It's hard to make the argument that it's okay for college students to use state taxpayer money on private or religious institutions, but K-12 students should not have the same freedom. Here's the entire list: Idaho LAUNCH Awards by Provider as of October 1, 2024 Provider Number of Launch Awards Assist to Succeed 1 Austin Kade Academy 1 Aveda Institute Boise 8 Aveda Institute Twin Falls 6 Boise State University 1284 Boise State University - Workforce Training 1 Brigham Young University Idaho 705 Build the Best Institute 2 Carrington College 1 CODEWORKS LLC 4 College of Eastern Idaho 154 College of Eastern Idaho - Workforce Training 53 College of Idaho 92 College of Southern Idaho 587 College of Southern Idaho - Workforce Training 102 College of Western Idaho 647 College of Western Idaho - Workforce Training 103 Cosmetology School of Arts & Sciences 1 Eagle Gate College 5 Eastern Idaho Electrical JATC 11 Evans Hairstyling College 15 ExecuTrain of Idaho 1 Headmasters School of Hair Design - CDA 3 Headmasters School of Hair Design - Lewiston 9 Idaho CDL Training 18 Idaho CPR Plus 1 Idaho Dental Assisting Academy 2 Idaho Medical Academy 7 Idaho State University 927 Idaho State University - Workforce Training 14 Ind. Electrical Contractors of Idaho (IEC Idaho) 3 Lewis-Clark State College 247 Lewis-Clark State College - Workforce Training 11 Medical Career Academy 1 Nathan Layne Institute of Cosmetology 7 North Idaho College 264 North Idaho College - Workforce Training 71 North Idaho Dental Personnel 7 Northwest Lineman College 40 Northwest Nazarene University 70 Oliver Finley Academy of Cosmetology 41 Paul Mitchell the School - Boise 15 Paul Mitchell the School - Coeur d'Alene 23 Paul Mitchell the School - Nampa 10 Paul Mitchell the School - Rexburg 28 Paul Mitchell the School - Twin Falls 3 Plumbers & Pipefitters SW Idaho JATC 7 Prime Line Academy 18 Pro-Weld Welding School 2 Rexburg College of Massage Therapy 1 S&P CDL Training LLC 4 Sage Truck Driving School - Blackfoot 2 Sage Truck Driving School - Caldwell 1 Sage Truck Driving School - Coeur d'Alene 5 Sage Truck Driving School - Idaho Falls 6 SE Idaho Plumbers & Pipefitters JATC 2 South East Idaho Dental Assisting 2 SW Idaho Electrical Training Center 3 The Salon Professional Academy 13 Top Gun Trucking Academy 12 Treasure Valley Community College Caldwell 9 University of Idaho 785 Vogue Beauty School 12 Western Governors University 5

Voters across the Mountain States will consider several important ballot measures this November. To help provide them with the information they'll need to make an informed decision, Mountain States Policy Center is excited to release our in-depth studies analyzing Idaho's Prop 1, Montana's CI-126 & CI-127, Washington's I-2066, Wyoming's SJR 3, Bozeman's plastics initiative, Spokane's Prop 1, and Oregon's Measure 118. 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. ( Full study here ) MONTANA CI-126 & CI-127: CI-126 would require a non-partisan Top 4 multi-party primary system to determine which candidates advance to the general election; and CI-127 would require 50% support to win an election. ( Full study here ) WASHINGTON I-2066 : Reverses the state's natural gas bans and prohibits future energy restrictions. ( Full study here ) WYOMING SJR 3: Property tax changes for owner-occupied primary residences. ( Full study here ) 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. ( Full study here ) CITY OF SPOKANE PROP 1: To increase the sales tax by nearly $8 million per year to fund police, fire and "community resilience." ( Full study here ) OREGON MEASURE 118 : Increases highest corporate minimum taxes; distributes revenue to eligible individuals; state replaces reduced federal benefits. ( Full study here )

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) joined a public records amicus this week concerning the disclosure of state employee contract agreement documents in Washington state. Also joining the brief are Washington Policy Center and Washington Business Properties Association. In March 2023, Citizen Action Defense Fund won its public records lawsuit  against Washington's Office of Financial Management (OFM) to require the release of initial offers in collective bargaining negotiations after  state employees and Governor Inslee had signed agreements. The OFM filed an appeal at Washington's Division II Court of Appeals, however, and the appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision. This ruling conflicts with other public records cases of other appellate courts – including the Washington State Supreme Court. Our public records amicus notes : "MSPC is an independent think tank that believes in providing research and fact-based recommendations to lawmakers, the media, and the public. MSPC’s staff collectively have decades of experience working on open government issues and understand that adopting policies favoring transparency at all levels of government is of utmost importance to the people’s ability to hold their government officials accountable. Proposed Amici have a strong interest in the outcome of this case because all three are committed to the disclosure of governmental proceedings, including contract negotiations, in order to prevent and stamp out corruption and to provide the voting public with a full accounting of official conduct. Amici write to dissuade potential concern that finding for Appellant will, going forward, unduly deprive officials of the flexibility to negotiate without fear of 'the optics.' And, as experts in public policy, Proposed Amici are well-positioned to exposit on this question, and to provide the Court with much-needed context into the forces at work in incentivizing good governance without overburdening public officials to a chilling extent." The amicus brief concludes: "As with the pre-decisional exemption, the seal on public access to what vendors the government has hired only lasts until the decision is out of the hands of the official or agency that made it and is subject to up or down legislative (or administrative) approval. All of these and other exemptions demonstrate the logic in drawing the decisional line at the point where the parties whose actions would have been impacted by disclosure are no longer empowered to act at all." MSPC is happy to join this public records amicus to help ensure that going forward, citizens in Washington have access to all the details concerning taxpayer-funded government compensation agreements. Regardless of the outcome of this case, serious reforms are needed to improve the transparency of public employee contract negotiations in Washington state. The Evergreen State should learn from Idaho's good example concerning government employee contract transparency. Collective bargaining talks are the negotiations government unions have with government officials over salaries, benefits and working conditions. Because they involve millions of dollars of taxpayer money, they should be open and transparent. This doesn’t mean the public participates in the negotiations, but the public should be allowed to observe the process. This kind of process is not only good for taxpayers, but also for union members who are able to see how their union leadership is representing them at the bargaining table. Idaho law prevents cities and unions from negotiating government employee contracts in secret. Democrats and Republicans passed this transparency law unanimously and it was signed by former Governor Butch Otter in 2015. Washington state, however, is a different story. While numerous attempts have been made to bring sunshine to the secretive process, government unions have resisted every step of the way. Ideally, contract negotiations should be fully open to the public. But at a minimum, government officials should adopt an openness process like the one used by the City of Costa Mesa, California, to keep the public informed. The city’s policy is called Civic Openness in Negotiations, or COIN. Under COIN, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed in closed-door negotiations are made publicly available before and after the meetings, with fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. While not full-fledged open meetings, access to all of the documents better informs the public about promises and tradeoffs being proposed with their tax dollars before an agreement is reached. This openness also makes clear whether one side or the other is being unreasonable in its demands, and quickly reveals whether anyone is acting in bad faith. It’s a hybrid solution that could be adopted by local officials if full open meetings are not allowed. Until these types of broader transparency reforms are adopted in Washington, it is important for the state Supreme Court to strongly uphold the intent of the public records law and provide taxpayers and the media with access to government collective bargaining agreement details.

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with U.S. Senator Mike Crapo  (Idaho) As a U.S. Senator for Idaho, a state enormously impacted by wildfires decimating communities and landscapes each year, I, Senator Crapo, am a long-time advocate for active forest management that restores forest health to help reduce the number and intensity of fires and protects our communities. And as a former wildland firefighter, I, Madi Clark, know all too well the disastrous consequences of poor federal land management. What the two of us have in common is an experienced point of view about the current mismanagement of our forests that informs our advocacy for improved federal forest management.   The fuel load on federal lands is growing out of control, smoke has become a weather season, and economic and environmental damage is ballooning from massive fires eating up the western United States.    Though residents of the smoke-filled western United States may doubt this fact, the annual number of fires has not changed much over the last thirty years. What has changed is a growing trend of hotter and bigger fires, with the major accelerant being the mismanaged, densely vegetative, diseased and infested federal lands. A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis found that federal lands have less than 1/3 of the number of fires as nonfederal lands, but the federal fires will be more than five times larger than nonfederal fires. In 2024, 7.3 million acres  have already burned, far above the 10-year average of 5.8 million acres.    If we are to fix this predicament, the federal government must adopt two main policy strategies. Management practices like prescribed burns and harvesting need to be employed at a significant rate to make a difference and regulations need to favor this practice.  Prescribed burning and selective  tree removal are the most effective tools for managing understory and excessive density to protect and improve forest ecosystems, especially threatened and endangered species, but regulations and nuisance lawsuits delay these projects for decades.  These lawsuits worsened under the controversial  Cottonwood  decision, which desperately needs to be fixed. Congress must pass legislation  to reverse the Cottonwood  decision to reduce the risk of wildfires and better enable agencies to partake in important landscape restoration activities.    The federal government must not adopt top-down trendy sounding policy decrees from Washington, D.C., that achieve little environmental benefit and create obstacles to achieving work on the landscape. The Biden Administration’s proposed National Old Growth Amendment is a prime example of unhelpful policy that increases bureaucratic hurdles and distracts time and resources away from actions that improve forest health. The National Old Growth Amendment will impact every national forest across the country and purports to protect the environmental benefits of mature and old-growth trees. However, even the Forest Service recognizes that fire is the main threat to these forest classifications.    Further, the process of utilizing a nationwide process to amend all forest plans across the country is counterintuitive. Forest conditions vary considerably from southern Idaho up through the panhandle, and even more so when comparing National Forests across the entirety of the United States.   Idaho Governor Brad Little recently said , “They [the Forest Service] have got to do more containment, and they have got to do more management. If they would have done anywhere close to what we [Idaho] do as a practice, the federal taxpayers would probably be hundreds of millions of dollars richer at the end of this year.”   The current fire situation is demoralizing. But as fires continue to eat away at land and livelihoods across the mountain states and smoke continues to fill the skies, federal officials must move forward with good forest management fostered by locally-driven collaborative, consensus building that better shares this essential task with the communities that live, work and play in these remarkable and cherished landscapes.    U.S. Senator for Idaho Mike Crapo serves as Republican Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee.  Crapo works to advance federal policy providing land managers with needed tools and resources to restore forest health and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire.  Madi Clark is a Senior Analyst for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free-market research organization based in Idaho.  She served as a wildland firefighter from 2008 to 2011.

At least 23 States recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a controversial energy-related decision involving a proposed railway system that would transport crude oil. This important project in Utah was rejected due to environmental concerns. The legal brief for the 23 states to overrule this decision was originally filed by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill. The states argue : "This case is as much about federalism and State sovereignty as it is about environmental law. States are not children, and the federal government is not our mother. The Court should reverse the decision below and restore the States’ rightful place in our cooperative federalism." The states included in the brief are Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.   The original case is Seven County Infrastructure Coalition V. Eagle County, Colorado . As background, the Uinta Basin Rail project is a transportation project proposed throughout seven counties in Utah to transport oil to refineries and ports. In 2021, this project was approved by the Federal Surface Transportation Board.   Later in 2023, this approval was challenged in the District of Columbia Circuit and ultimately thrown out in August of 2023. The judges said this review overlooked impacts on wildlife, potential damages from oil spills, and other effects from increased crude oil refining. Eagle County, Colorado specifically brought up this concern because of its proximity to the Colorado River, and the possibility of contaminated waters. Proponents of the projects claim that the oil being carried is waxy crude, which is semi-solid at room temperature which makes the consistency less damaging and easier to clean up after spills.   Utah Governor Spencer Cox commented : “Our rural counties and federal agencies have repeatedly shown that the project is environmentally responsible. If we want NEPA reviews to be a helpful tool for decision-makers rather than a legal device for activists to endlessly postpone projects, those reviews must be focused on the direct effects of an action by a federal agency, not speculative indirect effects. We’re grateful for the support of Congressional leaders and others who recognize both the importance of this project and why we desperately need to reform NEPA.”   U.S. Senator Mitt Romney added: “The Uinta Basin Railway is key to Utah’s continued economic growth by providing a reliable transportation route for goods, creating jobs, and attracting new businesses. It’s critical that the Uinta Basin Railway Project moves forward and I remain committed to supporting the investment of innovative infrastructure projects in our state.” This case will be an interesting test for the boundaries and purview of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). This legislation was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970 to ensure federal project permits were granted after an in-depth review of environmental impacts . The Biden administration called on the Supreme Court to ignore the state challenge to the scope of NEPA. As shown by the broad state coalition fighting this decision, numerous states have been affected by the weaponization of the EPA and the NEPA. The state coalition argues it is outside the scope of the NEPA to halt this approval process for a transportation project that would cause an economic boom in the area. Utah should have the power to make decisions for its citizens, and the most recent court filings show that 23 other states stand strongly behind them.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is on the case. So is the state of Colorado. So why is Washington state spending millions of dollars on a lawsuit to block the merger of Albertsons-Kroger - a lawsuit that will likely have zero impact on the merger's eventual outcome? It's a valid question, as arguments wrap up in the case in King County, Washington. And the state-specific action costing taxpayers millions of dollars even has a skeptic on the bench. “I have serious doubts about my authority as a state court trial judge to issue an injunction that bars this transaction from going into effect nationwide,” King County Judge Michael Ferguson said during a ruling from the bench. The right case for a suit of this nature is federal court, which is where the FTC is arguing to block the proposed merger . But even there, the case is questionable. It's t he first time a supermarket merger has been litigated since 1988. As we've previously contended, the merger of Albertsons and Kroger doesn't create less competition - it actually increases competition.   Walmart/Sam’s Club makes up nearly a third – 30 percent – of the U.S. grocery market share. Costco tallies another 7 percent. Amazon is moving quickly and accounts for more than 5 percent. And consider this: Amazon Prime, Walmart+ and Costco have more than 250 million subscriptions.   Even if the Albertsons-Kroger merger proceeds, it would account for just 9 percent of nationwide sales, according to the International Center for Law and Economics . But what it would do is get the attention of the big three – increasing competition with their 42% of the current market share.   Furthermore, Walmart, Costco and Amazon do not have a unionized workforce – Albertsons and Kroger do and have earned the endorsement of the merger from union leaders.  The government claims workers would be harmed, but union leaders likely know better.   Unfortunately, government regulators seem to be relying on an outdated model to determine what is best for consumers and grocery stores. Does a grocery store have to be a traditional brick and mortar location? Are online supermarkets be counted? If not, why? It is clear that Amazon, Walmart and Costco directly compete with Kroger and Albertsons, so why wouldn’t they be included in any merger analysis?   Nearly 30 years ago, supermarkets accounted for 81% of retail sales. That dropped to 61% a decade later, and today, it’s near 50%. Where have all of the customers gone? Online and warehouse stores. An economist with the Strategic Resource Group recently told Yahoo Finance  "Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons is the last, best, and final chance to level the playing field." Filing a state-specific, district court lawsuit before the FTC issues a decision is a bit like a coach demanding instant replay while the play is still running. This isn’t the first time Washington state has filed suit against Albertsons and Kroger. The Washington Attorney General tried to stop a dividend paid to Albertsons shareholders following the announcement of the merger.  That suit was not successful. Albertsons says if the merger doesn't go through, it may need to look at cutting jobs and closing some stores . Maybe state lawyers will have some funds leftover to pay for unemployment benefits.

Former President George W. Bush once called it the "soft bigotry of low expectations." For years, as K-12 student outcomes have declined, policymakers have sought new ways to improve results. Some have been successful, while others have simply added unrealistic burdens. Still others have sought to simply move the goal posts. The COVID school shutdowns only made problems worse, as some school districts stopped tracking attendance, eliminated grading, or cut homework. Unfortunately, news came recently that the state of Idaho is lowering long-term academic goals in an attempt to help narrow achievement gaps. Setting goals is a federal mandate, part of the state's "consolidated plan. " The new goals are still said to be "ambitious," but it is a noticeable decline in what should be expected for the investment being made. Let's get specific. The previous goal for the state's four year graduation rate was 95% by 2024. Idaho hasn't come close to achieving that, with the most recent results hovering around 80%. The state's new plan calls for a slow, steady increase in the rate of about 0.7% each year, hitting 85.9% by 2029. When it comes to math, Idaho previously set a goal of having more than 60% of students be proficient or higher on the state's ISAT by 2024. Now, the goal has been re-set: 47.6% by 2030, with even lower proficiency among economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities and English learners. Can a goal of less than 50% really be considered a success? For English Language Arts/Literacy, the goals have been cut by nearly a third - 58.6% in 2030, rather than close to 70% this year. Lowering expectations may help make the goals more achievable, but does it really help advance student learning? Research continually shows higher expectations result in more impactful teaching and better outcomes for students. Idaho spends more than half of its state budget on K-12. Over the past decade, the amount spent at the state level has more than doubled , and there are discussions about yet more increases in the coming year. During the 2023 session, we wrote this column calling on policymakers to answer several questions before increasing education funding : what amount of spending, per student, will be sufficient and how will we know when we are spending enough? In other words, what is our goal and what are we trying to achieve? The answers to these questions remain murky, even as we move the goalposts on student outcomes. When you set low expectations, don't be surprised when you get low results.

As the demand for wireless services continues to grow, many consumers may not realize that they are facing significant financial burdens due to the taxes and fees imposed on these services. Wireless taxes can take various forms, including privilege taxes, license fees, and user taxes, and they are often added to your monthly wireless bill. While these taxes are meant to fund public services and infrastructure, they can lead to substantial costs for consumers, particularly those with lower incomes. For example, effective wireless tax rates can soar above 30% in states like Illinois and California. This means that for every $100 spent on wireless services, up to $34 goes directly to state and local taxes. The good news is that residents in some states, including those in the Mountain States region, enjoy lower wireless tax rates. States like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have some of the lowest wireless tax burdens in the country, meaning consumers keep more of their hard-earned money. The bad news, however, is that other states impose much higher taxes on wireless services, with tax rates exceeding 30% in some cases. For example, Washington stands out as one of the states with the highest taxes (2nd highest nationally) on wireless services. The higher taxes in these states don’t just affect their residents, they can also drive up costs for wireless providers, which may pass those costs on to consumers everywhere, including those in lower-tax states. This creates a ripple effect, where the private sector adjusts its pricing models to offset these increased expenses, impacting wireless users universally. In their recent report, the Tax Foundation found that: "Nationally, taxes, fees, and government surcharges make up a record-high 26.8 percent tax  on taxable voice services. Illinois  residents continue to have the highest wireless taxes in the country at 36.0 percent, followed by Washington  at 34.4 percent and Arkansas  at 34.2 percent. Idaho  residents pay the lowest wireless taxes at 16.1 percent." Wireless taxes disproportionately affect low-income households. These families spend a larger percentage of their income on wireless services compared to wealthier households. For many, wireless services are not a luxury but a necessity for accessing education, healthcare, and job opportunities. Beyond the immediate impact on consumers, high wireless taxes can have a trickling effect and slow down investments in telecommunications infrastructure. Companies may be less likely to invest in network improvements if they face heavy tax burdens, resulting in slower internet speeds, limited service availability, and outdated technology. As we’ve seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, reliable wireless connectivity is more important than ever. Families need it for remote work, online learning, and telehealth services. With the possible lack of investment in infrastructure, communities may struggle to keep up with the demands of modern life, stifling economic growth in our region. By advocating for fairer tax policies, we can help protect consumers from excessive costs while encouraging investment in the wireless infrastructure that our communities depend on. Excessive wireless taxes create an uneven playing field and can hinder the necessary investments in telecommunications infrastructure. Thankfully policymakers in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are keeping these wireless taxes in check. This is something that Washington officials should take note of.

Joseph Fruehauf, a recent graduate of Northwest Nazarene University, has been named the first recipient of Mountain States Policy Center's Sawtooth Leadership Academy scholarship. Fruehauf was one of a half-dozen students to participate in the SLA's inaugural class. The yearly, limited enrollment and no-cost program is dedicated to broadening the perspectives of emerging young minds in the principles of free markets, civics and civility. Participants take six courses, both in-person and virtually, and then complete an approved study published by Mountain States Policy Center. MSPC's Board of Directors then chooses the best piece to receive a $5,000 scholarship. Fruehauf's research work concentrated on occupational licensing reform, concluding: "Overall, occupational licensing attempts to ensure peace of mind, protect consumers, and ensure quality. But are mandated occupational licensing laws effective in achieving these aims and are these laws alwaysrjustified? It can be demonstrated that occupational licensing is largely ineffective in achieving its aims. Occupational licensing also causes an unjust and undue burden on individuals seeking to serve others. The most economically effective and just policy is not one of government-mandated occupational licensing, but a policy of privatization of all occupational licensing and certifications." You can read the entire study here: Honored at the MSPC 2024 Fall Dinner and Anniversary Gala, Fruehauf lauded the Sawtooth Leadership Academy and the work of his fellow students. The Sawtooth Leadership Academy is designed for ambitious high school and college students who are eager to explore and embrace free market principles, gain practical insights from industry leaders, and contribute to their communities as future leaders. Applications for the 2025 Sawtooth Leadership Academy class will be accepted starting December 1st.

More than 500 were in attendance Friday night in Boise for Mountain States Policy Center's 2024 Fall Dinner, where Idaho Reports  was presented with the 2024 Elevation Award. The evening event also featured keynote speeches by United States Senator Tim Scott and former Congressman and current FOX News host Trey Gowdy. Idaho Reports is the longest-running public policy show in the West. It provides an in-person format, while also using video conference interviews to bring in perspectives from across the state. Its staff is dedicated to political analysis and in-depth reporting from around the state, and has expanded its online coverage to include a weekly podcast and  newsletter. “The Elevation Award is the highest honor of our organization, given to the individual or individuals who have advanced the cause of free markets, civility or transparency. We are very pleased to present the 2024 Elevation Award to Idaho Reports for its in-depth coverage of the legislature and policy debates in the state,” said Chris Cargill, President and CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “Idaho Reports plays a critical role in helping provide citizens with information they need to hold their government accountable.” As noted by President John Adams: “Wisdom and knowledge [of truth], as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, [is] necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties…” The 2024 Elevation Award states: “Presented to Idaho Reports - For your continuing commitment to transparency and coverage of the Idaho legislature and Idaho policy.” Video of the presentations from the October 4 dinner will be available on MSPC’s YouTube channel  soon. MSPC’s  2025 Spring Dinner, featuring best-selling author and former Judge Jeanine Pirro, will be on   April 11 in Coeur d'Alene .

Across political, ethnic and racial divides, overwhelming majorities of Americans support education choice. Recent polling shows more than 70% support.   The results, too, show overwhelming success. More than 180 empirical studies indicate positive effects on everything from fiscal impact to parental satisfaction, test scores, civic values and more.   Roughly 60% of states now offer some form of an Education Savings Account (ESA), an education choice tax credit, or a tax credit scholarship. Each year, the list of participating states gets longer.   Unfortunately for students in the Mountain States, lawmakers have been more reluctant to add options. The arguments against choice here vary, but opponents – most often state teacher unions – launch legal roadblocks in every state. In Montana, for example, the teacher’s union has sued to block implementation of an ESA for special needs children. It has also attempted to block the creation of charter schools in the Treasure State.   Fearing expensive legal battles, policymakers who may be on the fence often err on the side of caution and vote against measures to expand choice, even though fewer and fewer legal battles are proving successful. Lawmakers must understand and expect any new program to face legal questions, especially when it is perceived to threaten special interest groups including unions. After all, the leaders of those groups are paid to protect their member interests.   The overarching question, however, is whether education choice is constitutional? In most states, the answer is yes, as we highlight in a new study released today. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal Establishment Clause as a barrier to education choice. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris allows the government to fund any school on a neutral basis, so long as the choice of a religious school is left voluntary. This has left opponents at the state level with just two potential courses to pursue roadblocks: the religious and education provisions recorded in state constitutions.   A “compelled support” clause exists in 29 state constitutions. It was originally intended to prevent an official state religion. Anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments can also be found in dozens of state constitutions – provisions the U.S. Supreme Court has labeled “shameful” and a “clear manifestation of religious bigotry.”   Every state constitution also has an education provision, with some containing language that calls for a “uniform system of free public education,” or something similar. Education choice opponents have argued that such language not only requires the government to establish traditional public schools, but also prevents the government from doing anything else. Uniformity Clauses, however, were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity. Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor.   The United States Supreme Court has issued several recent rulings that are instructive here. In Carson v. Makin, the court ruled on the constitutionality of the oldest school choice program in the United States. Town tuition programs in Maine and Vermont allowed towns that don’t have public schools to pay for a student’s tuition at an approved public or private school – including religious schools. When Maine moved to ban religious schools from participating, the case went to the Supreme Court and was overturned, with justices concluding it violated a parent’s First Amendment religious rights.   Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue from 2022 dealt with restrictions to Montana’s tax credit scholarship program. The Montana Department of Revenue prohibited recipients from using their scholarships at religious schools. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”   In 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn . That case involving Arizona’s scholarship tax credit. The court ruled the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because tax credits involve personal income, not government money – a critical distinction that serves as an example for other states.   There are also dozens of state cases that provide a roadmap.   The West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the ESA’s and said: “We find that the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of these things.”   In Puerto Rico, the Free School Selection Program provided needy families scholarships so they could send children to the school of their choice – whether private or public. It prioritized students who were low income, disabled, adopted or in foster care. Teachers’ unions sued to stop the scholarships, claiming they violated Puerto Rico’s prohibition against using public money for private schools. But the Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled against the suit, upholding the scholarship as it went to families, and not directly schools.   In Georgia, activists took aim at a program that provided scholarships for children to attend private schools, funded by voluntary donations from individuals and corporations. The court ruled those who brought the case had no standing because neither they, nor the state, were hurt by the tax credit.   The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarships program did not violate the federal Establishment Clause because (1) the program had a valid, secular purpose and maintained neutrality toward religion, (2) it allowed parents and students to freely choose from a range of secular and religious educational options and (3) the program did not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.   Arizona’s Supreme Court also held that the education article in the state’s constitution for a “general and uniform” public school system applies only to the obligation to fund a public school system that is adequate and defining adequacy is a legislative task.   A trial court ruled that Florida’s Corporate Tax Credit program did not negatively hurt public schools or state funding of K-12. Instead, the court credited the program as likely to improve the public school system as a whole.   Judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Louisiana’s special education program did not violate the Establishment Clause because the opportunity was secular and provided no incentive for parents to pick a specific religious institution.   The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s Opportunity Scholarships programs, ruling that public funds may be spent on all types of education, and the program did not create an alternate system of publicly funded private schools.   The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships program did not violate the Blaine Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution because the program is neutral with respect to religion and the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian school.   The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program did not violate the state’s Compelled Support Clause or its Blaine Amendment, because students were not required to attend religious schools and any benefits to those schools are incidental.   The overwhelming consensus of cases at the federal and state level shows education choice programs are constitutional. The key is for policymakers to put the decisions in the hands of parents. Any benefits to religious institutions, then, would be the result of individual choices – not government action or taxpayer money. Parents may choose to use the assistance to fund a child’s schooling at a religious institution, but they are just as likely to choose a program that is secular.   Perhaps the simplest education choice solution is a refundable tax credit. Cases brought against tax credits have rarely had success because plaintiffs cannot show any personal injury, and they involve personal income – not government funds. Article 9, §1 of the Idaho Constitution creates a duty to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” But nothing in the state constitution prevents the legislature from supplementing that duty or requires parents to send their child to a government school. The constitution simply creates a baseline. As the West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled, the legislature can do “both of these things.”

This November, voters in the city of Bozeman will decide whether to adopt a ban on plastic bags and straws, as well as foam containers.  Supporters of the “Bozeman Plastics Initiative” collected 6,739 signatures this year to place the measure on the ballot . 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 will take effect in May of 2025, with stiff penalties of $1,000 for a first violation, and $2,000 for a second. Just a few months ago, it wasn’t clear whether the Bozeman Plastics Initiative would even appear on the ballot. Gallatin County Elections officials and the Bozeman city attorney contended organizers did not meet the 25% signature threshold to place a measure on the ballot in a non-general election year.  A lawsuit was filed leading to a settlement in August that allowed the initiative to proceed. During the 2021 legislative session, Montana state lawmakers passed House Bill 407 , commonly called the “ban on bans” bill. This legislation established uniformity for the state and prohibited local regulations, fees or bans on containers, plastics and more. In March, however, a Helena judge ruled the legislation unconstitutional , giving initiative supporters the green light to collect signatures. Cities, towns and some states across the country have adopted various plastic bag or container bans. California became the first state, in August of 2014, to ban plastic bags and require a charge for paper bags. Cities including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and Boulder, Colorado, have followed suit . 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 . Americans use plastic bags for a variety of reasons, and few use them only once, often using a grocery store bag to reline a house trash can, carry lunch to work, or pick up after a favorite pet. Bringing down plastic consumption in the United States may be a noble goal, but government bans on plastic bags and other items are simply an ineffective fad that can actually do more harm than good.