ISSUES
Click on the issue area for greater detail:
Education
Health Care and Health Insurance
Reform
Clean Air and Water
Ethics Reform
A word on the supermajority in the House of Representatives.
A word on gerrymandering and the boundaries of District 53.
A word on accountability and responsiveness in government.
Smart Growth and Development
top of page
Background:
Many people believe growth and
development are primarily ‘local’ issues that are not generally
discussed, debated or legislated at the state level. However, growth
and development can also be impacted by legislation and policymaking at
the state level. In fact, at least twice in the last two years, the
state legislature has passed bills intended to favor the interests of
large landowners and developers over those of other residents and
taxpayers in development decisions.
The first, H.B. 466, was sponsored by
the District 53 incumbent – my opponent – in the 2007 session. This
bill required most counties to approve a petition for
incorporation submitted by between one and five landowners owning
property covering at least 51% of the area to be incorporated.
Remarkably, it also required that the mayor and council of the
newly incorporated area be appointed from a list provided by the
landowner(s)! Expressly intended to allow large landowners and
developers to circumvent and avoid the application of existing county
planning codes, public outcry over H.B. 466 forced the legislative to
amend it in the 2008 session (H.B. 164). Although many of the most
extreme provisions of the bill have since been revised, existing
incorporation petitions were not ‘grandfathered’, leading to confusion
and spawning lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money and take years to
resolve. The second bill,
S.B. 53 – which my opponent supported – prohibits voters from initiating
any land use ordinance that is “administrative in nature or from
requiring that any land use ordinance be submitted to a public
referendum if “administrative” in nature. The bill does not
define what “administrative” means. S.B. 53 was passed in the midst of
a fight over the controversial redevelopment of the Elk Meadows Resort
in Beaver County and allegedly for the express purpose of benefiting
that developer. Opponents argue that the bill is unlawful, inasmuch as
it undermines the public’s rights to initiation and referendum, both of
which are guaranteed by the Utah Constitution. In fact, according to
the Salt Lake Tribune, the legislature had received an opinion
from the state Attorney General’s office that the bill was likely
unconstitutional. S.B. 53 is headed to the Utah Supreme Court when it
takes up an appeal in the case BRAVE V. Beaver County, where it
may well be struck down.
Recommendations: I am a proponent of measures that promote and
encourage smart growth and development. In my opinion, smart growth
balances the current and anticipated needs of all residents, voters and
taxpayers in a community. Smart growth is not static, but organic,
forward-looking and scalable, and accounts for changes in industry,
population, demographics and the like over time. Similarly, smart
development incorporates not only residential but also commercial,
retail, industrial, recreational and other types of uses, again in a
balanced fashion, with the objective, among other things, of creating a
diverse and stable tax base that will support a thriving community.
My interests in
this area include:
Fighting the effects of the “municipal
incorporation” bill (H.B. 466, H.B. 164)
Fighting the erosion of voters’ rights to
initiation and referendum, including as it relates to land-use
ordinances (S.B. 53)
Supporting smart and mutually beneficial open
space and conservation initiatives
Background: The first recorded tax breaks for oil and gas producers were created in 1916. For over 90 years, U.S. taxpayer dollars have been used to subsidize the oil and gas industry. These subsidies take many forms, including loan guarantees, low-interest rate or tax-free construction bonds, income and/or sales tax breaks and low or no-cost research and development support. It is estimated that oil and gas companies receive anywhere between $15 and $35 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies on an annual basis.
Subsidies by themselves are not necessarily inappropriate. Many new industries, including the nuclear power, biofuel and solar industries, rely on subsidiaries to help them achieve or maintain profitability. The question is this. In the current economic and environmental climate, are we making the best us of our tax dollars in support of energy development and to help us achieve energy independence?
In the past year, oil hit $100 per barrel. Oil and gas companies – including in Utah – are reporting record production and record profits. The industry reported $123 billion in profits last year – that’s nearly $230,000 in profits per minute! Do we believe we should continue to pay massive subsidies to this industry, or should we expect these producers to commit more of their substantial profits in support of their own research, development and production activities?
Some estimates suggest that for every $100.00 in subsidies paid to the oil and gas industry, the United States provides only $1.00 in subsidies in support of alternative energies. We should consider now whether it makes sense to use more of our tax dollars to support the research, development and production of renewable, “green” energy sources. Science has arrived at a consensus on the fact and effects of global warming, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that oil and gas production and use have adverse environmental and health impacts. We could put our tax dollars and subsidy programs to better use.
Alternative energy sources may also include sources like nuclear power and oil shale. However, we should be cautious about developing energy sources that are dirty, inefficient or rely disproportionately on already scarce resources, like water. Uranium mining and production are fraught with environmental and health risks, and in its current state, nuclear power requires substantial amounts of water. Waste disposal remains an unresolved issue. Oil shale is an inefficient energy source (i.e., it consumes substantial energy relative to output), and oil shale production, much like nuclear power, requires lots of water. Oil shale production also releases substantially more greenhouse gases into the environment than conventional drilling.
To help ensure our security, and for economic and health reasons, we need to build reliance on alternative energy resources. Investments in this area will help us establish energy independence and create new and, in many cases, high-tech and/or well-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. It will also help protect and preserve the quality of two of Utah’s most important natural resources – its air and water.
Recommendations: We should be investing heavily in clean energy sources including solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels, many of which are available in abundance right here in Utah. Our legislature should be requiring – not simply recommending, as it has done – that at least some portion of our energy come from clean sources. We should also be supporting the efforts of individuals and businesses that are trying to transition to alternative energies.
My interests in this area include:
Creating incentives to develop or host alternative energy projects, including solar, wind, geothermal and non-feedstock biofuels
Support educational and training programs to prepare workers for the "green" jobs of the future.
Requiring (not just recommending, as our state legislature has done) that 25% of Utah’s power come from renewable energy sources by 2025
Providing tax incentives for energy efficient residences
Providing grants and/or loan guarantees to farmers who use alternative fuels
Education top of page
Background: We all know that the public education system in
Utah is struggling. This, despite the fact that it is estimated
over 96% of Utah’s children attend public schools. We are doing our
own children a disservice by failing to address the manifest problems in
the system. We cannot say that Utah puts children and families first if
we do not do all we can to ensure that all of our children –
regardless of their background or circumstances – have access to a
top-quality public education. We are also doing our state and economy a
disservice. Utah will not be able to attract or retain good employers,
or build upon or expand its tax base, if its citizens are not educated
to a minimum level. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that Utah is
losing opportunities to attract national employers because of the poor
quality of our education system. Many of the issues with our schools
have been widely reported. According to the non-partisan Voices for
Utah’s Children, Utah “is weak on early child care and education.”
Utah only recently appropriated limited state funds for additional Head
Start slots, and does not provide state funding for other
pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs. Only half the children eligible for
Head Start are served by that program in Utah. This, despite the fact
that researchers have found that the return on investment in early
childhood education is “extraordinary, resulting in better working
public schools, more educated workers and less crime.” (Minneapolis
Federal Reserve Bank report: “Early Childhood Development: Economic
Development with a High Public Return” by Art Rolnick, Director of
Research, and Rob Grunewald, Economic Analyst, reprinted by Voices for
Utah’s Children). According to the Utah Foundation,
Utahns for Public Schools and others, Utah has the lowest per pupil
spending in the nation. A recent report notes that Utah spends
approximately $3,700 less per pupil than the national average: about
$2,100 less on instruction, and $1,600 less on support services,
including health services, social work and counseling. Some argue that
there is little real relationship between spending and outcomes;
however, research shows that Utah is scoring below what would be
expected given its demographics, and a comparatively low level of
spending has been identified as a contributing factor to that. Utah
also has the highest student/teacher ratio in the country (22:1, as
compared to a national average of 15:7, as reported by the Utah
Foundation) We also need to address issues with
our higher education system, and with the quality and availability of
vocational training in the state. With the ongoing national credit
crisis and the corresponding turmoil in the commercial banking industry,
many lenders are withdrawing from the student loan market altogether, or
making loans much more difficult to obtain. We are seeing this happen
in Utah, putting college even farther outside the reach of many in the
state. We also need to make sure that post-graduate education and
training are more widely available in the state. Many of our colleges
and universities have their largest campuses located in major population
centers – Salt Lake City, Provo and Logan, for instance. While
satellite campuses or extension programs are often available elsewhere
in the state, the course offerings are often extremely limited and do
not allow students to complete a comprehensive program of study. Recommendations: I am a
product of the public education system and, as such, am a strong
supporter of the public schools. I believe we should do more to enhance
and improve public education with the objective of restoring the
status and standing of our public schools as the premier source of
quality education and instruction in Utah. First, we need to ensure
that all of our children are prepared to enter school, and that they
enter the system ready to learn. We need to bring our teachers’
salaries more in line with other states in the nation – including
Western “peer” states – and to provide critical student support
services, including appropriate counseling services. We need to do
more to support and enhance the quality of higher education in the state
and to make it more affordable. My interests in this area include:
Developing a long-term spending plan for our education system
Providing enhanced state support for pre-K programs
Expanding the availability of all-day kindergarten
Increasing teachers’ salaries so they equal or exceed the national
average
Supporting measures to make college more affordable
Expanding availability and quality of vocational training A word on vouchers: In
2007, the Utah legislature narrowly passed H.B. 148, the first universal
voucher law in the nation. (The bill passed by only a single vote in
the House of Representatives.) Believing that H.B. 148 did not enjoy
the broad support of the voters, a number of organizations, including
Utahns for Public Schools and others, collected enough signatures to
refer H.B. 148 to a public vote. The proposal, known as “Referendum 1”,
was defeated 62% to 38% in November 2007. Each county in District 53
voted against Referendum 1, in some cases (Summit County) by a greater
than 2 to 1 margin. I was opposed to the
terms of H.B. 148 specifically, for a wide variety of reasons that are
too numerous to express in this forum. It may be that a well-written,
narrowly drawn voucher bill would garner public support, but H.B. 148
was not that bill. In any event, I do not support the passage of any
bill that does not enjoy the underlying support of a majority of the
community – this is just bad legislating. I believe the time, money and
effort expended – by both sides – in the voucher debate could have been
better spent on the students, not on the fight about what’s best for our
students. It should be noted that
my opponent, the incumbent representative in District 53, voted
against H.B. 148. This means that, whatever the outcome of this
election, the prevailing candidate in District 53 will not have
supported the voucher proposal advanced by H.B. 148. In any event,
while people have speculated that the voucher proposal will return in
another form, it may be that it will be some years before we see a
return of the debate. A September 22, 2008 Deseret News article
noted that the state GOP had promised that no voucher proposals would be
introduced in the 2008 session, and they followed through on that
promise. The same article notes that incumbent House Speaker Greg
Curtis – who is in the midst of his own tight race – has promised that,
if he is reelected, “there will be no comprehensive
voucher bill passing the Legislature in either 2009 or 2010.”
At the end of the day, whatever your
position on vouchers generally or H.B. 148 specifically (and you can
hold different opinions of the two), I hope we can agree on this: that
we owe it to our children, to our fellow residents and taxpayers and to
our communities to ensure that our public education system is robust and
strong, and that it is capable of providing a powerful education to each
and every child that chooses to enroll
Health Care and Health Insurance
Reform top of page
Background: It has been said that one measure of the success of
a society is the health of its citizens. If this adage is true, then
the United States is perhaps not as successful as it should aspire to
be. According to Divided We Fail and
other sources, the United States spends approximately $2 trillion on
health care each year: over $6,000 per person. We spend more on
healthcare – some 16% of our GDP – than any other country, yet our
measured outcomes are among the worst in the developed world. According
to a recent newspaper article previewing the broadcast premiere of the
television show “Critical Condition”, about the healthcare crisis in
this country, the United States ranks 15th in preventable
death, 24th in life expectancy, and 28th in infant
mortality. Some 46 million Americans are
uninsured, and many more are underinsured. Contrary to popular wisdom,
the working poor are the fastest growing segment of the uninsured
population. Over 23 million Americans report that they have trouble
paying medical bills; in fact, unpaid bills are a leading cause of
bankruptcy in the United States. We are the only industrialized nation
that does not make healthcare available to all its citizens. Our
healthcare system was described recently – and not without reason – as
“wasteful, inefficient and financially unsustainable.” Clearly, our
approach is lacking. The effects on business are
devastating as well. For some time now, businesses have carried the
burden of providing healthcare coverage to many working Americans. But
as their costs increase, more businesses are opting out of this area.
Divided We Fail reports that some 60 percent of small business owners
say the rising costs of healthcare are a “crisis”. Many have stopped
offering health insurance to their employees. Others are requiring
their employees to pay much higher premiums, accept larger deductibles
or made do with fewer coverage options. In Utah, an estimated over 300,000
people are uninsured, and tens of thousands more are underinsured.
Estimates suggest that over 80% of the uninsured in Utah are employed,
members of the “working poor” who have a job but earn less than they
need to meet basic expenses. Many of the uninsured in our state do not
have a personal doctor or primary care physician. This often leads to
people receiving fewer (or no) routine health screenings and basic
check-ups. Many defer seeing a doctor at all, often until it’s too
late. Unfortunately, many of the uninsured end up in our emergency
rooms, often for treatment that would not have been necessary with the
right preventative care. All too often, the treatment results in a
large bill that cannot be paid. This results in increased costs for all
of us. Our businesses and
people are laboring under the burden of trying to pay for healthcare.
Utah led the nation in 2007 in the number of businesses that stopped
offering medical plans because they could no longer afford to do so. In
fact, the number of businesses offering health coverage has dropped
nearly ten percent in recent years.
Unpaid medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy
in Utah. Children are particularly impacted
by the healthcare crisis. According to the non-partisan Voices for
Utah’s Children and others, of the approximately 90,000 uninsured
children in Utah, over 60,000 are eligible for the state children’s
health insurance program (CHIP). However, of this number, only about
60% are enrolled. inexpensive to insure and represent relatively
low-risk for insurers. Children make up over half the enrollment in
the state Medicaid program, but less than 20% of the cost. For each
dollar spent by the state on SHIP, the federal government pays $4.00 in
matching funds. There are other problems with our
state healthcare system as well. We need to provide more support for
community healthcare centers. In some rural areas of the state, these
centers are the primary source of health care for the population.
Public health spending in our state has been flat for a number of years,
and should be augmented. We need to do more to encourage the creation
and use of electronic medical records, to speed care and reduce
administrative costs. We should review those regulations that make it
difficult, if not impossible, for retired or out-of-state doctors to
provide volunteer care in Utah. Recommendations: As a
cancer survivor who is in great health but nevertheless unable to obtain
insurance on the private market, at any price, healthcare is a subject
near and dear to my heart. We must ensure that everyone in Utah has
access to quality health care and to appropriate health insurance at
reasonable rates. We need to create a climate of greater competition
among healthcare providers to help reduce costs. We should consider
requiring people to carry health insurance, perhaps by adopting a
carefully constructed “pay or play” system. We should consider
augmenting regulation of the insurance industry, for instance to make it
harder for insurers to waive coverage for “preexisting conditions”. We
also need to be more aggressive about auditing of denied claims. We
must greatly expand state funding for Medicaid and SCHIP, to ensure that
more lower-income families and children are properly covered. My interests in this area include:
Expanding the availability of affordable, and portable, health
insurance coverage
Improving regulation of the insurance industry and expanding audits
of claims denials
Enhancing resources dedicated to advancing electronic medical
records
Expanding funding for the state children’s health insurance program
(CHIP)
Reinstating full dental and vision benefits for Medicaid recipients
Clean Air and Water top of page
Background: Utah is known for its wide-open spaces and
pristine mountain and desert views. Unfortunately, those views are
threatened by deteriorating air quality. Those who live or work in or
near Salt Lake City, Provo or Logan, for instance, are familiar with
yellowed inversions and air quality alerts. Unfortunately, other areas
in Utah are beginning to experience a degradation of air quality as
well. While the state Department of Environmental Quality provides
limited equipment and support for air quality testing in the state,
those resources are concentrated in areas already known to have bad
air. There are few resources dedicated to communities that are trying
to assess the quality of and threat to their air, to try to prevent
further problems. Well over 90% of Utah’s energy
derives from coal, the production of which, among other things, releases
toxic pollutants into the air. Our addiction to coal has some
remarkable, and visible, consequences. Box Elder County and Tooele
County recently joined five other Utah counties – Salt Lake County,
Cache County, Davis County, Utah County and Weber County – on the EPA’s
non-attainment list for fine particulate matter. This means that
each one of these seven counties fail to meet the EPA’s already lax
standards in this area. It’s time to take aggressive measures to
clean and protect our air. Utah’s waters are also threatened.
While the state has successfully reduced its total water consumption in
recent years, Utah still leads most states in the amount of water used
on a per person basis. Growing populations combined with drought-like
conditions in the West may limit the possibilities for developing new
water sources. The state has a goal to reduce per capita water use by
25 percent by the year 2050; however, we may need to be more aggressive
in promoting conservation. The quality of our water is also
threatened. Within the past few years, Utah issued it’s first-ever
advisories for mercury in fish. According to the Division of Water
Quality, methylmercury can be found in fishing waters throughout Utah.
A U.S. Geological Survey test several years ago showed the Great Salt
Lake has the highest levels of toxic mercury found in the United
States. Our waters are also threatened by other pollutants including
lead and phosphorous. Maintaining our regional air and
water quality is an imperative, for a number of reasons. First, science
has demonstrated that exposure to dirty air and water – even on a
short-term basis – can have significant health risks. For example, even
short-term exposure to certain air pollutants can result in an increased
incidence of genetic and birth defects (and have impacts on neurological
and cognitive development) in children, can exacerbate chronic
cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and cause heart attacks and
strokes. These lead to higher healthcare costs and, in many cases,
premature deaths. Beyond this, dirty air and water
poses a real threat to key industries in Utah, including outdoor
recreation (e.g., camping, hunting and fishing), skiing and
agriculture. Much of our economic activity and growth depends on our
having clean air and a clear viewshed, not to mention clean and pristine
waters. Whether you hike or hunt, ski or snowmobile, you should care
about the quality of the natural resources that provide critical support
for those activities. Recommendations: We need
to take more aggressive measures to clean and defend our air and water.
We should develop and use cleaner fuels, reduce diesel emissions,
discourage vehicle idling and help incentivize the re-use and recycling
of many materials. Among other things, we should consider adopting the
EPA’s new model state idling law and expand efforts to retrofit diesel
vehicles, including school buses, construction trucks and transit buses
and vans. We should also investigate the possibility of adopting a
bottle bill to encourage glass recycling and the production and use of
recycled products generally. We also need to encourage creative
approaches to reducing water consumption, including irrigation controls
and landscaping ordinances. The state should also take the lead by
requiring water conservation in state buildings.
My interests in this area include:
Increasing funds for expanded air and water quality monitoring
Passing
statewide anti-idling legislation
Investigating
the feasibility of adopting a statewide bottle bill
Developing truck stop electrification programs and diesel retrofit
incentives
Promoting reasonable water conservation measures
Ethics Reform top of page
Background: The Salt Lake Tribune, in a recent
editorial, noted that Utah is home to “some of the … weakest ethics
statutes nation.” The Tribu> nthe only pape the only source, to highlight state’s poor reputation in this area.
Why is it that Utah is regarded as a backwater in regards to ethics in
government? Well, there are a variety of reasons. First,
there is no independent or bi-partisan process to investigate ethics
complaints in the legislature. This, despite the fact that polls show
nearly 75% of voters in Utah support the creation of an independent
ethics commission. The current process is shrouded in secrecy, and is
too easily controlled by the supermajorities in both the House and the
Senate. There are also arbitrary limits (in many cases, unique to
Utah) on the investigative authority of the existing ethics committee.
A number of legislators have introduced bills to try to change this.
However, most such attempts have not been given a full hearing, much
less made it to a vote. Utah’s
rules regarding the receipt and disclosure of lobbyists’ gifts are also
lax. First, there is no outright ban on lobbyists’ gifts, although
proponents have a hard time articulating any reason such gifts should be
allowed. Significantly, the rules regarding the disclosure of such
gifts may be inadequate. In the past year, the Salt Lake Tribune
claimed that “[i]t is impossible to identify the recipient of nearly 90
cents out of every dollar spent by lobbyists” because of the thresholds
for reporting under the law.” In addition, a loophole appears to allow
lobbyists to provide services or host events for groups of legislators,
without requiring that the individual recipients or participants of
those services or events be disclosed. There are other areas where the
state’s ethics rules may be inadequate. State law requires that a
public official provide notice of any actual or potential conflict of
interest relative to a matter before him or her, but does not require
that the official recuse himself or herself from any decisionmaking or
adjudication in that area. Utah is unique in this area, with many
other states having much stricter rules than a simple “notice”
provision. Recusals based on conflicts issues need not impede the
orderly and effective operation of government if there is sufficient
planning and defined processes to ensure the orderly delegation of
responsibility and effective decisionmaking. Recommendations: In order
to enhance the public’s and the voters’ confidence in government, we
need to take immediate action to bring ethics reform to Utah. One of
the latest efforts in this area is a bipartisan proposal by Sen. Pat
Jones (D) and Rep. Steve Mascaro (R) to address campaign finance and
lobbyists’ disclosures. Although this proposal lacks many of the
elements one would want to see in a comprehensive ethics reform package,
it is a good first step. I have demonstrated my commitment to this
first step by signing the Utahns for Public Schools’ pledge to support
ethics reform and the key tenets of this bipartisan proposal. (See
http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php)
My interests in this area include:
Creating an independent ethics commission for the legislature
Adopting a comprehensive code of ethics for all public officials
Strictly limiting lobbyists’ gifts to elected officials and/
requiring full disclosure of gifts
Adopting provisions requiring anyone elected to the legislature to
give up his or her position as a lobbyist
Prohibiting elected officials from
becoming lobbyists within a certain period of leaving office
Campaign Finance Reform top of page
Background: If you’ve
donated to a candidate in any federal race, whether a presidential
election or a house or senate race, then you know that the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC) regulates campaign donations. For instance,
the FEC limits the amount of money any individual or interest group can
contribute to a candidate. The FEC also prohibits candidates from
accepting direct corporate contributions. Campaign finance laws often
limit how campaign donations may be spent and how leftover funds may be
used by losing candidates or retiring lawmakers.
Conversely, Utah has virtually no campaign finance laws. State
law imposes no limits on the amount a candidate may accept from a
single individual or interest group. State law also allows candidates
to accept donations directly from corporations. In Utah, a candidate
may spend campaign funds for any purpose, as long as the expense is
disclosed. State candidates have frequently logged questionable
campaign expenditures, including for clothing and other ostensively
‘personal’ items. As reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, in this
very election cycle, the incumbent attorney general reported a
campaign-related expense of over $700 for clothing purchased at a
national retailer!
Recommendations: For a variety of reasons, money is and
probably will continue to be important in our elections. However, I
strongly believe money should not be the defining feature of our
political process – issues and ideas should be. As such, I support
the adoption and implementation of reasonable campaign donation
limitations in state races in Utah, as well as other campaign finance
reforms. In fact, although not required by state law, I have adopted
the Federal Election Commission (FEC) contribution limits in my own
campaign. My
interests in this area include:
Imposing limits on individual, corporate and PAC contributions
Limiting candidates’ ability to use campaign contributions for
personal or other than “legitimate”, campaign-related reasons
Requiring losing or retiring candidates to contribute excess
campaign donations to, for instance, a registered non-profit or
political party
Imposing sanctions for any individual or entity (e.g., any
legislator, lobbyist or candidate) that fails to file timely and
accurate disclosures The State Budget Deficit Introduction:
As you may know, Utah is facing a combined $350 million budget deficit. Based on declining receipts, principally in state sales and corporate franchise taxes, Utah came up $81 million short in last year’s budget and is projecting a $272 million deficit in the coming year.
To some extent, it is no surprise the state is facing a budget crisis of some magnitude. While Utah’s economy has performed well for some time now, in view of declining home prices, increasing home foreclosures, tightening credit markets and rising prices, it was only a matter of time before repercussions were felt in this state.
I believe that the budget deficit, and the legislature’s response to it, illustrates a failure of long-term planning. In this case, the result is a short-term “fix” that will adversely impact many individuals and families and set up difficult decisions in the next session. Ultimately, the voters will have to decide whether the actions and priorities of the legislature represent their values and interests.
Failures of Long-Term Planning…
The legislature does not do a particularly good job managing the state’s revenues and accumulated resources. Why do I say that? For a variety of reasons.
Bad Revenue Projections. First, the legislature seems to have no accurate method of projecting revenues. With the broader economy having been in decline for nearly a year now, it’s not clear why the legislature anticipated that tax revenues would materially increase through this year. Growth in tax receipts was a key assumption in the budget passed by the legislature this spring. Unfortunately, these projections have turned out to be far off-base.
No Tax Planning. The difficulty in projecting revenues may have its origins in our tax code. Whenever Utah experiences a budget surplus, the legislature responds by immediately cutting taxes. While no one likes paying taxes, the plain fact of the matter is that the taxes we all pay form a core source of revenue that provides critical funding for key resources, programs and infrastructure that we all rely upon. Responding to surpluses by reflexively cutting taxes creates an uneven and unpredictable revenue stream, and makes it impossible to develop long-terms spending plans for key programs and services.
It also makes the state more dependent on the federal government and
federal spending.
Poor Use of Savings. In an August 2008 Deseret News article, the House majority leader suggested the state would use funds from its two “rainy day” accounts to help address the budget deficit. This did not happen. This may because
the legislature has not structured the rainy day funds well, which restricts their utility. For example, in surplus years,
transfers into the rainy day funds are capped at a set percentage of total appropriations. This limits the amount of money the state can set aside in a good year for use in any “bad” year. The law also dictates how the state’s rainy day funds may be used. Generally, rainy day funds may be used only to resolve a budget deficit in the year it occurs – by law,
the state’s rainy day funds cannot be used to fund ongoing programs or services, or in anticipation of a future budget deficit.
No Accountability in Spending. Recent reports suggest the
over $200 million in unspent funds is currently sitting in various department accounts. Why?
The legislature has apparently allowed some state agencies to accumulate funds and roll them over from year-to-year. It is not clear why this was allowed, or if or when these agencies will ever be required to spend this money. It’s also not clear whether these agencies will be required to “give back” the funds so they may be used to help pay for other, ongoing programs. It is not known whether any of these monies were used to help avoid or mitigate cuts the legislature was requiring to help resolve the budget deficit.
No Long-Term Spending Plans. It’s clear that the legislature has some problems managing revenues and cash. It also appears to have a problem managing expenses. The legislature anticipates and plans expenses very much in the moment, with little or no view towards the future. Specifically,
the legislature has no long-term spending plan in key areas, such as education. This is somewhat extraordinary.
Many if not most of the best-managed companies in the United States have strategic (if not operational and/or financial) plans that reach three, five or even ten years into the future. While circumstances change and estimates are subject to revision, these plans nonetheless help a company identify its key priorities and stay focused on critical long-term objectives. …Lead to Ill-Conceived Short-Term “Fixes.”
The legislature’s failure of planning has created quite a problem for the state this year. Its inability to predict that revenues would go down – not up – caused it to be blindsided by a shortfall in revenues that it should have expected. This has led to a budget deficit for which there are only three potential solutions: raise revenues, cut spending or use savings (or some combination).
No New Revenues. The legislature has no interest in raising taxes – a primary revenue source – before an election.
The legislature also elected to leave at least $500 million – possibly as much as $700 million – in unused funds untouched, just sitting in various accounts instead of being put to work for the people of Utah. Without raising taxes or applying savings, the only option available to address a budget deficit is to cut spending. This is exactly what the legislature did in its special session.
Secrecy in the Budgeting Process. The hallmark of this special session may have been its abbreviated nature – two days – and its secrecy. Two days isn’t much time to collect and process information and to make reasoned, informed decisions with a view towards the long-term. And while some of the hearings were open to the public, it seems the majority of discussions and real negotiations were held in private, between
the majority party and the governor’s office, with the majority party having little or no role or voice.
Incomplete Information Sharing. Members of the House Democratic caucus have been critical of the process, alleging that they were left out of key negotiations and that the budget bill was presented to them for a vote without their input. (In fact, 15 of 20 House Democrats voted against the bill.)
Reports suggest that different information about revenue shortfalls and budget impacts may have been made available to the Republican and Democratic caucuses. In fact,
some reports suggest that the Republicans may not have made full disclosure of relevant facts available to members of their own caucus.
Budget Cuts. So what did the legislature do? Generally speaking,
it required most government departments to cut four percent from their budgets. In many cases, the legislature replaced a quarter of that cut – or one percent – with “one time” funds (e.g., ones that will disappear at the end of the year). While it was widely reported that public education was spared any cuts, this is not entirely accurate. Approximately three percent of the funds cut from ongoing education funds – some $75 million – was replaced with one-time funds that will also expire at the end of this year.
This means that in all these areas, the legislature will, in the next session, have to find a source of funds to replace those that were eliminated, or cut programs further.
This is a classic example of a short-term “fix”.
Legislature Out Ahead of the Governor. In some areas, it appears
the legislature proposed cuts more aggressive than the governor would agree to; fortunately, in at least some cases, the governor appears to have prevailed. (That hasn’t stopped the legislature from claiming credit for exercising “moderation” in its approach.) For instance, legislators had initially proposed an average reduction of six percent in higher education funding (10 percent for Weber State and Southern Utah Universities). The governor apparently objected and following negotiations, the legislature ultimately agreed to more modest cuts.
Programs for People Hit Hardest. The biggest cuts were made to higher education, corrections and health, human services. Medicaid suffered significant cuts, with some 19,000 people being trimmed from the rolls. Unfortunately, cuts in programs like Medicaid result in a loss of federal matching funds as well. In this case, the $16 million cut from Medicaid will result in an additional loss of an estimated $23 million in federal matching funds. The state has lost other matching funds as well in the area of health and human services because of these cuts. This seems shortsighted – why cut funds from state programs that resulting matching funds, often at a higher than 1:1 ratio?
Infrastructure Protected. The highway and transportation budgets appear to have been largely untouched. In fact, in a recent report, the House majority leader was quoted as saying he didn’t think it was wise to consider making cuts in infrastructure projects at this time. This is interesting.
Applying only a fraction of the over $55 million remaining in the transportation budget would have allowed the legislature to avoid cutting Medicaid.
Why does the legislature value infrastructure over people? Our roads and bridges have no inherent value in and of themselves – they act only to serve us, the people and voters of this state. It would seem their needs should come first.
Misplaced Priorities. So where does this leave the people of Utah? Well, it’s become clear that
the legislature may place a higher priority on abstract number-crunching than it does on the welfare of the people who live in the state. It appears even
some in the majority would agree. As Rep. Paul Neuenschwander, R-Bountiful, put it in a recent newspaper article: “This is absolutely going to be very, very difficult for a lot of people. We can congratulate ourselves for what we've done, but in some instances people are going to bleed over it.”
What can we do about this? We can educate ourselves, and we can get out and vote! In so doing, we can send a message about our priorities and how we want our hard-earned tax dollars to be applied!
top of page
The
fact of the matter is that a full 55 of the 75 seats in the Utah House
of Representatives are held by one party. This is in excess of a
two-thirds (66%) supermajority – a full 73% of seats! As a
matter of procedure, this means that the majority party (currently, the
Republicans) has no need to consult with or to incorporate the views of
the minority party (currently, the Democrats) in anything it does.
Frankly, with an abundance of seats well in excess of the minimum needed
to get most legislation passed, the majority doesn’t even need to
consult with or incorporate the views of the more moderate members of
its own party!
Regardless of your party affiliation or personal philosophical bent, you
cannot believe this is healthy. The structure of our federal government
incorporates a well-known and highly regarded system of “checks and
balances”, but there is no “check” on a supermajority. It seems the
majority party is no longer focused on the best interests, key
priorities and personal ethics of the people of Utah. Instead, it
appears largely consumed with propagating and preserving its own
majority. This helps no one and advances no compelling issue or cause.
Particularly in the last several years, the legislature has produced
some dubious outcomes, including “omnibus” bills of questionable
constitutionality, a school voucher proposal that was later defeated by
an overwhelming majority of voters and an immigration bill that was
passed before any real analysis or examination of the issue or the
potential impacts of the bill was completed. The legislature has also
failed to act in areas that voters have indicated are important to them,
including approving the creation of an independent ethics commission.
The
minority party needs to capture just six seats to break the
supermajority in the House of Representatives. Your vote today can help
put an end to the kind of “echo chamber” politics that stifles
constructive debate and leads to bad legislating and even worse policy.
top of page
A word on gerrymandering and the boundaries of District 53.
State legislative districts are redrawn every ten years
following the federal census. The redistricting is performed by the
legislature, which has for some time been, and is currently, dominated
by one party. There is no inherently bi-partisan, or independent,
redistricting process in Utah. Numerous attempts have been made to
structure a truly independent redistricting process; however, all of
these attempts have been rebuffed. This
means our redistricting process is ripe for abuse. In October 2001,
the Wall Street Journal called Utah “the worst example of
redistricting abuse in the nation”. Unfortunately, District 53 is
among the most egregious examples of this abuse. Before
the 2000 election, all of western Summit County – namely, both the
incorporated and unincorporated parts of what is now broadly called
“Park City” – was included as part of District 53. After the 2000
election, in which the Republican incumbent narrowly beat a Democratic
challenger who lived in the Snyderville Basin, the legislature responded
in the next redistricting by removing much of the Snyderville Basin area
from District 53, and including it in District 25, a seat that was
already comfortably in Democratic hands. The remaining portion of
western Summit County was joined with Eastern Summit, all of Daggett and
Morgan Counties, and a portion of each of Wasatch and Rich Counties, to
form District 53. This
means District 53 encompasses all or a portion of 5 different
counties. Its boundaries reach around the corner of Wyoming in two
directions, all the way to the Utah/Colorado border, on the one hand,
and nearly as far as the Utah/Idaho border, on the other hand. In
terms of geographic area, as measured in square miles, District 53 is
larger than many federal congressional districts elsewhere in the
country.
Redistricting that is done with the primary objective of preserving and
protecting a power base often has bad consequences. It alienates voters
from the political process, isolating them from the very representatives
who are elected to serve them. Imperfectly overlapping House and Senate
districts, not to mention federal congressional districts, only compound
the problem. It also makes it nearly impossible for new candidates to
get elected. Without the advantage of name recognition and awareness
that incumbents enjoy, a challenger must commit a disproportionate
amount of time and resources to outreach, and is forced to raise
exorbitant sums of money to reach out to voters. The
next state legislative and congressional redistricting will take place
following the 2010 census. This election represents one of the last
opportunities – perhaps the last best opportunity – for the voters to
seize control of the legislature and force it to commit to a fair and
objective redistricting process.
Projections are that following the 2010 census, Summit County alone will
have enough residents constitute a single legislative district.
However, the legislature as currently constituted is unlikely to allow
this to happen. Your vote today will help ensure that the boundaries of
this District are drawn in a reasonable and deliberate fashion with the
best interests of the voters – and not any single party – in mind.
top of page
A word on accountability and responsiveness in government. When was the last time you saw or heard from your state representative? As I walk neighborhoods and talk with voters throughout the District, I am struck by how many people do not know who their representative is, what issues he supports or what kind of bills he’s sponsored. I have also heard from many folks who say they’ve tried to reach out to the District 53 incumbent on one issue or another, but have received little or no response.
I have personal experience in this area. Well before I became a candidate in this race, I tried to reach out to our representative to encourage his support for a specific bill, and he declined to respond to me. Conversely, I have contacted other state representatives on a variety of issues, and I often receive a response, including from legislators who do not represent this district! I’ve heard variations on this same theme from others in the area.
Are you as troubled by this as I am? I firmly believe those who hold office are charged with maintaining a public trust. Legislators are elected by the people, to do the people’s business – not attend to their own, parochial concerns. To properly do the people’s business, you need to be willing to get out in front of the people and talk to them. You also need to believe that you are and should be held accountable to those same people for all that you do as a public official.
Our representatives should be encouraged – in fact, expected – to maintain an “open door” policy of communications and response. Each should be encouraged to hold regular town hall meetings in key areas of his or her district and to send periodic legislative updates to voters. Each should maintain a website with comprehensive and updated information about his or her activities. Our representatives should take advantage of and leverage new techniques (e.g., blogging, video) to reach out to voters, particularly younger voters.
So, where’s your representative? Does he have a website you can visit, to learn more about him? Has he sent you any written update of his activities? Has he hosted a town hall meeting or other public meeting in your area in the recent past? Has he submitted answers to any of the numerous sites that maintain candidate profiles, including the League of Women Voters? In short, do you know where to go to find out what he’s been up to, or what his position is on the key issues that are important to you? Will you (continue to?) vote for him, if you can’t answer these questions satisfactorily?
If I have the privilege of being elected to represent the people in District 53, I will commit to holding at least two (2) town hall meetings in each of the key areas of the District. I will commit to sending periodic written updates of my activities, and to maintain a comprehensive and updated website. I will strive to use the latest available technologies so that I am easily reachable by voters throughout the District. I will also commit that every constituent inquiry will receive a prompt response from my office. top of page
* Smart, Responsive Leadership *
Copyright © 2008 "Lofft for House Seat 53". All rights reserved.
Paid for and authorized by the Lofft for House Seat 53 Committee.
