These are classic discussions published back in February 2009
Food Tax – Government Needs You to Do More
Rep. Kay McIff seeks to double the taxes that Utahns pay for the food they eat.
He explains that Utah should raise its most regressive tax (meaning that the food tax disproportionately impacts poor people), in order to . . . wait for it . . . help poor people.
Government gets its money by taking it from people. Government now has less money, because people have less money. As Rep. McIff points out, sales tax revenue from food sales has not dropped off significantly. Why not? Because citizens still eat. When our citizens are struggling, the correct response is not to take more of their money by going after something they cannot live without.
A Civics Lesson – Clay’s Law
No one has more at stake this session than the advocates of Clay’s Law (parents of autistic children, arguing that autism therapies should be covered by insurance). I candidly explained my opposition to insurance mandates in this post. If you want some proof that civility is alive and well, check out the comments to that post. Parents who likely are stretched to the breaking point in many ways explain their position in a tremendous example of firmness and civility.
For the reasons I expressed in the original post, I can’t go all the way to mandatory coverage, but I have been moved to support a mandatory rider. As I expressed in my latest comment, I suspect the bill will pass as drafted, in part because of the civil advocacy of the proponents.
Blogger Conference Today
Today at 4:00, I will hold a blogger conference on my SB 208 (Utah Public Notice Website Amendments).
Ric Cantrell provides details here.
I have to take exception to Ric’s comment that I am “the oldest living politician who blogs.” I’m increasingly feeling that way. But, I think it might be more accurate to say that I have been blogging longer than any elected officeholder in the US.
You can tune in here.
http://content.nowlive.com/vidget/vidget_v3.swf?channelid=64377&netid=64377
Autism Insurance Coverage
In America, complex and important issues find their way to Congress and state legislatures. On the list of complex and important issues, healthcare vies for top billing.
Every year, the Legislature addresses insurance mandate bills. Mandate bills seek to force private health insurers to cover some illness or segment of the population or alternative provider. Groups with that illness and healthcare providers who treat that illness put forward compelling human-interest stories: in many instances, truly heart-rending stories. Faced with those heart-rending stories, politicians routinely force insurers to cover those illnesses. I believe the number of government-mandated coverage items in the US insurance market now approaches 2,000.
Government should do whatever it can to help promote better healthcare. So, government must constantly answer the question: does this mandate promote better healthcare?
We all want a health insurance policy that covers everything. We can’t pay for it, we don’t want to pay for it, and we don’t really... (read more)
Federal Pork – An Intervention
The number of earmarks in federal transportation bills:
1982 – 101987 – 152 (earning a veto)1991 – 5381998 – 1,8002005 – (drum roll, please) . . . 6,371
It’s not an appropriations process. It’s a cry for help.
In pork-barrel politics, little compares with the opportunity that highway bills present Congressmen and Senators. Gas-tax money is apportioned to states based on formula. But, forwarding the money without some flare does little to help to the political fortunes of Congress-types. So, instead of the money being spent on the priorities of transportation departments and commissions, Congress-types specify that portions of the money go to patronage-based projects (e.g., the “Bridge to Nowhere”). Press releases, ribbon cuttings, and robust chest pounding accompany the earmarks.
Early in his tenure, President Bush declared, “”Across the spectrum of transportation programs, congressional earmarks undercut the [Transportation] Department’s ability to fund projects that have successfully proved their merits.” Later, he added, “However, undercutting meritorious projects is... (read more)
Liquor Law Revisions