Triathlons

The City of St. George and the amazing Bob Peckham put on the City's inaugural kids triathlon today. It was very well run. My oldest 3 competed and had a ball. There were lots of kids there who had just watched their parents compete 2-weeks earlier in the SGTRI and, no doubt, were ready to show them up.

Kanab is putting on its inaugural beginner distance triathlon next weekend. The weather and the scenery (of course) should be perfect. The organizer, Jeff Gardner, told me this morning that he's nearing his cap of 100.

Every time my family thinks of the first SGTRI we put on, we just shudder. Traffic control, timing chips -- what's that? Seeing how we've come along with experience, the future looks very bright for St. George's kids triathlon and Jeff's Kanab triathlon.

The cities, county, state highway department and state parks (Gunlock the first 3 years and Sand Hollow the last 2) have been nothing but helpful in our triathlon (though, looking back on it, they were probably crazy to not tell us "no" the first year). Starting my law practice in California, I would deal with California agencies a lot and with Utah agencies occasionally. The difference was night and day. One state, after running people around for months, itched to tell them "no" -- no matter what the issue was. The other state wanted to help people figure out how to get things done. Like a lot of freedom-loving people, I decided I'd live in Utah someday.

One of the biggest kicks I get out of being a legislator is when a constituent asks me for help with a state agency. I call the department or division director and ask him/her to work it out with the constituent. And it almost always gets worked out quickly to both parties' satisfaction. Some of this has to do with the size of the state (and we need to make sure we don't lose this attitude as we grow), but a lot of it has to do with the relative size of government.

An editorial recently railed that the legislature shouldn't be concerned with limiting the size of government. I disagree. Though this might seem counter-intuitive, smaller governments deal better with the people; there is more accountability and better service when the buck stops quickly, instead of passing through layers of bureaucracy. Washington County, for example, has one of the lowest tax rates of all the counties, despite its tremendous growth. People familiar with the county might tell you it is "underfunded." No doubt, it has significant difficulties dealing with downturns in revenue or unexpected costs, and it has to make hard decisions to deal with those events. I shudder to imagine my next meeting with Commissioner Eardley, anytime the State passes on ("dumps" he might say) a cost to the counties. But show me a county close to Washington County's size where it's easier to get prompt access to a decision-maker or to get a problem addressed quickly. Fat bureaucracies make things easier for the government workers, not the citizens.

How are governments like triathletes? Lean is better.

Income Tax

I need a little input here (on- or off-line, as you prefer). On the tax reform task force, I am co-chair of the income tax subcommittee. That would include personal and corporate income tax. Remember: according to our state Constitution, all revenues from these taxes go to education. Major things we are considering include a flat personal income tax and elimination of the corporate income tax.

Though it masquerades as progressive, Utah basically has a one-rate personal income tax (because the top rate kicks in at $4,300 for an individual taxpayer and $8,600 for a couple and because the rate is not indexed for inflation). Should we abandon the pretext of progressiveness and opt for an intentionally flat tax (doing away with non-mandated deductions and credits)? Of course, your answer would depend on the specific rate imposed; but what about the concept itself?

Corporate income tax generates around $180 million/year for the State (the number fluctuates greatly, depending on business cycles). The base for this tax is decreasing and it is a very difficult tax to assess and collect (think, for example, of multistate businesses). Many, including Gov. Huntsman, regard this tax as a business-killer. They argue that eliminating the corporate income tax actually could spawn economic activity that would bring good jobs (and with those jobs, increased tax revenues elsewhere). An opposing argument, no doubt, would be that this money would be taken from education, at least until any responsive increase is realized, and should be made up elsewhere.

UPDATE (5/27/05): As the D-News reports, the income tax subcommittee recommended Utah adopt a flat income tax. The proposal is that we start with federal adjusted gross income, exempt out a certain amount for all taxpayers (about $20,000 for individuals, $40,000 for couples filing jointly), and impose a flat rate on everything above that amount. We asked staff to find the rate that would leave revenues neutral. As I was quoted in the article, I believe that we should have a tax cut and I believe our citizens and our economy would benefit the most if the cut came out of the personal income tax. That decision, though, is one for the whole body to make. My hope would be that each subcommittee returns revenue neutral proposals and, from there, that the whole task force committee makes recommendations on specific tax rates.

High Praise

LaVarr heaps well-deserved praise on the Gov's legislative point-man Mike Mower. He says,

Have a question you need answered? Just call Mike Mower in the governor's office. He has all the answers. I was listening to “Let Me Speak to the Governor” on KSL Radio Tuesday evening and every time Gov. Huntsman got a question that was too esoteric to immediately answer, he referred the caller to Mike Mower. Mike knows. He can tell you why stars twinkle, the number of grains of sand on the seashore, and what birds say when they chirp. He can tell you why Democrats are clueless, and he even fathoms the minds of legislators. Plus, I'm going to call him when I need help with my daughter's algebra problems. Besides all that, Mower, the governor's director of legislative and constituent affairs, is one of the really nice guys in politics and he even, thankfully, has a sense of humor.

Mike is bright, competent and a real pleasure to work with. I was pleased to see him get this nod.

Taxing Times

I am on the tax policy task force. Here are links to 2 divergent viewpoints on taxes and tax policy. As best as I can understand it, the Tribune argues the task force errs by concerning itself with the size and scope of state government; rather, the Trib argues we should focus on fairness and meeting outstanding needs, like education and transportation. (I don't mean to be unfair in this characterization; please correct me, if you read the editorial differently.) On the other hand, Gazelem states, "Part of the conservative mindset should be to limit government and to increase personal responsibility. Both of these can be done by reducing the tax burden."

The Tribune editorial states, "The knee-jerk talk of state tax cuts that reliably followed recent news of greater state budget surpluses . . . shows how much . . . the cause of limited government is already well-stated." Nah. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that Utah's overall tax burden remains so high suggests the "knee-jerk" could more accurately be called a "nervous tic." Or, it could be called a "50-week twitch," since any tax-cutting impulse usually goes away by late-February (around the sixth week of the session) and resurfaces in force just a few weeks later (when it's time to file for elections or report to constituents).

To improve the lives of Utahns and to improve the economy of our state, we need to reduce the tax burden. This is a solid economic strategy, and it reflects a philosophy shared by large numbers of taxpayers in this state. I find it revealing that the Tribune would narrowly deride the reasoned, fiscally-sound position as "knee-jerk talk."

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

LaVarr pointed me to an interesting article on stem cell research. I majored in biology and particularly enjoyed genetics. (Talking last week with a current biology major, though, I got the feeling my work back in the day (1980s) might be closer to the work of Mendel (1820s) than to that of the current student, in terms in sophistication.) So, I have a bit of a scientific background to approach the issue of stem cell research -- though I don't think that such a background is a prerequisite. The issue also must be approached from moral, philosophical, religious and purely human perspectives.

I relish scientific advancement -- not only from a science perspective but also, and mostly, from a human perspective. Bluntly, as would be true for all of us, a lot of people I love would not be here, if it weren't for scientific advances made over the last century. And, other people I love still might be here or might be doing better with additional scientific advances. I am all for the march of progress and I am an enormous fan of scientific advances.

But, I am against government funding of embryonic stem cell research.

I am stunned that right-of-center officials would advocate government funding of embryonic stem cell research. To me, this one isn't even a close call. The issue being debated is not whether the research should occur but whether taxpayer money should be used to fund the research. As the article states,

Currently federal funding for work with stem cells taken from human embryos is strictly limited but researchers can use private money as they wish. Only one specific form of the research is at issue - that using stem cells from human embryos.

Many taxpayers (I include myself in this number) believe that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong and is a first step, or leap, toward liberalization of abortion laws. I believe this for two primary reasons.

First, to liberalize abortion, the fetus must be dehumanized; and embryonic stem cell research is the gold ticket to dehumanizing the fetus, by effectively re-categorizing embryos as fungible commodities or mere farm products, rather than the sacred beginnings of human life. The baited hook is that something good might come of the harvest. In politics, remember, it's not your enemies, but your friends, that kill you, by abandoning sound principle to reach for something good. (And that "good" is always out there, whether it be stifling private enterprise for better government services, whether it be higher taxes for better schools or roads, or whether it be, as in this case, dehumanizing the unborn for the prospect of better health care).

Second, as Tom DeLay correctly observes, "You don't have to kill an embryo to make this work." The successes in stem cell research (and they are amazing) are coming from non-embryonic sources. Why, then, if our successes are coming from non-embryonic research and if many taxpayers view the harvest of embryos as morally repugnant in itself and potentially catastrophic in the larger abortion debate, would government be justified in spending tax dollars on the practice? Answer: it isn't justified.

UPDATE (later on 5/23/05): For an opposing view, here's a link to someone calling President Bush "un-American" for opposing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. To me, the guy unintentionally makes another argument why the federal government should NOT fund embryonic stem cell research. As he is not deterred by "destruction of human life" arguments, he argues that the federal government must get into this business so that the rest of the world won't leave us behind. Yet, he then predicts that California will shame the federal government and it's funding position with successes from the State's $3 billion voter-approved initiative.

Though it's hard to believe these days, the federal government is a government of limited scope and authority -- having been delegated only a portion of the states' broader authority. In the few instances where the federal government manages to restrain itself, the states will take divergent paths on complex issues. Some experiments will work, some will fail; overall, the good of the country advances by decentralized governance and competition among the states. I clearly disagree with California's choice in this instance; but that very choice seems to undercut the panicky argument forwarded by advocates of embryonic stem cell research -- that research will not occur in America, if the federal government does not fund it.

UPDATE (05/26/05): The bill to use taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research passed the House. Republican Representatives Bishop and Cannon voted against it. Democrat Representative Matheson voted for it. As President Bush said, the bill "would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake."

A Day in the Life

People often ask what the Legislature requires when we're not in session.

This week I left St. George Monday around noon for a meeting with the Utah Department of Transportation in Cedar City. From there, I went to Panguitch to meet with the Garfield County Engineer to talk about transfering roads from the State to the counties. Then, I went to Salt Lake City to check into a hotel. I spent most of the time on the road talking with fellow legislators about task forces and the upcoming interim meetings.

Tuesday morning, I had a tax policy task force at 8 a.m. From there, I went to a meeting for House/Senate leadership, a meeting of House leadership, a meeting of legislative management, lunch with other legislators, a meeting of the executive appropriations committee, a meeting with the Southern Nevada Water Association (I got there late and missed dinner that night -- though that practice probably wouldn't hurt me any), and, finally, a meeting with another legislator until 10 p.m.

Wednesday I had my education interim committee meeting, lunch with the majority caucus, afternoon meetings with legislators, and calls to constituents on the drive back to St. George (with a stop in Orem to get updates on my nephews' baseball, track and dating -- of which I suspect the first two were exaggerated and the latter under-reported).

This was an "interim week" -- which we have one week a month -- and involves more formal meetings than usual.

Next week, the only formal legislative meeting I have is the tax policy task force (all day). Other than that, I have an evening meeting with homeschoolers (I'm coming in character as President George W. Bush), a 5- or 6-hour meeting and tour with the local soil conservation district, a fairly quick conference call for a national committe I serve on, and a few miscellaneous meetings with constituents, agencies and interest groups. This is a fairly typical non-interim week. The rest of the week, I'll talk with caucus members, handle constituent correspondence and research (I probably get an inch-high stack of mail each day on legislative issues), and I'll try to finish catching up on my non-legislative work.

To stay on top of things, I started waking up at 4:00 a.m. in March. This is as awful as it sounds (sorry, farmers), but I am mostly managing to get to sleep earlier than I used to, and I do like the feeling of being ahead. The Whip role takes more time than I had figured, but it is enjoyable and well worth the missed sleep. All of this does, though, give me one more reason to smile when people tell me some stand will cost me my seat -- I'll sleep 'til noon.

A Good Day

This morning I dropped my kids off at school and watched my tiny, youngest daughter run for the swings. The only swing left was forehead high on her. Watching her struggle to climb in it, I saw a second- or third-grader heading for her, and thought, "Uh-oh, she's about to get kicked out." Instead, the other girl helped my daughter up into the swing and pushed her until she laughed and screamed with delight. I'm not sure it gets any better than that -- for my daughter or me.