The Idaho Legislature is at a crossroads. With over $450 million in proposed tax cuts on the table—more than four times what Governor Brad Little set aside in his budget—lawmakers must decide whether these cuts serve the best interests of Idaho’s children. At the heart of the debate is whether Idaho can afford these sweeping tax cuts without jeopardizing the programs and services that directly impact kids’ education, healthcare, and overall well-being.
As of now, the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) has yet to set a revenue target for Fiscal Year 2026. The Governor recommended a revenue target of $6.407 billion, closely aligned with the Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee’s (EORAC) projection of $6.4 billion. However, when JFAC attempted to vote on the matter, it failed to pass the revenue target. This uncertainty raises a critical question: how can legislators justify massive tax cuts when they haven’t even established the revenue framework? Is this responsible legislating?
If these tax cuts pass without corresponding budget adjustments, Idaho’s children will bear the consequences. Education funding could face significant reductions, forcing larger class sizes, fewer resources, and reduced support for teachers. Healthcare programs for low-income children could see cutbacks, leaving many families struggling to afford essential care. Infrastructure projects, including safe school facilities and community services, could be left underfunded.
Let’s break down the proposed tax cuts:
- House Bill 40 reduces the income tax rate from 5.8% to 5.3%, exempts certain precious metals from capital gains tax, and excludes certain military benefits from income taxation. Cost: $253 million.
- House Bill 260 increases the grocery tax credit from $120 to $155 per person (up to $250 if itemizing). Cost: $50 million.
- House Bill 304 allocates an additional $50 million to the Homeowner Tax Relief Fund and another $50 million to the School District Facilities Fund. Cost: $100 million.
- House Bill 93 introduces a parental choice tax credit for private education expenses. Cost: $50 million.
While tax relief is a popular talking point, responsible governance requires balance. The state must fund critical services that support children and their futures. Slashing taxes without a plan to offset lost revenue puts these essential functions at risk.
Some lawmakers argue that lower taxes will spur economic growth and eventually offset the lost revenue. But that theory is speculative at best. Idaho already enjoys a competitive tax climate, and drastic cuts could deplete reserves needed to weather economic downturns, leaving children’s services particularly vulnerable.
Instead of rushing into nearly half a billion dollars in tax cuts, the legislature should focus on sustainable tax relief that aligns with realistic revenue projections. A more measured approach—one that considers both taxpayer relief and the state’s long-term financial stability—would better serve Idaho’s children and their future.
The question lawmakers must answer is this: are they building a better future for Idaho’s children, or are they gambling with their well-being?
Fred Wood, MD Former Idaho Legislator, retired physician
Cindy Wilson, Nationally Recognized Educator, Meridian
Julie Yamamoto, Former Idaho Legislator, Educator, Caldwell
Idaho Children Are Primary | Boise, Idaho
