Food Tax

The House bill to remove the food tax was amended (to make up municipal and county governments' revenues, through a .13 increase on non-food items) and passed the House 57-17. It now moves to the Senate.

The House floor debate can be heard here. After it had been stated that the bill would cause a "shift" in taxes and that not enough money would be left to fund other wants and needs, I made the points that the bill did cause a shift -- moving money from government coffers to people's pockets -- and that, if there isn't enough money now to cut taxes, there will never be enough money.

We'll see how the Senate feels about the issue.

Evolution

Much has been written about the Senate bill regarding the teaching of evolution in our public education system (or, as the bill says, teaching regarding "the origins of life" -- which, based on the discussion, seems to mean evolution). I don't have time to add to that dialogue at this time, but I will link to a D-News article that describes my position on the bill.

In short, proponents of the bill claim it has nothing to do with religion or faith. Okay. Since we're just dealing with scientific education and nothing more, the relevant inquiry becomes what alternative theory or theories has/have sufficient recognition in the scientific community (the relevant community, if we're just talking about science education) to warrant such a disclaimer as the bill would require?

Much has changed since I received my degree in biology 17 years ago. But, I'm not aware that any other scientific theory describing the diversity of species has gained any degree of support in the scientific community that would warrant passage of the bill.

Your Call May Be Monitored

Rep. Doug Aagard had the thankless task this summer of chairing a task force on the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). A copy of his bill to enact the task force's recommendations can be found here.

Various interests, but especially the media, have concerns over aspects of the bill. I have been asked to help moderate the discussion. Though I think most points will be readily resolved, the biggest sticking point concerns communications from citizens to their representatives (line 475-476).

Two (exaggerated) examples can paint the dispute. One, there should be disclosure of an e-mail that says, "Make sure X passes, and a shiny, new Mercedes will be all yours." Two, there should not be disclosure of an e-mail that says, "My kids go to school with Rep. X's kids. Though I like him, I sure think he's crazy, if he believes . . .."

Many communications I receive fall into the latter category of people candidly giving me their input, believing it is just between them and me. I worry that disclosure of those communications would do more harm than good, by discouraging some people from providing blunt input. My position is that concern 2 outweighs concern 1. Part of this is that I don't think concern 1 is happening. The public, though, if the newspapers are to be believed, might disagree on how these concerns should be weighted.

Voting

Military personnel in hostile fire zones and overseas citizens in areas with unreliable mail service have difficulties voting through absentee ballots. To address that issue, the Lt. Gov's office (which is over elections) asked me to run HB 67, which would allow for electronic voting in those situations. With Lt. Gov. Herbert graciously helping me present it, the bill passed out of committee today and moves to the House floor.

An interesting and concerning trade-off in the bill is that the voter has to waive the right to a secret ballot (line 99) in order to use the procedure. The county clerk transcribes the electronic vote onto a normal ballot (lines 122 and 123) which, then, is counted. Though the vote is deemed a "private" document, afforded the protections currently available for such documents (lines 110-112), we had a bit of a discussion in committee about the "sacredness" of a secret ballot. No doubt, this procedure will appear very retrograde in the near future. For now, though, it is necessary to do something to allow these peoople the ability to vote, and this is the best we've come up with.

If anyone has better ideas, I'd be delighted to hear them.

Food Tax

The bill to remove the food tax passed out of committee on a vote of 11-2. It now goes before the full house (probably this week, unless we bog down). If you want to track its progress, click here.

"It's Not My Job"

The Tribune, unintentionally, editorializes strongly in favor of accountability in public education. The editorial suggests the Legislature did a "bait and switch" in 1999 when it imposed testing requirements for graduation. Until that switch was made, apparently, no one really expected students to actually learn anything.

Aside from that oddity, I agree with the editorial's conclusion that the Legislature needs to fund remediation. I'm running a bill to do just that. However, my bill will fund results, not inputs. Only after a previously-failing student passes the UBSCT test will the provider of the remedial services (public or private) receive its compensation.

Legislative Training

Groups have recently been providing their members "legislative training" for the upcoming session. Stuff like, "If a Senator nods off mid-sentence, just wait, and act like nothing happened when he wakes."

I still think one of the best visual illustrations of legislative process can be found here. Get training; we start Monday.

My suggestion for dealing with legislators is -- remember that we work for you, but, also, remember that you've given us a lot to juggle. If you want something, send your Representative or Senator an e-mail (small words and short sentences for the Senators), place a phone call, or pay him/her a visit. The deeper into a session we get, the more demands there are on our time. So, jump in as early as you can. And try not to be self-conscious. Even if you're new at it, you're still the boss.

Federal Transportation Pork

John Fund wrote an insightful Wall Street Journal editorial on Congressional earmarking. (hat tip: Scott at Reach Upward). Fund writes:

Earmarks have become the corrupt currency by which bills like the ruinously expensive prescription drug entitlement are bought vote by vote. They inevitably result in some lower-priority projects being funded first, with potentially disastrous results.

and

Earmarks have created their own parasitic specialized lobbying industry. "They go client hunting, telling cities or counties they can virtually guarantee an earmark," says Ron Utt, a former federal budget official now at the Heritage Foundation.

Last month, the Spectrum ran an editorial opposing Rep. John Dougall's suggestion that cities be prohibited from hiring federal lobbyists to undercut the State's transportation priorities.

The issue is how we should best prioritize construction projects for the State's highway system -- either (1) through the State's prioritization process or (2) through Congressional line-item-veto authority over that prioritization process. At the end of the day, that's all earmarking is -- a way to avoid the State's priorities. It is important to remember that project-specific earmarking doesn't mean more money for a state -- just that the federal money the state receives must be spent on specified projects in specified ways or be forfeited.

Being removed from the workings of the states, earmarking decisions are based on very raw (and, often, scuzzy) politics. Of course, as federal officials brag "Lookie what I brought home," there is never a mention of the other State projects that are bumped back by the earmarking: "I got you road X! Sorry about delaying road Y."

The editorial states, "[Rep. Dougall] said he wants projects that receive federal funding to be better coordinated with the Utah Department of Transportation. That's a good goal, and it is one that our federal lawmakers have attempted to adhere to in the past." Well, no. If our federal officials want to coordinate with the State's plan, all they have to do is avoid earmarks. Though such discipline would not reduce the amount of transportation money flowing from D.C. to Utah, an added benefit is that it would reduce the amount of pork-for-all press releases coming from the Nation's Capitol.

If our Congressional delegation is unable to resist the siren song of earmarking, it might make sense to control the issue from the other end of the spigot. Rather than directing who and how our local government leaders can lobby, it might be worth exploring state legislation that would prohibit the State and its subdivisions from spending federal transportation money that has been earmarked on a project-specific basis. That would put an end to federal earmarking of Utah's cut of the transportation money -- and leave just fourty-nine states more to go.

Bird Flu

Last week, after an interesting discussion with a local doctor regarding St. George's rather serious influenza outbreak in December, I drafted a post on avian influenza. I see that Prof. Glenn Reynolds has posted something better than what I was drafting. Therefore, I'll simply refer you to his essay, and provide a little background information on the biology of bird flu.

The culprit behind the bird flu, the H5N1 virus, is an influenza type "A" virus. We get more nervous about type "A" flu viruses than "B" and "C" types, because of the speed by which type "A" viruses mutate into different organisms. Type "B" and "C" flu viruses mutate less rapidly (antigenic drift); therefore, from one season to another, our immune system recognizes much of the structure of the attacking viruses and, mostly, is able to fight them. The type "A" virus, though, can mutate rapidly and wildly (antigenic shift), even incorporating and recombining viral components otherwise developing entirely separate in other mammals and birds.

Those newly-created viral strains are particularly fit for survival and reproductive success in human populations. After all, our immune system does not recognize a new influenza virus that has incorporated viral components that previously existed only in the bird population (or in the pig population, as was the case in the Spanish Flu, which killed 25- to 50-million people in 1918). Thus, these new viral strains have the potential to explode in the population, leading to massive pandemics. Also, as we experienced with the 1976 Swine Flu scare (where the flu concerns were very real, but, when all was said and done, more people were killed by the vaccine than the flu), government has the potential to over-react to these kinds of threats -- which mostly just go away (except, of course, when they don't).

Prof. Reynolds approvingly cites Ray Kurzweil's FDA-finger-pointing regarding regulatory slowness in approving vaccines. This likely is so. Another area worthy of examination, as we consider potential responses to pandemics and bioterrorism, would be the role that potential products-liability litigation would have on rapid development of medications to quickly address new threats. It seems we should have a broader discussion on the trade-offs society might be willing to make, in order to induce pharmaceutical companies to quickly get products to market in emergencies.

For example, should we allow binding warning labels, to the effect of: "There are many uncertainties and potential problems with "X" (whatever the virus or culprit is). This medicine ("Beta") might help people avoid some of those uncertainties and problems. Then again, because strong medicines have strong effects, Beta might really mess you up. Because Beta was rushed out to fight X, we don't really know. So, you have to read up on X and Beta and decide whether you're better off with or without Beta and the risks that it might raise. It's your choice. Good luck and, unless we misled the public or did something really reckless, don't sue us if your choice doesn't work out for the best."?

St. George Triathlon

Seven years ago, my wife's brother, Jared, competed in a triathlon. He told the rest of the family, "That was pretty cool. But, it would be really cool to put on a triathlon." And, thus, the St. George Triathlon was born. It is the biggest triathlon in Utah, and more importantly the participants seem to really enjoy the quality of the experience. Also, this past year, the race received some kind mentions in national publications.

This year's website went live four days ago, and already more than 500 participants have signed up. The cap will be about 1,200. So, the race should be full, 4 months in advance.

Oil and Gas

Oil and gas production in Utah is booming -- a big reason for the surplus revenues we will battle over this session. To get a better feel for the production activity in the Uintah Basin, my son and I visited Rep. John Mathis in Vernal this past week. I am blown away at the level of activity and investment.

The big problem (and it seems to be quite big) is finding workers. The way it was repeatedly explained to me, just about anyone -- who is willing to do physical work and can pass a drug test -- can work in the fields as a roughneck (on a week, off a week) for $70,000/year. If they don't want to do that, they can work in town for nice wages, in place of the other workers who have gone out to the fields.

Figuring Ike (my eight-year-old son) had endured enough adult stuff (though Ike thought the drilling rig and peeking into the furnace at Bonanza Power Plant -- 2,500 degrees F -- were pretty cool), John took us to Fantasy Canyon, which was stunning.

Oh, My!

I'm going out on a limb and predicting negative campaigning in this race. I'm also predicting a made-for-TV movie.