Idaho Freedom Index Loves Expanding Government and Spending
Why did the Idaho Freedom Foundation give HB1 a high rating while adding a $250 million budget expansion?
The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) touts its “Freedom Index” as a reliable tool for evaluating legislation. It claims it measures bills against metrics that protect individual liberty, reduce government interference, and preserve constitutional values. However, a closer look at their evaluation of House Bill 1 (HB1), the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit bill, reveals significant flaws in their scoring process.
This bill was introduced by freshman Rep. Clint Hostetler (R-Twin Falls), who was elected with the help of IFF and its affiliated network of PACs.
Their inflated score on this bill underscores how the Freedom Index selectively applies its principles to align with IFF’s ideological agenda rather than adhering to consistent standards.
What is House Bill 1?
HB1 introduces a refundable tax credit of up to $9,500 for parents whose children are not enrolled in public schools. On its surface, the bill appears to champion what they call “school choice” (a clever name for vouchers). This agenda brought hundreds of thousands of out-of-state funds into legislative campaigns to potentially influence the outcome of such bills. Private religious schools stand to make a lot of money if a “school choice” bill passes in Idaho, the question is, just how much will they make?
The IFF gave HB1 a glowing score of +5 on its Freedom Index, presenting it as a victory for freedom-loving Idahoans (or for those paying attention, their donors and campaign funders.)
But does this bill truly deserve such high praise under IFF’s own metrics? This analysis suggests otherwise.
IFF’s Claimed Score vs. Honest Evaluation
IFF’s metrics claim to measure key aspects of government oversight, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to constitutional principles. I reviewed the bill and found what they omitted by looking at the metrics IFF published on their website. Here is how the IFF scored HB1, alongside my reevaluation using their stated metrics:
Limitation of Government Expansion
IFF claims HB1 limits government expansion and assigns it a +1. However, the refundable tax credit program requires significant government oversight to process claims, effectively expanding government functions.
An honest score here is a neutral 0.
Reduction of Market Entry Barriers
IFF argues that HB1 supports alternative educational models like private schools and micro-schools, scoring it a +1. This point is meritorious. By incentivizing diverse educational options, HB1 reduces barriers.
The honest score remains +1.
Tax Reduction
IFF celebrates the bill reducing taxes on families, giving it another +1. However, the $250 million in tax credits creates a revenue gap that will likely result in higher taxes or reduced public services elsewhere to compensate for the increased expense paid out in tax refunds.
A fair assessment scores this as a neutral 0.
Support for Traditional Family Structures
IFF contends that HB1 supports families aligning education with their values, earning it a +1. While this is partially true, the bill benefits all families regardless of alignment with IFF’s definition of “traditional values.”
A more balanced score is +0.5.
Wealth Redistribution
IFF’s metrics penalize wealth redistribution but fail to account for it here. The refundable tax credit clearly redistributes public funds to private education.
This warrants an honest score of -1.
Taxes, Fees, and Assessments
HB1 creates a $250 million tax credit program, significantly impacting state revenue. This is an unambiguous violation of IFF’s metric against increased taxes.
The honesty should be at least -1.
Increased Government Spending
The bill increases state spending by $250 million for what IFF typically deems an “objectionable purpose”: subsidizing private education. IFF ignored this new government spending and expansion, which goes against what it claims are its core values.
Honest scoring requires at least a -1.
Federalism Violations
HB1 likely violates the Blaine Amendment, prohibiting public funds from being allocated to private or religious schools. Addressing this issue would require changes, including potentially expensive taxpayer-funded legal battles.
This warrants another -1.
Breakdown of Traditional Family or Societal Norms
Funds from HB1 could be allocated to private schools or homeschool programs that teach values contrary to IFF’s vision of “traditional family values,” including teachings on LGBTQ+ rights, liberal ideologies, or alternative societal norms. IFF conveniently forgot to mention that these funds must be available for private schools affiliated with any religious group or ideology, not just those pushing their favorite version of Christianity and nationalism.
This earns a -1.
The Honest Score -2.5
When the metrics are applied objectively, HB1 earns a score of -2.5, contrasting to the +5 that IFF awarded. This discrepancy highlights IFF's selective and inconsistent use of metrics to favor bills that align with its ideological priorities.
Given how badly this breaks IFF’s supposed core values, it should be -5.
Why Does IFF Manipulate Its Scores?
Why does the Idaho Freedom Foundation manipulate its scoring system? The answer lies in perception and influence. By inflating scores like HB1's, IFF crafts a narrative that aligns with its agenda. It presses lawmakers to follow its orders while manipulating public opinion to frame its policies as victories for freedom.
This tactic reinforces IFF’s perceived ability to bully legislators into obedience and appeals to donors and supporters. It secures funding by showcasing ideological wins—even when those wins contradict its own metrics. Truth be damned, IFF President Ron Nate needs his six-figure salary funded.
Remember, IFF publishes their scores BEFORE committee hearings and House and Senate chamber votes. It wants to influence the vote outcome, not just provide an index on how a legislator voted. It’s effective lobbying as they’ve warned legislators for years that they will use their political machine to run against anyone who does not play their game and value their scoring system.
Lastly, omitting obvious metrics conceals the contradictions inherent in bills like HB1. Acknowledging the violations of their own principles—such as wealth redistribution, increased government spending, and constitutional conflicts—would undermine their credibility. By selectively applying metrics, they avoid scrutiny and maintain their ideological facade.
But what can you expect from IFF’s newest hire, Samuel T. Lair, who once penned an article with this headline: “Ranked-choice voting is needed, along with open primaries.”
Why it Matters
The inflated score of HB1 exposes a broader issue: the Freedom Index is not an impartial tool. Instead, it serves as a vehicle to advance IFF’s political agenda. IFF undermines its claim of promoting accountability and limited government by overlooking key metrics such as increased government spending, wealth redistribution, and constitutional conflicts.
Lawmakers and voters deserve honest evaluations, not scores designed to fit a predetermined narrative, one often engineered with the aid of the IFF.
Few believe Rep. Clint Hostetler came up with this bill on his own. With zero legislative experience and in need of publicity to help shore up the Magic Valley Liberty Alliance’s “conservative” credentials, it appears that the IFF allowed him to run a bill that expands government and increases spending while deceptively calling it the “Gold Standard” for their school choice (vouchers) agenda.
This is not the first time IFF has been caught manipulating their scores, and it likely won’t be the last.
This is the first in a series of articles comparing high-profile bills to the Idaho Freedom Index metrics to show where the IFF may be attempting to gaslight legislators and voters.
Disclaimer
The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in the exercise of their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.