Happy Anniversary

My blog is one-year old today! And, I'm even more encouraged now about the possibilities of technology opening the doors to government than I was a year ago.

In our vast and busy state, people can watch their government through the best government website in the country (that's a fact), LaVar's incredible political aggregatorUtah Policy, the blogs of Reps. Alexander, Dougal, and now Fowlke (together forming the Utah County Conglomerati), the Senate Site (And, man, does it burn me how dang good that thing is! Hey, Hillyard and Cantrell, give it a rest; go hang Christmas lights or something), and numerous wonderful political (or partially political) sites, like Phil's Utah Politics and Charley's State of the Beehive -- and the sites they list on their blogrolls. Great stuff for democracy!

If anyone has suggestions on how to make this site more interactive or otherwise beneficial to constituents and Utahns, please share.

UPDATE (12/08/05): I just now saw this nice tribute from the Senate Site and my friend from Brigham City. It warms my heart . . . and makes me wonder what those guys are after. Thanks, Pete.

Removing the Sales Tax on Food

The Tax Reform Task Force had its final meeting today. With only two dissenting votes (one Republican and one Democrat), the Task Force recommended that the Legislature remove the sales tax on food.

It's a big step, especially considering that the Senate President and the Senate and House Minority Leaders cast votes in favor of removing the tax. If a majority of legislators agree with the Task Force, we can figure out the details. It will take lots of debate and give-and-take, but we can get there.

One very interesting part of the discussion is that the Utah League of Cities and Towns informed the Task Force that the cities will oppose removing the sales tax on food, if it costs them anything. I clarified, and, sure enough, that's their position. If it costs the cities one penny, they will oppose it. This seems a bit strident, especially since the cities will receive significant inflationary and expansionary increases in their revenues this year, not to mention significant increases from franchise fees they place on top of escalating energy costs. Given that we represent the same constituents, either the cities or the legislature is getting the wrong signals. Citizens should tell one of us that we don't get it.

No Child Left Behind

The D-News has a good editorial on the National Education Association's challenge to No Child Left Behind. As I've stated elsewhere on this blog, spending clause challenges to federal legislation aren't well received by the courts. But, as the D-News notes:

But whether No Child Left Behind is adequately funded makes little difference. Centralized solutions to local problems don't work. They make local officials resentful and put them in search of ways to circumvent the law. They also make people feel powerless as they realize their local school boards and state legislatures have little control over the issue.

Along with being a seriously flawed law, NCLB disenfranchises people on educational policy. As the D-News concludes, "people should lobby Congress to repeal the law."

Tax Cut

President Valentine's $225 million tax cut proposal (eliminating the sales tax on food and not replacing any of the revenue through increases elsewhere) increases support and momentum for tax relief. Most House members seem eager for a significant tax cut. Therefore, at this point at least, the amount of tax relief that Utahns will receive would seem to turn on the degree to which the Senate supports the President's plan.

I have asked the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to come up with some ways that the State could absorb the $225 million cut in sales tax.

I'm not sure it would make as much sense to take the entire cut in the sales tax arena as it would to spread the cut between sales tax and income tax. Because most of the State's surplus is coming from the income tax (and because the income tax is a significant drag on economic development), my preference would be to cut equal amounts from the sales tax on food and from the personal income tax. While my target has been a more meager $45 million from each (for a $90 million on-going cut, plus a refund to the taxpayers of the current year's surplus), I will eagerly watch to see what kind of support Senators give the President's plan.

UPDATE (11/16/05): On the Senate Site, President Valentine discusses three options on the table regarding repeal/mitigation of the sales tax on food. Along with the two options discussed above and in the previous post, the third option is a refundable credit for the poor.

This would be better than nothing, but I think it runs into some problems. First, I think it would be administratively burdensome to handle and monitor. Second, many of the people who most need the credit typically don't file anything with the State. My guess is that many of these people still wouldn't file and, therefore, wouldn't receive the credit. Third, a credit effectively means that the people who can least afford to do so will loan the State money for the year until the State returns it. None of these problems is insurmountable. They just suggest that we need to do a little more thinking.

As our State's esteemed Senate President says, "I expect we'll work out the details in a rational, deliberative, collegial manner through the normal legislative process." I believe that, and I am pleased that the topic is on the table.

UPDATE (11/23/05): Several articles have been written about removing the sales tax on food. I was glad to see that this one mentions Dave Iltis. His thinking on this topic has been very impressive and helpful.

A couple of clarifications on the article. Not that they really matter that much, but . . .. As I discussed here, Speaker Curtis came up with the plan and gave it to me, not the other way around. Dang it. (And going over Mr. Iltis's old e-mails, it looks like he very well might have planted the original seed). More importantly, by no means do I question whether Utah could take a $250 million tax cut. We could and should. My point was that we cannot take it all from SALES TAX. We need to spread the cut between the sales tax and the income tax -- which is where most of the surplus is coming from.

Remove the Sales Tax on Food

Let's get rid of sales tax on food.

Here are some articles on the proposal taking shape in the House. The Spectrum, the Trib, and the D-News.

During its recent hearings, the Tax Reform Task Force heard strong commentary against the sales tax on food. Tuesday night a few House members were discussing their views on the various proposals pending before the task force. Speaker Curtis asked if we had any desire to remove the sales tax on food, and, when a few of us responded positively, he laid out the plan that is highlighted in the articles above (a shift to non-food items, coupled with an actual cut of $44 million).

It will face opposition, but with serious support in the House and, we expect, from the Governor's office (though they haven't weighed in yet) and with substantial tax revenues, the time just might be right to remove this awful tax.

We anticipate that Rep. Merlynn Newbold will run the legislation.

UPDATE (11/13/05): This issue obviously will stir some emotions.

No Excuses -- Step Five: School Choice

I have identified 5 steps Utah should take to improve K-12 education.

STEP 5: School Choice. Like most parents and taxpayers, my wife and I love and appreciate the public schools. Our plans are that all our children will attend and graduate from the public schools. But that's not the case for every family and every child.

Some families determine that their children could do better in a private school, but they can't afford that option. The State should provide some assistance to low-income families, while ensuring that the amount of assistance is less than the cost the State would have spent to educate those students in the public system. In other words, the families get an option and the State actually saves money that can be spent on the other students that remain in the public system. To understand how some money can follow a student out of the system and still mean more money for those in the system, it is necessary to understand variable costs.

I've previously written about school choice here and here.

No Excuses -- Step Four: Pay Starting Teachers More

I have identified 5 steps Utah should take to improve K-12 education.

STEP 4: Increase beginning teachers' pay. The Legislature typically appropriates a chunk of money to the local school districts. The local districts, then, negotiate with the Unions to determine how that money will be spent. Most of the money gets pushed to the more-established teachers at the top of the pay scale and very little goes to starting teachers. As a result, beginning teachers make very little money, and that hurts efforts to attract and retain good teachers.

Rather than appropriate all the money to the districts in a chunk, we should specify that part of the new money must be weighted more-heavily toward boosting new-teacher salaries.