Budgeting Pop Quiz

QUESTION 1: Which budget subcommittees lost appropriated money in the recent downturn?

Your choices are:

a. public education;
b. higher education;
c. transportation;
d. executive offices and criminal justice;
e. health and human services;
f. capital facilities (buildings);
g. commerce and revenue;
h. natural resources; or
i. economic development and human resources.

ANSWER: Natural resources (-3.5%), Capital Facilities (-7%), and the big loser is . . . [drum roll] . . . Transportation (-20%).

[Any lingering questions why the House thinks transportation should be funded with cash instead of additional debt?]

QUESTION 2: Which committee was the biggest gainer?

(Same Choices as above)

ANSWER: Health and Human Services (+20%) -- most of this is medicaid.

Thanks for playing. If you got both questions correct, hit the "Claim Your Prize!" button to the side of this entry.

UPDATE: Oops. Did I forget to put a "Claim Your Prize" button to the side?

Budget Skirmish

A House/Governor budget skirmish grabs the headline in both the Tribune and the D-News. Both articles accurately capture the essence of the issue -- whether Utah should pay for transportation needs with cash or credit. The House position is that Utah piled on lots of debt in the recent downturn and, now, with a surplus, it should not pile on more debt. Governor Huntsman seems to prefer credit, so that other projects can be better funded. Perhaps he figures spending in those other areas will spur economic activity sufficient to warrant the added indebtedness.

Matt Canham of the Trib reports:

Huntsman has no intention of getting pushed aside by the legislative branch. He plans to "fight for the success" of his other budget priorities and calls for a more drawn out and creative method of paying for new roads. House Majority Whip Stephen Urquhart said that only leaves three options: ignore the state's transportation needs, borrow money or raise taxes.

If we can't muster the discipline to avoid the State's credit card in good times like these, I question our fiscal discipline. This would not bode well for the future. (See my "Budgeting Basics" entry of 1/27/05). Also, if we don't now dedicate an increased funding stream toward the billions of dollars we know we will face in future transportation costs, no one should claim surprise or exigency when we raise taxes in the next 4 years.

These are policy questions. This skirmish merely reflects two parts of government working on complex issues -- and the Senate hasn't even weighed in yet with its opinions. As the D-News states:

Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, who spoke with both Curtis and the governor Friday about the issue, said he didn't sense "any thaw in the communications channels" between the governor and lawmakers.

Every time I meet with Governor Huntsman, I am increasingly impressed with his skills and vision. In the end, he might convince me and my colleagues that his vision on this issue is best. I don't think so; but who knows? In any event, I'm confident that we'll figure it out. The legislature and Governor are serious about moving the State forward, and I'm optimistic that we'll do just that.

Jones-Mascaro II

House Bill 197 seeks to shift a greater tax burden to families with more than 2 children. A reader e-mailed me an amazing analysis that he asked me to stick in here anonymously. It reads:

Fairness. Equity. One's "burden to society." These seem to be the driving points behind Jones-Mascaro. And, from a dollars and cents perspective, with focus on this one issue – education funding – they may be good points.

The problem with the proposal, however, is that a well-run society is not fair, nor is it equitable. In a strong, stable, and viable (in the long term) society, unfair burdens are placed on its members and these burdens cannot be viewed in the context of one issue.

The rich help the poor. The strong help the weak. The young help the aged (and vice versa). The knowledgeable help the ignorant. We recognize these concepts in a number of ways in the United States. Some of these concepts are codified in law. They are, perhaps, some reasons why the United States is the longest-lasting republic in the world's history. Most of us have been on the giving end as well as the taking end.

Representative Mascaro states, "Asking our neighbors with fewer or no children to pick up our education costs through State Income Tax is not the principal my heritage taught me. It is a family value to teach responsibility, accountability and self-reliance. It is contrary to me to ask someone else to pay for my children's educational experience." (source: http://www.utahpolicy.com/pages/2004/10/is-this-finally-year-for-real.htm)

It sounds good. It even sounds noble. Assuming that Mr. Mascaro and his children all went or will go to private schools (K-12 and beyond), it is also possibly true. It is probable, however, that Mr. Mascaro's heritage also taught him about helping others, providing when he had surplus, and perhaps taking when he did not. This is a common teaching in most cultures, secular and religious, past and present, in many, perhaps most, areas of the world. Mr. Mascaro probably did not escape this teaching.

A public school system is founded on the premise that everyone cannot pay their education bill. If everyone could, and did, pay for their education, the education system would be called private education. In the United States, the public has, for many years, made it a priority to fund a public education system. It has not based funding requirements on the number of children one has in the public education system. This, in fact, would be an American heritage of at least the 20th century. A century that history calls " The American Century."

Do the math on Jones-Mascaro. Get out your tax form from last year:

Remove the 50% credit for federal taxes.
Take the 75% deduction for yourself, your spouse, and your first dependent (same as before) .
Take half a deduction for your third dependent.
Remove deductions for all other dependents.
Calculate your taxable income with the changes above.
Base your tax on $689 + 7% of your income above $16,400 (if your household makes more than 16K/year).

That will give you a decent idea of what Jones-Mascaro means to you personally. It means something to almost everyone. Almost all taxpayers, not just the families with children, will pay more taxes. Figure out if you agree with what it is doing to you, and write to your representative.

Aspects of Jones-Mascaro are worth considering. We need to look at the tax structure. Currently, almost every tax-paying adult is taxed at the same rate – which actually creates a regressive tax for lower-income earners. However, we also need to ask if it really is appropriate (in the ninth-highest taxed state in the nation and a state known, and often lauded, for its families and its educated population) to target additional taxes for families with more than two children? Is it appropriate for a state with a surplus this year to consider this legislation without further and better refining?

I believe we need to be cautious when we talk about equity in society. These larger families (and "more than two kids" according to Jones-Mascaro is where the tax breaks stop coming) may, in the long run, bear more of a burden than we immediately realize. Were it up to the childless to provide engineers, scientists, and business and political leaders to create solutions to society's future problems, we would someday find ourselves wanting. Were it up to the aged to defend our shores, right now, right away, we may find our freedoms vulnerable. We need one another, even if we have to shoulder a burden every now and then.

Children from these large families may one day provide solutions to problems far more significant than needing to pinch pennies in public education. If we need to allow these families to take a fair deduction for the burden they bear while putting those children through school, so be it.

Wow! Homerun to left field.

Budgeting Basics

This year, the State will receive $200 million more than it expected. Next year, the State is anticipated to receive $300 million more than is budgeted this year. Some questions and answers regarding the surplus are:

Why not pay down the debt we have racked up recently? This is my preferred place to start the budgeting process. Utah weathered the recent recession better than most other states, because it had been using cash, not credit, to pay for much of its infrastructure (building and roads). When revenue went south, the State made some cuts and, then, pulled cash out of those projects and replaced it with bonds. Other states that already had tapped their credit had fewer options. Economic cycles are not dead. Now is when we prepare ourselves for the next downturn. The best way to do that is to pay down credit and to resist building programs.

Why not put the money into the rainy-day fund? We should put some money into the rainy-day fund. Credit-rating agencies like to see it there. However, it is questionable whether government should take its citizens’ money to build its own reserves above certain levels. Also, it is a misperception that the rainy-day fund “saved” us in the recent downturn. (See the explanation immediately above; cash spending for roads and buildings saved us.) It is prudent to have rainy-day money, but that money can only be used once, and then it’s gone. On-going money allocated (and put to work) for infrastructure – instead of on-going programs – is there every year, in case a recession lingers.

Why not refund the money to taxpayers? Quite simply – there aren’t the votes in the House, Senate, and Governor’s office to do it. Therefore, the feasible way to “refund” tax money is to not take it in the first place. By adhering to sound fiscal policies (especially in good years, like this one), we will be able to drop our tax burden from the current high level, which is hurting economic development. If you’re in favor of not increasing the tax burden, root for us to pick option one above.

Why not use the money to satisfy pressing needs? My first session up here, we put a chunk of money in the rainy-day fund (shortly before the bottom dropped out of the economy, by the way). One representative (who now wants to raise taxes) asked how we could do such a thing when so much need existed. It hit me like a ton of bricks. “Need” will always be there, probably at levels many times more than the entire budget. Our people are seriously over-taxed, and they do not want government to take more of their money. They expect us to make the hard decisions, pick the highest priorities and take steps to build the economy.

Why not put the money toward education? Most of the money will go to education. It would be nearly impossible to argue education is not our highest priority. It receives half our state budget and half the local property tax -- and all other areas of state government take a distant second. I think education needs some reform. But I also think it does need more money. The key, though, is to expand the State’s economy, not to take more money from our people (which tends to shrink the economy and, as a result, shrink the amount of tax revenues and, thus, decrease the amount of money ultimately available to education).

The legislature will end up striking a balance between these options and many others. Stay tuned, and give us your input.

Give and Take

Legislative process is the best problem-solving mechanism I have ever experienced. The design of our government is to push difficult issues to the legislature -- so that a forum exists for them to be deliberated peacefully rather than be resolved violently. I reminded my colleagues of that fact today, when a motion was made to punt the bank/credit union resolution back to the Rules Committee.

The comment had been made that we were receiving lots of e-mails on the issue; it must be controversial; therefore, we should stop deliberating the issue. I pointed out that controversy is why the legislature exists. I expressed my hope that we would not develop a theme this session that the House would run for the fire exits anytime we received a barrage of e-mails. Without expressing an opinion on my preference, I asked my colleagues to act -- to kill the resolution or to pass it -- so that we might move on to the meatier issues facing the State.

After being amended, HJR 1 (Joint Resolution Related to Financial Institutions) did end up passing the House.

To me, the volume of the rhetoric on this issue has far exceeded its importance. The question is simply how to ensure a level playing field on competitors in the financial arena, so that the overall economy of the State can flourish -- nothing more, nothing less. As the sponsor, Jeff Alexander pointed out, we spent tons of time dealing with maneuvers to avoid debate on the issue and very little time actually debating the merits of the resolution.

That one side or the other would promise sure political death over a vote on this one issue doesn't cause me to lose any sleep. It just disgusts me that special interests could believe (maybe rightly) that they have such power over the political process.

One reader put it nicely in an e-mail yesterday:

You keep promoting the idea of everyone getting involved in issues, like in your reference to Phil Windley's page. It may backfire. I figure that if more people could figure out what was going on, in terms they could understand, it's going to ruin the 'ol boys club. It could get ugly. Could be problematic. Might result in the people ruling. Not sure that was what was intended in the Constitution.

In any event, here is the vote count. Use it as a litmus -- as the special interests would have you -- or as one vote out of several hundred. It's your democracy.

A meaningful contrast in the level of respect for governance is presented by another issue the legislature faces. In the automotive industry, dealers and manufacturers have natural tensions. Those tensions often are brought to the legislature -- so that the balance between the two camps can be adjusted to fit current market conditions and practices. In those legislative battles, the stakes are high (much higher than those in a resolution merely asking Congress to take a look at an issue (e.g., HJR 1)).

The automotive issue is important to Utahns; lots of us rely on our cars, and, depending on the year, auto sales are the top generator of sales tax in the State. To deal with the balance of power between dealers and manufacturers, I am running HB 47 (New Automobile Franchise Act Amendments.

Both sides in the automotive battle could afford advertising campaigns. Both sides could generate incredible e-mail campaigns. Both sides could hire dozens of lobbyists. But, in this battle, neither side did. Instead, they took a novel approach. They sat down and engaged in the legislative process. After months of discussions and two intense days of negotiations, the sides figured out a solution to the issue. I thanked them, drafted an amendment, and unanimously passed the bill out of the Business and Labor Committee this afternoon.

The economy is vibrant. Change is necessary for survival. In regulated environments, laws will need to be changed to keep up with changing business practices. I hope Utahns will never buy the argument that the legislature (and, by extension, the public it represents) should be precluded from re-examining issues in light of changing business practices. Because you know which side of an issue will be arguing that such examination is inappropriate -- the side currently benefiting from the outdated law.

Local Education Control

My H.B. 43 (School Land Trust Program Funding Amendments) passed out of the House today with only 3 "no" votes. As my January 18th entry details, the bill increases the amount of money that will go directly to local schools for parents and teachers to determine how to spend it. The bill presents the simple question: who can better determine how discretionary money should be spent at an individual school --(1) 104 legislators from all over the State or (2) parents and teachers at each individual school? The answer seems obvious to me.

A few speeches in the House provide prologue to the Senate deliberations, where I think the bill will have a tougher go. I'm very pleased that Tom Hatch has agreed to be the Senate sponsor. There, I believe Sen. Hatch will face a serious effort to restrict the amount of money that can flow to community councils -- perhaps lifting the current restrictions from 22-million to 30- or 40-million dollars.

I think such incrementalism would be short-sighted. Either we believe in local control or we don't. Either we believe in community councils or we don't. Either we believe in parental involvement in our schools or we don't. If we do believe in these things, we should have no problem ensuring that more money be made available for local control, community councils and parental involvement.

To me, Utah citizens and parents seem to want the cap removed. They seem to want local community councils to be funded and empowered. I would prefer to run the bill in exactly that form and let it pass or fail on those terms, rather than bump up the cap and send the message that at some point we will have had enough local control and parental involvement.

Though the bill is in the Senate, the issue is in the hands of Utah parents, teachers, and citizens. Like the House, the Senate is a representative body. If it clearly determines that Utahns want the cap removed, it will remove it. If it determines that Utahns don't care that much, the cap might be bumped up a little or it might simply be left in place. We'll now see whether Utahns do care.

Computer Spyware

Last year, I passed legislation on computer spyware (e.g., programs surreptitiously loaded onto a user's computer to do something the user doesn't want). I'll introduce another bill on spyware shortly and will post a copy of it on this site as soon as it is available.

One great thing about being in the legislature is the people I get to know. Last year, I was helped on the legislation by Ben Edelman, a law school/economics PhD student at Harvard. Though Ben has many tremendous accomplishments, including doing the foundational research for state and federal legislation, the coolest thing to me is that he was the National Football League's expert witness in a copyright case when he was 18 years-old. Recently, I had the opportunity to work with Ben on a pro bono project that all Harvard Law School students must perform to graduate. Ben's project involved analyzing disclosure statements (or lack thereof) of a big spyware company (Gator) and, also, documentation of apparent violations of the recently passed California anti-spyware legislation.

It has been a pleasure to work with Ben and many others who appreciate the problems presented by spyware (such as, 1-800Contacts and Overstock.com). Spyware is a menace to the Internet, to commerce, and to individuals. I'm pleased that many leaders in the computing industry (such as, Time Warner/AOL and eBay) have recognized the problem and, this year, are stepping forward to address it.

Town Meeting

I had a town meeting tonight. The discussion was good, but attendance was typical -- sparse. I also have a stack of pre-session questionnaires on my desk that were completed and returned (semi-decent response rate).

While I'm glad I did the town meeting and the questionnaires, the attendance and the response rate confirm that this blog is worth it. Each day I get more visits on this site than the combined attendance/response rate on those other outreach efforts, and the visitation rate is increasing rapidly.

Importantly, this site has proven very valuable in keeping constituents informed. For example, like I wrote in my January 20th entry on Banks/Credit Unions, the dialogue on this issue is mostly overblown. Like all my legislative colleagues, I received many form e-mails from constituents along the lines of "Don't tax my credit union!" or "Don't shut down my credit union!"

I thanked them for their input and referred them to my earlier blog entry, asking them to review my reasoning and to point out anything I missed. Most responded with an "Oh, I had been told this was a tax on credit unions." Though others didn't change their mind and though I didn't change my position, the site still served as a great basis for a substantive dialogue.

Speaking of democracy breaking out all over, Phil Windley invites the public to follow the legislative calendar and, if they attend a meeting, to send a report for him to post.

Flood Relief

House and Senate Republican leadership will tour the flood damage this weekend. This is a busy time of year, and I greatly appreciate them giving up their weekend to do this. But, it is hard to appreciate the magnitude of the damage without actually seeing it.

An article in the D-News talks about possible state assistance. Some of the elements of a relief package might include property tax abatement, extension of the State's credit line to the local governments, and creation of a disaster relief fund.

UPDATE (1/22/05): Every time I see the sites, I still can't believe what I'm seeing. The local city, county and water conservancy leaders have formed a tight coalition to deal with this as smoothly as possible. The individual citizens with losses also are holding together quite well. I'm proud of my community.

To give you an example of the scope of the damage, the City of Santa Clara has 10 million dollars in infrastructure damage. The City's entire annual budget is 2 million dollars. As one county commissioner stated, the local governments presently are spending money they don't have to put the infrastructure back in place.

UPDATE (1/23/05): Nancy Perkins wrote a good article on the situation. Rachel Olsen documents the work ahead.

Blast From the Past

Today I received a briefing on a lawsuit against the State from assistant AG Jerry Jensen. My wife (fiance' at the time) was Jerry's intern 15-years ago when Jerry was in the House. She loved that experience and holds the memories dear. Jerry said she was the best intern he ever had (no surprise there; she's the best wife I ever had), and he said, "But I seem to remember her saying she wanted to be in the legislature some day."

Hmm. Better have that "special seasoning" she sprinkles on my food tested.

Anthony McMullin is my intern this year. He's my first one from St. George, and I'm very excited to be working with him. He's a great young man. Anthony got an associates from Dixie State College and now is going to Southern Utah University. [I have spent 5 minutes trying to make a funny about marrying him off, but the Clinton years have cast a long shadow on the gamut of intern/dating jokes].

My interns have been fantastic, and I've been fortunate to keep in touch with a few of them. Last year's intern -- the legendary Josh Wilcox (which I don't say just because he reads this blog) -- is working in D.C. and is applying to law school; I had such high hopes for him.

Banks/Credit Unions

I’m often asked, “Are you for banks or credit unions?” Like most Utahns, I answer that question with a “yes.” It isn’t an either/or proposition. I have accounts at both types of financial institutions and I value both. Also like most Utahns, I tire of the bank/credit union bloodbaths. The rhetoric on these issues often is overblown and incorrect.

Legislative bodies, though, were designed to deal with tough, frustrating issues. So, into those choppy waters, I take this blog.

I will vote for HJR 1 (Financial Institutions Task Force Resolution) and will explain why. In doing so, I’m sure to tick off both warring camps, but hopefully my reasoning will make sense to others.

Credit Unions are vibrant institutions. No one would argue they are static. Some of the changes, such as the types of services provided and the field of membership (meaning, who can join the credit union), take credit unions into new economic arenas. I personally think many of these changes represent natural progression and are good. However, the financial arena is highly regulated. That being the case, the regulatory environment must treat all institutions equally. Therefore, it is necessary to determine how best to address the expanded arenas of credit union service.

The Utah legislature examined the expanding role of credit unions in 2003. Part of that examination was referred to a 2-year task force for further study. Specifically, the task force was to determine whether state credit unions should pay income tax. Much changed during those two years, including (1) several large credit unions moved from a state charter to a federal charter and (2) a federal court determined that the field of membership of one Utah federally-chartered credit union was too expansive. These developments place the issue in the hands of Congress.

HJR 1 encourages Congress to bring the issue to resolution – so that the institutions might be regulated in an even-handed manner and, hopefully, so that there might be some resolution to the issue. Also, to clear up an item of confusion, HJR 1 does not impose a tax on credit unions.

Education Funding

My HB 43 intends to push money directly to schools -- where parents and educators (a "community council") decide how to spend it. The bill passed committee unanimously and moves to the floor.

Community councils identify the most crucial needs of the school and, then, address some of those needs with this money and address the others with innovation, volunteerism and elbow-grease. This is one of the most exciting things we have going on in education today, and I'm excited to work on this issue.

Hate Crime Legislation

Today, we celebrate progress in civil rights. We have come a long way and still have further to go, in terms of making sure all Americans have equal rights. This year, the legislature again will address hate crime legislation. These are my favorite debates, because they go to the core concerns of America -- liberty and equality.

I, though, think hate crime legislation is a step backward. Crime is crime. By differentially focusing on crimes against certain groups, we perpetuate our divisions instead of our commonalities. We have caused the Nation great harm by applying uniform laws differentially based on race and other such characteristics. Hate crime legislation merely perpetuates that divisiveness and harm, no matter how pure and lofty its promoters' intentions might be -- and I don't doubt for a minute that they are pure and lofty.

However this legislation fares, it is wonderful to debate issues of equality and race openly and peacefully.

Pulling Together

Yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch and I flew over the Santa Clara River in a helicopter. The devastation is staggering (somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 million dollars in a county with an annual budget around 15 million). The task of rebuilding is daunting. My wife and I went with our daughter's kindergarten teacher to her house. The front of it looks perfect. But, beyond that, it has been completely sawed off and dropped into the river. She told us that, going through some boxes, she found her backdoor key and started sobbing. Her backdoor, of course, is probably somewhere in Nevada.

The one thing I would want people to understand is that this woman, and all the others around her, did not build in a floodplain. They were several hundred yards away from the river on land that was twenty to thirty feet above the river. The river, though, was flowing at 1,000 times its normal flow. That's not a typo -- 1,000 times. The snow pack was significant; the rain was significant -- and warm -- melting the snow pack to add to the volume of water; and the soil held almost none of the water, because it had been denuded by the huge fires of the past few summers (the product of the worst drought in recorded history). It was a perfect -- or very imperfect -- storm. With that kind of volume, the river went where it wanted.

Equal to the awesome display of nature, I wish people also could grasp the tremendous outpouring of efficient compassion. I wrote earlier about Bishop Clove. Saturday, he must have had over a thousand volunteers helping relocate the people and their possessions from the houses that had been condemned. I was moved by that, as much as by the might of the flood. We have so much to do. I have faith and confidence in the goodness of my community, but we will need help. And we are so very grateful for the help and kind thoughts that others have sent our way.

Here We Go

The people of Utah, through their elected representatives, join together for 45 days to pursue their common purposes. Some of your issues (and mine) will advance, others will not. But, at the end of the session, the overall will of the people will be accomplished. Likely, that will mean that conservative causes will prevail. Utah is a conservative state, and its laws reflect that outlook.

Legislators try hard and want your input. Some people and groups (usually the ones whose causes aren't prevailing) would have you believe otherwise. Before you buy that line, I'd like to invite you to take a close look at what we do this session. Talk with us, and attend some of the committee meetings and floor debates. Also, I hope this website will give you a closer look at how we operate.

While I'm at it, I'll give you a challenge. If you don't like what you see, figure out how to change it, and let us know. After all, it is your government.

Utah and Information Technology

David Fletcher discusses Gov. Huntsman's desire to better integrate IT within the State. This is something that Rep. David Clark has been digging into for some time now. I do think something positive could happen this year with the State's IT. I encourage anyone with an opinion on the matter to contact Rep. Clark at dclark@utah.gov.

The Mouth That Roared

I pride myself in making a point quickly and clearly. Yesterday's Standard-Examiner editorial on the misplaced arrogance of the Salt Lake City mayor shows me that I'm a rank amateur:

The Mouth That Roared gave his State of the City address Tuesday evening, in which he paused from listing his own accomplishments only long enough to lecture elected leaders, appointed officials and commuters from Davis and Weber counties about how they are killing their neighbors to the south with automobile exhaust.

I don't know that I agree, however, that Rocky is a complete bust as a mayor. Yes, he's killing his own city. But, he's performing miracles for the growth of mine. Business owners and productive citizens -- come on down to Dixie!

FEMA

I have met with the Governor, Senator Hatch, FEMA, and House Republican leadership to discuss flood recovery efforts. In coordination with the State and local governments, FEMA currently is doing a Preliminary Damage Assessment to detail the problems caused by the flood. This should be done by Saturday. Gov. Huntsman will need to certify the findings. Then, the findings go to President Bush.

If President Bush determines that we qualify for FEMA assistance, 75% of the infrastructure costs (roads, sewers, municipal power lines) will be covered. Additionally, if he determines we meet certain thresholds of uninsured losses, President Bush can include money to help with costs of temporary housing, minimal repairs, sba loans for impacted businesses, and low-interest loans for homeowners.

This entry is not intended to be an authoritative explanation of what can and can't happen under the federal system. Dean Cox with the County emergency response department (634-5734) is the authoritative source. I have talked with several constituents who simply want some information.

Some things people suffering losses might want to consider are (1) talk with your insurer to determine what is covered and (2) hang on to any receipts for any costs you incur related to cleaning up and obtaining temporary shelter. If President Bush signs the declaration, a phone number will be set up for people to register for assistance.

Please call me, if I can be of assistance. My cell phone is 435/668-7759.

Drying Out

The sun is shining, and crews are out working to clean up the mess and get people back on their feet. There are heavy hearts, but -- because this is the ever-optimistic Washington County -- there also is solid determination to push forward, learn from this event, and keep improving.

Speaking of looking toward the future, I presented this morning at the Washington County Economic Summit on development projects in my district. In sum, we are growing fast and making an ever-greater shift toward quality developments. I talked about two government projects -- realigning the I-15 interchange at Bluff Street (milepost 6) to have it make a little more sense (UDOT and a private developer also are involved in this project) and the Northern Corridor, which will provide a belt loop north of St. George to avoid our "inner-city congestion." Wouldn't that have made old-timers scratch their heads to have talked about inner-city congestions just a short while ago. We continue to grow at 7% each year -- with no end in site. That means we double population every 10 years. That's tough to plan for and accommodate.

The private projects I talked about are (1) The Ledges (a 2,700 unit project north of town by Snow Canyon and Winchester Hills, with a Dye-designed championship golf course), (2) Sunset Plaza (the corner of Bluff and Sunset -- across from my house, where for some reason my wife signed me up for a fatness, er, fitness center), (3) The Tonaquint Center (120,000 sq. ft. of office space in Green Valley with a reduntant fiber optic system provided by Interlinx), (4) the beautiful Jennings-Gardner building on the corner of Tabernacle and Main, and (5) Blackridge Terrace (a 50,000 sq. ft. office building that will overlook the Bluff/I-15 interchange and my office). The good news is growth. The bad news is growth.

I'm flying to Salt Lake in a few minutes with Gov. Huntsman. I look forward to having a moment of calm with him and Rep. David Clark to talk about how the State can best meet the flood-related needs of our community. I could not be prouder of how my community is handling this challenge. The stories of people helping people are very tender.

Washington County Flooding II

I just toured some of the devastation along the Santa Clara River with St. George Mayor Dan McArthur, Chief of Police Marlon Stratton, and the City Council. It is stunning. While the Virgin River again was high, it was manageable (because the Bloomington area worked very hard last night sandbagging and shoring up low areas). The Santa Clara, though, which typically is a dinky little creek, was booming -- raging like the Virgin River at floodstage.

I stood in one street looking out at a raging river where 4 houses had stood just this morning. No sign of them was left. No foundation, no yard, not a stick. Just river. The Mormon Bishop of the area, Lonnie Clove, told me that this morning he sat on the back porch of one of the houses looking out at the river beyond a long expanse of lawn. He and the owner talked about evacuating but thought they were only talking about it out of a super abundance of caution. That house went into the river this afternoon, then another, another, another. I watched two others succumb just now as the river kept cutting toward the neighborhood. At last count, Bishop Clove had lost 10 houses in his ward boundaries and was busy coordinating evacuation efforts for several others.

The thing that I think is not coming through on the television reports is how the houses are being lost. For the most part, it's not that the houses were built on low areas that are filling up. Rather, it is that the river is shifting course significantly, moving hundreds of feet in some areas. Sandbags, boulders, concrete abutments, nothing can stop it from moving. Fifty-foot tall trees are floating down the Santa Clara like little sticks.

The rivers are dropping, but the clean-up and repair work will be significant. St. George City alone estimates infrastructure damage over $20,000,000.

After taking a tour of the area, Gov. Huntsman declared a state of emergency for Washington County. If FEMA agrees it is an emergency, 75% of the recovery costs -- for just the damage to government-owned infrastructure -- will be reimbursed. Tomorrow I'll meet with Governor Huntsman to further coordinate the State's future efforts in helping the victims and local governments recover. At this point, no one could accurately complain that Gov. Huntsman has been anything other than marvelous to us -- bringing down key personnel, like Commissioner Flowers, Emergency Services Director Nannette Rolfe and the National Guard.

Gay Marriage Lite

Here is an article on gay marriage I had published today in The Spectrum. [Thank you, Spectrum, for generously allowing elected officials to communicate with constituents through your paper]. Though Constitutional Amendment 3 passed this November, specifying that gay marriage and analogous types of relationships will not receive state sanction, there is a push -- as a compromise -- to provide "reciprocal benefits" to same-sex couples. I oppose this for 2 reasons. First, the majority just stated it does not want to grant legal sanction to same-sex relationships. Second, I don't see currently unprotected fundamental rights at issue that would warrant overriding the will of the majority. As I detail in the article, the rights being discussed are already available through various legal means, such as contracts, wills, and powers-of-attorney. This will be an interesting debate for years to come. My hope is that the Courts don't disenfranchise the people by removing the issue from public discourse and legislative process, through judicial fiat. Give us time, and the people will figure out where we should be.

Head Tax

The Tribune shares part of its agenda, including an endorsement of the head tax bill proposed again by Reps. Jones and Mascaro. A constituent responds,

No credits for more than two kids? No allowances for federal taxes on the state form? Who in the %*!! would vote for this? Who in the %*!! would elect anyone associated with this? Is this the "Get out of my yard you rotten kids" or "I'm moving to an over-65 community" bill? Help us understand. How about a tax on people who hate kids and Mormons? Sorry. I feel much better now. If I read this one right, though, I'm pretty ticked, and especially thrilled to see that one of the sponsors is a Republican. (I would expect better from the GOP on something like this).

I agree that a head tax is the wrong way to go. But I'd point out, representatives are free to propose just about any bill they want. People often rankle that something is being considered by the legislature. Consideration does not mean passage. This idea has never gone anywhere outside the media, and I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

Wilderness

The Deseret News ran an AP article on a wilderness case being argued before the 10th Circuit. Before I entered the legislature and completely revamped my practice (to avoid receiving legislatively appropriated money), I represented the Utah counties involved in this case. A few observations.

The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. Moses wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, and God decided that was long enough. The United States has now been wandering in the wilderness for more than 40 years; Congress should grant a similar reprieve.

If anyone truly wants to resolve the wilderness issue, ask your congressman or senators to get cracking. The agency study was completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1991. It's now time for Congress to act.

The case before the 10th Circuit is simply whether Congress meant 15 years when it said BLM had 15 years to conduct its study and present that study to Congress or whether Congress meant BLM could study the issue forever when Congress specified the 15-year period.

The wilderness inventory at issue was not an attempt to resolve the dispute. It was a hurried study (mostly consisting of sitting in a room drawing lines on maps) aimed at manufacturing wilderness. The goal was to quickly manufacture wilderness by ignoring or cherry-stemming out existing roads -- so that roadless areas large enough to meet the Act's requirement (5,000) acres could be found. All the other lofty considerations for wilderness, such as aesthetics and pristineness were largely ignored, as were the pragmatic considerations, such as manageability. It was a certain number of acres that mattered, like points on antlers, inches on a trout or any other trophy to be conquered and bagged.

There is an illusion that wilderness is disappearing. If environmental groups are to be believed, wilderness is spreading faster that kudzu. The Clinton administration's purpose in conducting the 1996 re-inventory (if we assume it was more than election-year pandering) was to prove that 5 million acres of wilderness existing on BLM lands in Utah, not the 1- to 3 million acres then on the table. Well, now, just 9 years later, the same environmental groups are arguing that 9 million acres of wilderness exist on BLM lands in Utah.

Remember, there are 20 million acres of BLM lands in Utah. Therefore, environmental activists argue that every other acre qualifies as wilderness. Obviously, this means that wilderness is no longer a superlative. It no longer typifies anything extraordinary. Rather, if every other acre is wilderness, wilderness simply means "middling" or "a little better than average." I'm not sure this is what Congress had in mind in 1964 when it unanimously passed the Wilderness Act.

UPDATE (01/14/04): According to the Rocky Mountain News, it looks like the 10th Circuit might have this one by the tail. The RMN's hyperbole, though, is (1) flat wrong (BLM said it was just doing a little old inventory, which wouldn't change management) and (2) sort of cute, in an alarmist, biased kind of way:

The agreement removed protections that kept the land off-limits to oil and gas development, as well as logging, mining and some recreational uses.

Right now, I'm sure the sound of chirping birds has been muted by the deafening roar of D9 Cats, chainsaws, and dynamite -- despite the fact that enviros and Bruce Babbitt's BLM thought the areas exquisitely pristine even though the areas lacked wilderness protection for thousands or billions of years, depending on which theory you subscribe to.

Washington County Flooding

We're flooding. The Virgin River is raging like old-timers have never seen. While 6,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) is flood stage (above Hurricane), the Virgin is flowing at 9- to 10,000 cfs. For some individuals and families, this will be tragic; there is one confirmed death and many houses have flooded; collectively, though, it looks like we'll be okay. As local TV coverage was interspersed with world coverage of the tsunami, it helped maintain perspective.

I went to emergency response headquarters at the County and, then, St. George City. Public Safety Commissioner Bob Flowers is here, and the Governor is coming down tomorrow. We talked with the Governor on the phone. He is concerned and supportive -- which is about all we can ask at this point. Dean Cox, with the County, is in charge, and doing a fine job. The efforts appear to be well-coordinated and focused. It was amazing to be in the response centers and hear all the false, panicked leads that were coming in. I won't repeat them, since they were false anyway; but, there were some whoppers. A big part of handling a situation like this, I observed, is quelling all the rumors floating around.

There's been a fair amount of property damage. Water lines and roads are out in several areas. In Gunlock, power is out, a bridge is out, and potable water is in short supply.

The State's meteorologist reports that tomorrow should bring more of the same (but not quite as much). After tomorrow midnight, we should start drying out. And "No," he reports; we can't proclaim the end of the drought. It will take years of normal or above-normal rainfall to replenish the big reservoirs and aquifers.

UPDATE (1/11/05): Here's a Spectrum article on the flooding. It's early Tuesday morning, and it's raining lightly.

Feedback

Before every session I send a questionnaire to my constituents. Someone commented,

Steve, why don't you put your legislative questionnaire on your web site. It's a lot easier to fill one out and zap it to you than to send it by snail mail.

My thinking is that I'll send the questionnaire by mail, as I've always done, so that my non-wired constituents won't be shut out. Plus, I couldn't figure out an effective way to limit responses to just my constituents. I figure I'll post the responses on this site (without attribution, of course), and, then, I'll open up the survey to anyone who wants to take it online.

By the way, I have two town meetings planned (Jan. 22 and Feb. 5, both at 6:00 p.m. at the Washington County Commission Chambers) and a community barbecue (my house on Feb. 19th).

A New Day

Gov. Huntsman is hitting the right notes. His skills are amazing. Utah has a long and unbroken string of good governors. I do not doubt that Gov. Huntsman will add another link to that chain. In fact, I am quite optimistic he will lead the State to new heights. There is an excitement on Capitol Hill that a new day is beginning to dawn.

Gov. Huntsman's cabinet decisions are solid. Along with keeping good ones, like Diane Nielson (environmental quality), John Njord (transportation), and Bob Flowers (public safety), I'm particularly pleased that Sen. Leonard Blackham (agriculture) and Rep. Mike Styler (natural resources) have joined the cabinet. Leonard and Mike bring much legislative experience and know-how, having been at the very core of legislative activities; last session, Leonard was over Senate appropriations and Mike was the House's assistant whip. Bob Bernick writes a good article on the transition and notes, "New ideas are needed. But a lot of veteran legislators and state managers alike have experience. And that's worth something, too."

It's very hard work bringing together the two houses of the legislature and, then, coordinating it all with the executive. We all have our opinions and responsibilities. Leonard and Mike speak our language. Until the Gov and his new staff learn it and until we learn his new language, Leonard and Mike can translate. We need to pull together, and the people need to pull for us. Utah has unique strengths (e.g., volunteerism, strong families, solid communities, and unmatched natural beauties and opportunities). If we can figure out ways to tap these strengths, we will vault this State forward.

UPDATE (1/9/05): Here's a Tribune article on the first week. I agree w/ Speaker Curtis; Gov. Huntsman is doing a good job of reaching out to the legislature. After I penned the entry above, I received a call that Gov. Huntsman wants to meet w/ me for a while this week. Any thoughts you'd like me to pass along?

Look! No Hands II!

Just when you thought direct political discourse between the governed and the governors was in decline, the blogosphere comes along to make government more accessible than ever. Back to my friend I blogged about on January 5th. Here's the latest.

That's the first I've ever heard about limiting the credit based on financial circumstances. With that change, I'm really warming to the idea. Not because its political reality. Because it is correct.

We recognize, in many ways, that in order to promote the common good, those more fortunate need to help those less fortunate. In other words, those more fortunate bear some inequitable burden in helping those less fortunate. I believe it is well versed in the political and spiritual doctrines and philosophies that guide almost all people. Not only does it promote the common good, it stems certain destructive forces in society. We recognize it in our tax code. We even recognize it in (gasp) affirmative action. 200 billion dollars pledged to victims of the tsunami show that it is recognized around the world, and probably nowhere more than here in the U.S. Now, how much assistance is required and how it is governed is the bigger question and therein is the rub on "unfairness."

I do agree that it is also the political way to extend the program. Start by showing that a) it works and b) it benefits all. Similar to selling a product. The widget works and it provides benefit. In this case though, the benefit can't be to a niche market.

He says more -- including that in the future he'll send short messages on hunting, which I think is a dig -- but I'm not giving him the space. He can start his own blog, if he wants to be a pundit. But I will finish with this thought he shares,

One of the problems is that you guys seem to, bottom line, have to vote "aye" or "nay" on any given issue when the rest of us want to waffle and vote "aye - but" or "nay - but." And, we end up voting out guys, firing coaches, and blasting other "bottom liners" (i.e., people with the guts to make a decision on the record) who are really thoughtful, talented people and see all that we see and more.

I don't see any more than the next guy. But with quality input like this, I'll see much more in the future than I otherwise would have.

UPDATE (1/9/05): Limiting the credit to those of limited means seems to be swaying more people than just my friend. In 2003, I ran SB 154 (Sen. Tom Hatch's omnibus education reform bill) in the House. After it came over from the Senate, Gov. Leavitt promised to veto it, if it had any kind of Tuition Tax Credit (TTC) in it. That effectively scotched TTC that year (because we'd need 50 votes in the House to override the veto), but we still tried to get a majority (38 votes) with TTC in the bill. We hovered around 33, until I started talking about limiting the credit to people of limited income. We pulled another 5 votes with that idea, but the inequality of it caused a few other votes to peel away. Though we likely could have cobbled together the 38 votes, we were not sure of the math, at that time, if the credit were to be so limited. As my friend noted in his 1/5/05 e-mail, a key to success is getting enough "switchers" from public to private schools. On the fly, during the 2003 session, we didn't know if we would get enough switchers by limiting the credit, and we wanted time to work the numbers. We pulled out that component and passed SB 154 (focusing Utah more on the core curriculum and imposing accountability standards). Now, we've done the math, and it's time to pass TTC.

Kind Words

LaVarr Webb had some nice things to say about this site.

The Utah blogosphere has taken a major leap forward with the first serious blogger who is an elected official. Rep. Steve Urquhart, a Republican from St. George and House majority whip, is publishing a Web log at www.steveu.com. Rep. Urquhart has actually been blogging for some time, but has kept it relatively quiet. He and I have been carrying on an e-mail conversation about blogging for a few weeks. He’s now ready to go public with his blog.

Urquhart’s blog has a nice tone and flow to it. He addresses a wide variety of issues and he’s a good writer. He is a pioneer of sorts, and deserves credit for doing this. I remember one politician telling me, when I suggested he become a blogger, “The less I put down in writing that I can be held accountable for, the better.” So Urquhart is taking a risk. But it’s a calculated risk and I think the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks.

One of his postings says: “I'll continue to have town meetings and mail out updates, but I'm excited that this space might contribute to a fuller public conversation. Feeling my oats a bit, I'm going to start getting the word out to constituents that this is up. I hope they'll jump in the dialogue and share their collective wisdom and insight.”

Urquhart’s blog is important, because for the first time ever, a real political insider, involved in daily meetings and discussions with top Utah leaders on public policy issues, will be, in effect, publishing a public daily diary of his activities and observations.

I don’t want to raise expectations too high or create too much pressure, because publishing a quality blog is a lot harder than it looks. But if Urquhart does it right, then journalists, lobbyists and interested citizens will have a window into the inner workings of the Legislature and the thought processes of someone in leadership.

It will be tricky, because Urquhart will need to keep his postings interesting, insightful and lively, yet he will have to be careful not to disclose sensitive information or strategy that could hurt the GOP caucus. A lot of his colleagues will joke that they had better shut up when they’re around him.

Having read many of Urquhart’s postings, I believe he can walk the tightrope and turn the blog into an asset for him, his legislative priorities and the House GOP caucus. After all, if his blog is popular, he will control a direct communications channel to an audience of political insiders and activists. He will be able to frame issues, put his spin on things, talk back to the news media, release important information, and even tell bad jokes.

The tough thing about blogging is that to develop and maintain a following, you pretty much have to post every day and somehow keep it relevant, insightful and interesting. That’s hard to do, but Urquhart will be in the thick of action on Capitol Hill and will have no shortage of things to write about.

I wish him luck on his leap into the blogosphere and encourage other political leaders to try blogging.

High praise from someone whose opinion and experience I value. Along with the "creating a record" issue I discussed previously, LaVarr touches on the other mine field -- the one I'm much more concerned about: what will my legislative colleagues think? If they think I'm snooping on them, it will destroy my effectiveness. Legislative effectiveness comes from having clear access to information, which is a product of trust and confidences.

LaVarr's early praise is encouraging in this venture. But make no mistake; he is the Utah pioneer of political blogging. I start my day with his Utah Policy Daily, to get political insights and links to political articles from Utah papers. But, LaVarr, did you have to say "bad jokes?"

UPDATE (1/10/05): LaVarr links to other Utah blogs: Phil Windley (who I also read regularly and am blushing that I didn't mention earlier), Paul Allen (a roving, eclectic blog by a very successful and knowledgeable guy), David Fletcher (wonderful!), Legacy Parkway Hotsheet (controlled road-rage), Charlie Foster (a freshly-minted lawyer), and the KSL blog.

Look! No Hands!

This site already has paid off! I've had a tough go with a friend over tuition tax credits. Probably because of shortcomings in my presentation, I was unable to pursuade him that the issue has two sides, that it is not an attempt to poke public education in the eye, and that it just might be a financial benefit to public education. He read my previous posts on the issue and sent me this,

I have found myself pondering the Dec. 23 blog entry about the TTC studies (the one by USU vs. the one by the Think Tank). As you mentioned, it is likely a complex issue, and as you know, I have not believed the math in support of it (even before the fellow from the Tribune wrote his article). In your blog, you mention the USU study as one tool in the toolbox, but it has seemed to me it is the only useful tool in the toolbox if considering a "Yes" on TTC. It seems that the math works if a) there are a lot of switchers, b) a good percentage of those switchers are cost-heavy students (i.e., lower income), and c) the marginal costs are correct (which rely quite a bit on a) and b)). And, I found it interesting that, traditionally, 80% of private schoolers attend religious institutions - indicating that at least a) isn't going to happen - which has an impact on c). Of course, I guess if nobody switched, a "Yes" makes no difference. But, I still believe that what will likely happen is that a "Yes" will favor the rich and those from both ends of the political spectrum that aren't much interested in the common good. At any rate, there are social issues as well, and I'm not sure what those social issues will be.

He still isn't convinced on the merits, and that's fine. He's convinced that the issue merits discussion, and he's even applied some algebra to it. Political process is the winner!

On the merits, I'd point out that everyone who has studied the issue acknowledges that the credit is less than the marginal cost. Marginal cost! Can you believe our conversation has progressed to where we actually are talking about that key term? And on the "benefits the rich" score, the credit should be limited to those who would struggle to afford private education. I know that such inequitable treatment is not fair to people of greater means, but I'm bluntly telling you where I see this idea becoming a political reality. First, prove that it's not the ruination of public education, that in fact it helps public education, and then it can be broadened.

By the way, my friend is much smarter than I am, and I don't pretend to believe I can outthink him or enlighten him. But I can share data with him and he can share his analysis with me.

Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You

A reader e-mailed me the following input on this site,

A negative about a blog is that it creates a record that can be used, good or bad, for the future. And, since it's a "daily," there isn't the time to let it sit for a week to see if a piece is just a "heat of the moment" thought or not. So, I would think you might want to be careful about personal attacks or lines intended to incite (for example, calling a guy Sparky or stuffing the head of the elk). Somehow, I see a difference between those lines (i.e., lines that are just "thrown in" to be funny or controversial) vs. other attacking-but-issue-oriented lines (e.g., the article about the Enlightened author who sat with the Dalai Lama). The "throw ins" are exciting but are a little more O'Reilly than Jefferson.

I agree. This site does create a record than any future political opponent can pick through to find choice nuggets. But I think fully-informed voters do just fine. Rather than blow a lot of smoke at them -- like you see in most campaigns -- I'm going to lay out my thinking in great detail and invite voters to inspect it and elect me if they like it or throw me to the curb if they don't.

The point on tone is important. I want to make the people I represent proud. But I am who I am -- jabs, tweaks and all. I don't mean any offense to anyone. I just like making a point quickly and clearly. Humor is a sharp tool for doing that. And I don't plan on fooling anyone; I'm neither O'Reilly nor Jefferson. I asked, and they're both unavailable; on this site, you get Urquhart.

State Employees

I received the following e-mail today regarding wages for state employees,

My name is *** and I am in your district for the legislature. I would like the legislat[ors] to take into consideration a considerable raise for the State Employees. It has been years since we have been taken into account. I realize that there are other departments that need, but the [*** agency] has been over looked for years as unimportant. The service that we provide is as important as any other, but we are always on the bottom. When you consider 1% it generally takes away instead of increasing. It has been a long time since we have been addressed for even a cost of living. The cost of a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk has increased triple folded, but our wages have not. In conjunction with the other states we don't even compare to their wages. Every year we are given more paper work, more responsibility, and then throughly forgotten at the end of the legislature session. Our benefits go up every year and we don't even get enough to make up for the increase taken out of our checks. It would be nice to be considered this year with more than a slap in the face.We see other divisions going at least somewhere and we are at the bottom of the totem pole. There is a very nice surplus this year and we would like to know that we are able to get part of that in the next year. I am not in a position to acquire this alone, but with your help there is a possibility that we will be able to see over the black cloud that is surrounding us. It does not make for good working conditions to know that you are doing a job, and not being able to get paid what you feel you are worth. And all of us are worth more than we are getting paid.

I took out the name and, because it is a small agency here in St. George, the department. The same point could be made, however, and is made, by other areas of state government. While the legislature has worked very hard in the recent downturn to keep education whole or a little up, this has meant we've given short shrift to other areas of state government. Government employees are due a salary increase. Taxpayers, however, do not need a heavier saddle.

My response was that the House intends to fund pay increases through efficiencies found in reorganizing state government. Gov. Huntsman has pledged to find 1% in efficiencies; that equals 80 million dollars -- which would fund a pay increase for state employees. Others simply want to first fund an increase out of the existing surplus. That's a poor idea. If we use the surplus money first, we won't find the efficiencies, and we'll end up raising taxes.

Case in Point

Last night I wrote that, to be tough, Gov. Huntsman will need to adhere to his campaign promises (conservative promises) in the face of a hostile media that will call him retrograde for doing so. Well, here we go. Today, the Tribune puts the ball in play by stating that conservatives are stupid and, then, praising Huntsman for sounding like he's not a conservative:

Perhaps Huntsman was answering critics who underestimate him, paint him as a lightweight or tweak him for his platinum pedigree. But really, when was the last time you heard a conservative call for big change? The root of the word - conserve - means to save, to preserve, to cling to established traditions, institutions and to resist any changes to them. So here is Huntsman, a Utah Republican who, if we can believe his inaugural comments, just may reach out to the folks standing outside the tent. He might actually remind us that moderation and Republicanism can coexist.

So what will be the predictable media reaction, if he does stick with the conservative traditions he campaigned on? Negative, of course. So, we'll see who wins in the battle -- media calling for significant change (enlightenment!) or the voters who chose conservative principles. Is it tough to go along with or against the media outlets?

And, by the way, to answer the question of the last time we heard a conservative call for big change, let's look at education. Public education is, far and away, the greatest expense and undertaking of state government. Which party called for charter schools, a greater focus on the core curriculum, accountability standards, tuition tax credits, alternative licensing standards for teachers and superintendents, negotiating outside the collective bargaining contract, and increased teacher-planning days (like is going on in the Washington County School District)?

R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S.

Other than calling for an increase in people's property tax and taking budget money from Medicaid and law enforcement, I'm not able to readily recall any change proposed by Democrats for public education. So, in our biggest and most important budget item, who is working to "save, to preserve, to cling to established traditions, institutions and to resist any changes to them?" Hint: it's that enlightened, progressive group.

. . . Go!

The Inauguration was very nice. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "America the Beautiful," backed by the 23rd Army Band. Both gave Sara and me goosebumps. Father Michael A. Kouremetis of the Greek Orthodox Holy Trinity Church and LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley gave beautiful and inspiring prayers. An 8th-grader from Murray, David Archuleta, sang the National Anthem -- a cappella. Wow! What a voice! And Gov. Huntsman gave a moving address -- humbly asking for support and vowing to take on the tough issues.

I can state without reservation, if Governor Huntsman truly takes on the tough issues -- and not the softballs, while spinning them to be tough -- the legislature will be his best friend. We see the tough issues -- education and transportation funding, medicaid, and health care, to name a few -- and we are eager to address them. That is the thoroughly enjoyable thing about being in the legislature; we square our shoulders and address the tough issues. I'm eager to have Governor Huntsman stand with the legislature and the conservative majority of this State, when the media is blasting us for being mean, backwards, myopic, bigoted, ignorant, etc., for not following the more liberal position of the editorial boards. At times, it seems like the governing standard has been the loudest voice wins, and that speaks to weakness.

The legislature has narrow majorities in both chambers that are willing to make the truly tough decisions (the kind that get things done but burn political capital). If we only need 38 votes in the House and 15 in the Senate, we can leap forward in terms of growing the economy through limited, efficient government. But, if those changes require 50 votes in the House and 20 votes in the Senate (to stay or override a veto), we can't muster that many votes. At that point, we will continue to go wherever the national economy takes us and to be a state somewhere in the middle of the pack.

I heard good things today. I'm anxious to see whether the Governor will agree with the House's position of first paying back money we previously borrowed and, then, funding education, transportation, and government-employee salary needs with existing revenues and money saved through efficiencies -- all without simply lifting more money from our citizens. That is toughness, and that is good for the State's economy.

On Your Mark, Get Set . . .

Sara and I are traveling north for Gov. Huntsman's inauguration. No doubt, it will be something. I am excited about the change and believe Gov. Huntsman will do a good job, but I agree with the wisdom of former Gov. Cal Rampton:

Whatever happens on inauguration day, former Gov. Cal Rampton says Huntsman would be wise not to worry about public relations and instead do what has to be done. "The good, successful governors we've had in this state have tried to make the job speak for itself," says the three-term Democrat.

We have a session starting in just 14 days, and the legislature is getting concerned that it still doesn't have a single specific recommendation from the incoming administration. Now, of course, they have had an enormous chore setting up the new administration, but surely they have some idea of something substantive they'd like to take on. While the legislature is quite excited to work with Gov. Huntsman, meaningful policy requires meaningful discussion. And that discussion should have been going on already -- between the branches and among the public. The legislature is eager to address all of the general areas he discusses. But, hopefully, we'll be getting some specifics soon, so that we can see how the executive's ideas match up with those of the Senate and those of the House.

Mindful of the poor relationship between the executive and legislative branches in recent years -- and how that doesn't help the State in any way -- the House will go far out of its way to accommodate our new governor. We need him to be successful.

Elf Killer

A few years ago I called home to tell my wife I had shot an elk and was coming home. Later, she overheard my daughter telling her cousin, "My daddy caught an elf, and he's bringing it home."

No, Dear. Daddy killed Bambi.

Today, a Spectrum reader editorializes:

It may be easy to kill a wild animal -- but how can anyone ever forget the defenseless creature whose life was ended when he pulled the trigger?

I disagree entirely with the premise. To me, it seems quite improbable that a deer or any other ungulate would be able to get a hoof through the guard to pull the trigger. But if one did off itself in the manner she describes, it indeed would be unforgettable.

Now, as for hunters forgetting the memory of a kill, that would be bad. Therefore, I suggest getting the head stuffed.