On late Tuesday afternoon, something troubling happened in the Idaho Senate.

Lawmakers who opposed the Parental Choice Tax Credit last year, advanced a new bill to cut it—by 4 percent immediately and another 5 percent in 2027—before the program has even fully begun. They did so while more than 5,000 Idaho families, representing over 9,300 students, are already applying and planning their children’s education based on the law as it exists today.

That is not a technical adjustment. It is not harmless. And it is not responsible. It is a decision that targets families after the fact—and supporters are admitting as much.

During committee debate, the bill’s sponsor openly acknowledged that the legislation “may hurt somebody.” Later, he said, “what a better time to take some back a little bit?”

Take some back—from whom?

From the parents who trusted the Legislature? From the families who planned in good faith? From the students whose education decisions are now being thrown into uncertainty?

Let’s be clear about how we got here.

Last year, the Legislature debated the Parental Choice Tax Credit at length. Supporters and opponents both had their say. The bill passed. The governor signed it.

Opponents then took the fight to court—and lost again. The Idaho Supreme Court just last week upheld the law as constitutional.

That should have been the end of it.

Instead, the same lawmakers who voted against the credit last year are now trying to shrink it quietly, incrementally, and just early enough to blunt its impact—without having to publicly re-litigate the policy.

This is not oversight. It is a second bite at the apple.

Supporters of the reduction keep describing the cut as “modest.” But when you spread a reduction across 9,300 students, it stops being small
Families are already:

• Filling out applications
• Signing enrollment agreements
• Budgeting for tuition
• Making decisions that affect jobs, childcare, and household finances

Changing the rules midstream doesn’t demonstrate fiscal responsibility. It creates confusion and instability—exactly what lawmakers should want to avoid.

If legislators knew they wanted to cut the credit, the time to do that was before inviting families to apply, not after.

Proponents have tried to justify the cut by pointing to reductions in funding for K–12 “support units.” That argument is misleading

First of all, the state’s K-12 budget approaches $3 billion.

Second, support unit adjustments are not discretionary spending cuts. They are attendance-based calculations. When student counts go up or down, funding adjusts. That is how Idaho’s school funding formula is designed to work.

Reducing the parental tax credit does not add a single dollar to public schools. It does not increase per-student funding. It does not change the formula. It simply takes support away from families.

Supporters claimed on Tuesday that this was “just about giving everyone the same (budget) haircut.” But then they returned to familiar arguments they used to argue against the bill last year.

They called the program a “voucher.” (It’s not.)

No money is appropriated. No checks are written by the state. Families are simply allowed to keep more of their own money for education.

That distinction matters—especially when supporters talk about “taking some back.” That language reveals the underlying assumption: that these dollars belong to the state first, and families only get to keep them if lawmakers allow it.

That is a fundamental shift in how we think about taxpayers.

They then argued that families were “getting back more than they paid” in taxes.

That argument misunderstands both tax policy and public education.

Tax credits are not personal escrow accounts. Idaho has many credits designed to advance public goals—not to refund individual contributions dollar-for-dollar. Public schools themselves are not funded based on what each family pays in taxes.
Finally, the choice of how and where to introduce the bill is telling. Revenue and taxation bills are required to begin in the House of Representatives. Why, then, was it introduced in the Senate Education Committee? Could it be that the majority of the committee consisted of legislators who previously voted against H93?

That may be savvy politics. But it is not transparent governance.

When lawmakers lose a policy fight, lose again in court, and then quietly route a new bill to undo part of the outcome, people notice.

More than 5,000 families – and counting – trusted the law the Idaho Legislature passed. More than 9,300 students – and counting – are now affected by lawmakers’ eagerness to reopen a fight they already lost.

If opponents believe the Parental Choice Tax Credit was a mistake, they should say so plainly and argue for repeal. What they should not do is quietly shrink it after families have relied on it.

Good government means keeping your word.

And when lawmakers themselves admit a bill “may hurt somebody,” the least we can do is ask why they are moving forward anyway—and why that “somebody” always seems to be Idaho families who want additional education choice options.