GOP just won't take ethics seriously

  The Utah Republican Party made it official last Saturday; It opposes an ethics initiative currently being circulated by a group known as Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG).  In the resolution passed by the GOP's central committee, the Utah Republican Party cites constitutional concerns with UEG's ballot initiative and the fact the legislature has already passed some ethics reforms, and more is on the way. 

  What the Utah GOP keeps overlooking is the fact ethics reform wouldn't be on the ballot at all if the Republican controlled legislature had taken advantage of numerous attempts to reform itself.  Up until last year's legislative session, there was virtually no movement on ethics reform. It took evidence of growing public disgust with the way business was being conducted on Capitol Hill to get a handful of relatively weak reform measures passed.  Fear of UEG's ballot initiative appears likely to have the same effect on the legislature in 2010.

In a draft Joint Resolution on Ethics Complaint Procedures circulated during a recent interim committee meeting, yet another reform is being proposed in hopes any effort by the citizens of Utah to take matters into their own hands can be derailed.  This joint resolution would create an independent ethics commission, but the commission would only be empowered to recommend the House or Senate Ethics Committee take up a complaint against one or more representatives or senators. 

The chair of the commission and the chairs of the House and Senate Ethics Committee are given extraordinary powers to "set time limitations on any part of a meeting or hearing authorized" by the resolution.  Depending on the amount of time a committee chair allows for arguments, this could make it difficult to impossible for either complainants or defendants to make their case before the commission or the relevant legislative ethics committee. 

In addition, citizens or legislators may only file a complaint against a sitting legislator if at least two citizens/legislators submit the complaint and one of those has "actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances supporting each allegation."  In other words, while citizens or fellow legislators may have substantial evidence of ethical violations, unless they actually witnessed or were a party to the wrong doing - and they would have to be one or the other to have "actual knowledge" - they can't ask either the independent ethics commission or one of the two legislative ethics committees to look into the matter.  How convenient.

In the proposed resolution legislators also shield themselves from any complaint filed within 60 days of an election.  So, if evidence comes to light - excuse me - if "actual knowledge" of an ethical problem comes to light or if a violation of ethical standards actually occurs within two months of Election Day, don't count on the ethics commission or legislative committees looking into it.

But in their effort to shield themselves from accountability while still appearing concerned about ethics, the Republican controlled legislature seems poised to go much further than prohibiting ethics complaints within 60 days of an election.  Under the draft resolution, unless the independent ethics commission created by it refers a complaint to one of the two legislative ethics committees for possible further action, no one can reveal a complaint was even filed. 

"Except as provided in Subsection (1)(b) or (c), a person, including the complainants, the respondent, commission members, a committee chair or vice chair, or staff to the commission or a committee, may not disclose the existence of a complaint, a response, nor any information concerning any alleged violation that is the subject of a complaint." 

Subsections (1)(b) and (c) refer to a response which is "publicly released by the commission and referred to an ethics committee" and "disclosing facts or allegations about potential criminal violations to law enforcement authorities" respectively.  Subsection (2) goes on to state any revelation to the press or public a complaint has been filed not covered by one of the above two exceptions, would put the leaker in potential "contempt of the Legislature". 

Whatever flaws are allegedly contained within the ethics reform initiative currently circulating, Republicans on Capitol Hill have no one but themselves to blame for the fact it got to the point citizens felt the need to take matters into their own hands.  Proposing another weak piece of "reform" legislation shielding legislators from public scrutiny when ethical questions arise does nothing to address public doubts legislators take ethics seriously.  If the goal is to do ethics reform better than the initiative and render it moot, lawmakers have a long way to go.

Preview of Thursday's Party Lines

"...but even with LDS Church support there are conservative groups like the Sutherland Institute, Standard of Liberty and the notorious America Forever who are attempting to confuse the issue by stating that the Church was being less than honest with its support by asserting that the Church’s statement was just an “Entity” trying to protect itself."

Check out the Davis County Clipper's "Party Lines" with Rob and Todd -- Thursday. 

Should the State Senate confirm Herbert tax nominee?

Usually when we refer to Howard Stephenson’s Utah Taxpayers Association it is to point out how they don’t represent the interests of middle-income families. But we, too, were surprised by Gov. Gary Herbert’s nomination of Michael Cragun to the Utah State Tax Commission for many of the reasons that the association noted in its most recent newsletter.  Here is what they had to say:

Governor Gary Herbert has just nominated Michael Cragun to replace Pam Hendrickson on the Utah State Tax Commission. Hendrickson has been a Tax Commissioner since 1997, even earning the Utah Taxpayers Association’s “Lifetime Achievement” award this past May. However, Cragun’s record on the Davis County Commission, and his significant deficits in tax expertise make him a poor choice for the State Tax Commission. The Utah Senate will consider his nomination in extraordinary session on November 17, 2009.

Unlike the Utah State Tax Commission, most boards and commissions in Utah government have no judicial function. They make policy recommendations for the Governor, various agencies and the Legislature to consider. The Tax Commission, however, is an adjudicative and quasi legislative body. Much like a traditional court, the Commissioners hear and decide legal appeals regarding the taxes you pay. Much like a legislature, the Commissioners also promulgate rules that bind taxpayers and taxing authorities. 

To adequately perform their job, Commissioners require substantial knowledge of tax related constitutional law, federal tax law and Utah tax laws, in addition to the required procedure in adjucating tax cases, promulgating tax rules, supervising tax employees, and the minutiae of administering the many taxes Utah businesses and families pay. After leaving law school, tax attorneys and accountants spend years learning the intricate and crucial basics of tax law. In the past, both taxpayers and fellow commissioners have paid a high price for unqualified tax commissioners. Cragun is unqualified to be an effective Tax Commissioner.

Cragun’s experience in tax law is from his time as a Davis County Commissioner, where he proposed a 138 percent property tax increase. However, he was defeated in his next election because of his support for that property tax increase. (Davis County voters were so concerned with that property tax increase that every County Commissioner who supported it either lost their next election, or declined to seek reelection.)

Given this background, Cragun’s appointment should be very concerning to Utah taxpayers. Not only does he lack the basic background with and knowledge of tax law that should be a minimum threshold for any possible appointee to the Utah State Tax Commission, but his record on the Davis County Commission suggests his motivating incentive is to raise taxes. That experience alone should terrify taxpayers required to have him decide tax cases as Tax Commissioner. With a record like that, it is hard to understand why Gov. Herbert nominated him in the first place.

Cragun served as head of the Elections Office under Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert. During his tenure, the Elections Office tried to improve the state’s online disclosure system for legislators and lobbyists. However, that improvement remains a complete failure. When a new version was rolled out prior to a filing deadline, many legislators and lobbyists were unable to log in and file their reports, and had to scramble to file paper reports within the deadline. Moreover, the current system didn’t even support people logging in from Mac computers.

Some have speculated that the newly appointed Lt. Gov. Greg Bell didn’t have a place for Cragun on his staff, so Gov. Herbert looked for a soft landing for Cragun. Most other general qualification boards would have been acceptable, but the Tax Commission requires more expertise and experience than Cragun has. (For a list of Boards & Commissions, please visit http://www.governor.utah.gov/boards/home.html)

Others have speculated Cragun was selected because Governor Herbert viewed Pam Hendrickson as holding a “county” slot on the Tax Commission, and Gov. Herbert wanted to replace her with another “county” representative. However, we are unaware of any statutory slot for county representatives on the Tax Commission.

If Cragun views himself as a county representative on the Tax Commission, it would have a chilling effect on many business owners, fearful that the Tax Commission would support the counties’ ongoing efforts to reinstate the taxation of intangibles in the valuation of property. Given his willingness to raise taxes in Davis County, and his general lack of familiarity with the basics and nuances of tax law, that concern is very real.

Fortunately, nominees to the State Tax Commission must be approved by the State Senate. We urge Senators to look very carefully at Mr. Cragun’s qualifications.

(NOTE: For the record, the Utah Democratic Party had a good relationship with Michael Cragun while he served at the State Election Department. In our experience, he was courteous, friendly, appropriately accommodating, and serious about the work at hand even when the outcome was less than optimal.)

Reauthorization of NCLB. Time to speak up.

Democrats have labeled the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) a failure full of broken promises. Many teachers complain bitterly about the emphasis on testing. Principals hate being labeled as failures. Superintendents say it wasn't adequately funded. And many parents just view it as toxic -- not helping children learn.

However, most give NCLB credit for exposing achievement gaps, and for requiring that we measure our efforts to improve education by looking at outcomes, rather than inputs. NCLB helped expand the standards and accountability movement.

Everyone wants the best for their children and they are willing to take greater responsibility. But when it comes to defining the federal role in education, there is a lot of confusion, uncertainty and division.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Our role in Washington is to support reform by encouraging high standards, bold approaches to helping struggling schools, closing the achievement gap, strengthening the field of education, reducing the dropout rate and boosting college access.” But, he added, “The best solutions begin with parents and teachers working together in the home and the classroom.”

NCLB unfairly labeled many schools as failures even when they were making real progress—placing too much emphasis on absolute test scores rather than student growth—and it is overly prescriptive in some ways while it is too blunt an instrument of reform in others.

But the biggest problem with NCLB is that it doesn't encourage high learning standards. In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when, in fact, they are not. Our schools produce millions of young people who aren't completing college because they are not ready for college-level work when they leave high school. Low standards also contribute to the nation's staggeringly high dropout rate. When kids aren't challenged they are bored—and when they are bored they quit.

Local educators don’t need a prescription for success. But they do need a common definition of success and agreement on what's important and how to measure it —focused on student achievement, high school graduation and success and attainment in college. The goals NCLB reauthorization should include clear standards set by states that truly prepare young people for college and careers—but should be loose on the means for meeting those goals.

It must be flexible and accommodating as states and districts—working with parents, non-profits and other external partners—develop educational solutions that are open to new ideas, encourage innovation, and build on what we know works.

President Obama has challenged us to boost our college completion rate to 60% by the end of the next decade. Over the coming months the Obama administration will be developing its proposal for reauthorization. Now is the time to voice your opinions and lend your expertise.

We don't need another study. We must stop simply admiring the problem. We need action. We cannot waste a minute. Every year counts. Every class counts. Every child counts.

Representative Chris Herrod requests scientists please stop trying to confuse him with the facts

   In an opinion piece published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Provo Republican Representative Chris Herrod makes abundantly clear: 1) no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince him global warming is real; 2) he really isn't all that familiar with the earth's geologic or climate history anyway; and, 3) he gets all his scientific and economic misinformation from Republican talking point memos. 

When describing his concerns about the science surrounding climate change, Representative Herrod opens with the argument "Since the Earth is coming out of an ice age and been significantly warming throughout its history, most agree this is true."  What Rep. Herrod believes most agree is true isn't exactly clear, but one thing scientists do not agree with is the notion the world has been "significantly warming throughout its history." 

In fact, the Earth has gone through periods when it was  warm and periods when it was cold.  It has not, as Herrod claims, gotten significantly warmer but rather has seen climate fluctuations throughout its history.  While Herrod and other deniers often point to past natural climate fluctuations as evidence we are going through something similar now, the science simply isn't on their side.

One recent study indicates peak carbon dioxide levels over the past 2.1 million years averaged 280 parts per million (ppm).  In other words, throughout all the intermittent ice ages and warming spells which occurred over the more than 2 million years of our planet's most recent history, the average level of a key greenhouse gas was 105 ppm lower than it is today.  Virtually all of that increase has occurred in the past 150 years.  One of the study's authors states "Previous studies indicated that CO₂ did not change much over the past 20 million years..." though he admits the further back in time we go the greater uncertainty we encounter and more research is needed.

But Representative Herrod and others think it wise to throw caution to the wind and use any example of a gap in our understanding of the problem as an excuse to do nothing.  Why not keep pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and see what happens when we go way beyond anything experienced in at least the past 2.1 million years, if not much longer?

Representative Herrod also wants proof we can do anything about climate change even if it is real.  How exactly would we know anything we do helps mitigate or reverse climate change unless we try?  How can we prove expanding our use of solar, wind, and geothermal technology and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will do any good unless we expand our use of solar, wind and geothermal technology and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? 

Herrod and others claim increasing our reliance on clean energy will undermine our ability to compete with China and Europe, both of whom are now rapidly expanding their development of clean energy technologies.  Not so sunny Germany has become a world leader in solar technology, Spain has become a world leader in wind power, and China has begun vastly increasing its investment into clean energy production.  Contrary to the denier/do nothing camp's argument, the risks to both the environment and our economy if we just sit on our hands while the rest of the world moves forward are significant.

Unfortunately, the truth is Rep. Herrod and others don't believe in science. As he and others repeatedly demonstrate, no number of climatologists issuing warnings or BYU scientists signing letters will cure them of their anti-science world view.  When a legislator or anyone issues a plea for someone to "Please convince me with the science" in response to a letter from local scientists citing "a database search on our university [BYU] library system" uncovering "more than 600 peer-reviewed, scientific articles" addressing just one climate related issue raised by some legislators, we really shouldn't hold out any hope that person will ever be convinced.

The only solution here is for voters to begin demanding their representatives have a healthy respect for science.  There is nothing at all wrong with skepticism and asking scientists tough questions.  The scientific method demands nothing less.  But pretending little to no science has been done when literally thousands of studies are available and more than 97% of scientists are in agreement is, to put it simply, an example of willful ignorance that would make a flat Earth advocate proud. 

We owe Veterans more than the words “Thank You & God Bless”

The veterans of the War for Independence, who founded our country, waited decades for their pay.

Ten years after World War I, veterans marched on our nation’s Capitol to get their promised bonus pay. They didn’t get it. Instead, they got thrown out of town by the active military under the orders of President Hoover.

We live with the memory of VietNam veterans who were too often greeted with contempt and neglect upon coming home, and who continue to pay a price for their honorable service in a nation that has failed to sort out its feelings about that war and how to support people whose injuries are not physical.

Ninety-one years ago today, the battlefields of Europe fell quiet as World War I came to a close.  But we don't mark this day each year as a celebration of victory.  This day is a celebration of those who made victory possible. Because they did, our country still stands; our founding principles still shine; nations around the world that once knew nothing but fear now know the blessings of freedom. It is a reminder that when we fight, it is with the hope of a day when we no longer need to -- to recommit ourselves to the hard work of peace.

It is not enough to just say, “Thanks for our freedom.” The contributions that our servicemen and women make to this nation don't end when they take off their uniform, neither do our obligations to them.

Diplomacy matters. Building alliances matter. The ability to detect and respond to real threats instead of political maneuvering for power matter. The good judgment of our civilian leaders matter. And an ongoing commitment to mitigate the  damage that is inherent to those who provide this service for our country is a moral obligation.

The Democratic Party has a long history of striving to support the troops and veterans  in a fashion that is worthy of our thankful nation.

President Obama and our Democratic Congress have demonstrated a strong commitment to our country’s veterans, taking several steps in just the last ten months to expand economic opportunity, strengthen veterans’ health care services, and improve benefits for our troops and military families.

Through the post-9/11 G.I. Bill –   the most generous education benefit since the original G.I. Bill of 1944 – more than 250,000 veterans will attend college in just the next two years.

President Obama and Congress have worked to strengthen the VA health care system by transforming it into a 21st century organization that prioritizes community-based services, promotes prevention and takes on the injuries unique to modern warfare, including post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. 

And President Obama requested, and Congressional Democrats approved, a 16% increase in the 2010 budget for the Department of Veterans affairs, the largest one-year increase in 30 years.

We have a moral obligation to do these things. A stronger America is fought for abroad, but it is kept healthy at home.

It is a sad commentary that too many of Utah’s representatives in Congress have not joined in fulfilling this obligation to those who have served us. Perhaps they think that because fewer Utahns have served in the military than the national average, that we Utahns don’t support services for those who sacrificed for us. They would be wrong.

All Americans, regardless of political party or feelings about our ongoing wars, are thankful and know we need to support veterans, not just for this one day, but every day.

Another Republican legislator joins the food tax increase bandwagon

  Last week Republican Representative Kay McIff advocated increasing taxes on working families through an increase in the tax on food. This week Republican Senator Howard Stephenson, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, joined him.

The November issue of The Utah Taxpayers Association newsletter dedicates its first full page and a half to chastising the Utah Democratic Party for advocating a fairer tax code and then states "most people realize that businesses don't pay taxes, but customers, employees and shareholders do." 

Then Senator Stephenson uses his My Corner column to state cutting the food tax with an eye toward eventually eliminating it altogether was a huge mistake.  Among other things "Corporate and individual income taxes should have been reduced..." instead.  Corporate income taxes?  Apparently Senator Stephenson didn't get the memo stating "most people realize that businesses don't pay taxes", people do.

Senator Stephenson then proposes increasing the food tax to 4.75% and thereby adding an additional $188.57 annual burden on Utah working families.  Families making "no more than 150 percent of the federal poverty line" ($33,075 for a family of four) should be eligible for a tax credit to defray all or part of this added expense he says, but whatever money that's left over should be used to reduce income taxes, the state's $800 million revenue short fall notwithstanding.  After all, "If the Legislature uses the remaining $116.8 million to lower the state income tax...the state would lose no revenue." 

Under Utah's constitution, income tax revenue is dedicated solely to education. Sales tax revenue isn't.  Therefore, schools would stand to lose the $116.8 million Senator Stephenson is proposing cutting from income taxes.  The impact of this proposed income tax cut on  per pupil spending - already the lowest in the nation - is completely ignored by Senator Stephenson.

While Stephenson and others go on and on about tax cuts benefiting the economy and fueling growth (trickle down economics), the role a strong public education system plays in attracting companies seems completely lost on them.  Utah is already spending about $1,000 less per pupil than the state coming in 49th in education spending.  Teachers salaries are becoming less and less competitive with each passing year and, if my daughter's recent experience with public education is any indication, many text books are woefully out of date.  Numerous schools are also lacking up to date technology that would help us graduate students ready to compete in the modern world.

Now is not the time to hit working families with a tax increase and simultaneously reduce spending on education.  Any benefit to Utah's economy would be short term at best.  With a rainy day fund and numerous examples of corporate welfare riddling Utah's tax code, Senator Stephenson and other Utah legislators don't need a lot of imagination to come up with better solutions than this.

Congressman Bishop launches misleading attack on another Republican boogeyman: Environmentalists

Congressman Bishop wants you to know environmentalists are receiving billions, that's right billions, of your tax dollars.  In an Op-ed published in the Billings Gazette Congressman Bishop points to a report prepared by a Wyoming-based law firm as proof.  Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

In the Op-ed Congressman Bishop co-authored with Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, he argues money received for lawsuits filed against the government by environmental groups and ultimately either won or settled out of court are an abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  The EAJA authorizes such payments in the event the government loses a lawsuit, regardless who filed it.  Apparently, when the government loses to an environmentalist or environmental group it does not mean the government did anything wrong and should have to pay for the expense of being held accountable.

The report Congressman Bishop is relying on considers eight major environmental groups.  It looks at how many suits three of them filed over the last nine years and five of them filed over the last fifteen years. The report then lists how much was paid out to all litigants whether environmental or not for the years 2003 - the first half of 2007.  Wow, that's one thoughtful analysis there Congressman.

According to this report, over the past 9 - 15 years these environmental organizations have filed (but not necessarily won) 1,596 lawsuits against the federal government.  That sounds like a lot, but when you consider the many thousands more federal environmental decisions made by the Forest Service, BLM, EPA and other agencies over the course of any given 15 year period this isn't many. 

Also, as the analysis by the Wyoming law firm makes clear, the number of lawsuits (environmental or not) the government lost and paid out on an annual basis between 2003 and 2006 ranged from a low of 8,161 (2004) to a high of 10,595 (2003).  In other words, even if all 1,596 environmental lawsuits had been filed and won in 2003, at most these lawsuits would have amounted to only 19.5% of all pay outs that year.  Considering the 1,596 lawsuits Bishop is complaining about are over a 9-15 year period the total percentage of lawsuits which are environmental in nature the government lost is actually miniscule.

But what of the total cost of these environmental suits.  After all, Congressman Bishop's larger point is these environmental suits are costing the federal government "billions", and therefore environmental groups should either stop holding the government accountable if they think the feds have violated the law or stop being reimbursed for legal costs if the courts say they are right. 

During the four years analyzed in the report Bishop is relying on 41,881 plaintiffs were paid a total of $4,716,264,730 ($4.7 billion).  Considering over a 9-15 year period the eight environmental groups the Wyoming law firm considered filed only 1,596 lawsuits (3.8% of the total for the four year period), and probably lost some of those, it is impossible to see how Congressman Bishop and Congresswoman Lummis reach the conclusion taxpayers are providing "billions of hard-earned tax dollars to support environmental lawyers"; unless of course they completely misread the report or are lying about what it really claims.

Is fear and loathing all conservatives have left to sell American voters?

According to the Provo Daily Herald  - and Senator Hatch from whom they are taking their cues - it is; fear and loathing of the big bad Democratic Party and, as usual, the US Government.  No one should be surprised when conservatives demonize liberals or liberals demonize conservatives.  Opposition parties, not to mention candidates, have been going after each other hammer and tongs almost since the founding of our republic.  No news there.

What is annoying isn't that right wing papers like the Daily Herald are going off about Democratic proposals for health care reform and their alleged threat to our freedom, but that their arguments against reform of any kind have been repeated so often since about 1980, members of the electorate on either side of the debate could repeat them in their sleep.  Well, that and the fact conservative hatred for government has significantly contributed to government's failure to do its job these past three decades, and now we are all paying the price.

So why will health care reform cause you to lose your freedom according to the Daily Herald editorial board?  "If government controls your health care, they control you."  Oh, and you also lose a two party system.  What you lose if your insurance company gets to cut you loose the minute you get sick, or just refuses to cover you because you already got sick, besides possibly your life and any personal wealth you have accumulated up to that point, isn't clear.  I guess getting screwed by a company means you're free as a bird.

Of course, the Herald and Republicans also apparently believe no one should be required to have insurance and that employers shouldn't be required to help us with coverage.  Reading papers like the Herald rail against collective responsibility to pay for a system we will all use sooner or later, I half expect them to write a column next week calling for the end to auto insurance mandates or the requirement everyone with a mortgage purchase fire insurance. 

Back around 1980 when Ronald Reagan began mocking government instead of governing, the debate in this country shifted from a philosophical difference about how best to make government work to a debate between those who thought government couldn't work and those who believed government could be a force for good.  The result was a government which was fated not to work when those who thought it couldn't were in charge and a government trying to get back to functioning status when those who thought it could work were in charge.  This was not an improvement over a government always being run by people who thought it could work, even if they differed on the means.

The Daily Herald and others on the right consistently ridicule the notion government involvement in health insurance will offer any hope of improvement to the current unsustainable and inhumane system.  Given the absence of alternatives to reform proposals being considered in Congress in the Herald column and elsewhere, one can only assume critics like the Daily Herald prefer the status quo.  Standing up for the right of corporations to deny coverage to the currently sick or previously sick, raise premiums faster than inflation, and leave tens of millions of Americans without coverage while attacking Democrats for ignoring "the little guy" would be laughable if this kind of rhetoric weren't what passed for typical political discourse these days.

This is one American who prefers a government that works.  The choice is not between a government that is only good at sucking our money and freedom and a government that stands back and lets corporations suck our money and freedom.  This is a government, or so we are told, which is "of, by and for the people".  It works for us, and it can and should serve those whose consent our Declaration of Independence makes clear it requires to exist.  Government does and will have a role in health care, just as it does in education, public safety, and transportation. Given the impact of a complete absence of health care regulation I can't believe even those on the far right really want government completely out of the picture when it comes to insurance.  The potential consequences to themselves and their loved ones would be too great.

So when do we get to return to a debate about how government can best serve us instead of whether it can?  When can we stop pretending corporations making decisions about our health don't threaten our freedom and well being and engage in a reasonable discussion about how government can best protect us from these threats?  According to the Daily Herald, and by extension Orrin Hatch, we shouldn't be holding our breath.

Obama Elected One Year Ago

It has been one year since November 4, 2008 when the promise of the American dream and the audacity of hope for a better future was made manifest by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

His election brought a renewal of the inspiring words of the 1776 Declaration of Independence that has been a source of hope to countless millions around the globe:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

One year ago the governed chose to institute a new government headed by a different party with a leader that is the first African American to hold the office, as well as the first president born in Hawaii – our newest state.

Barack Obama’s election was just the start of making hope manifest. His actions as president have continued to demonstrate his singular talent to fulfill our collective hopes:

The Obama administration has pulled us back from the brink of economic collapse. His policies have led to a tax cut for 95% of Americans; available credit to those who would buy new homes and cars, and to invest in businesses; tens of thousands of teachers, law enforcement officials and firefighters have been able to stay on the job because of the billions of dollars in Recovery Act assistance made available to state and local governments. The stock market is up over 50% helping millions of savers and those in retirement who count on their investments.

The Obama Administration also took the difficult but necessary action to keep America’s financial and automotive sectors from collapsing, which would only have further shocked our economy.

President Obama signed comprehensive credit card reform into law – the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD) – that will level the playing field by stopping unfair credit card company practices that have been confusing and unfair to American families for far too long.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) gives the federal government more tools to crack down on the kind of fraud that put thousands of hardworking families at risk of losing their homes despite doing everything right to live within their means. It expands the Department of Justice’s ability to prosecute at virtually every step of the process from predatory lending on Main Street to the manipulation on Wall Street.

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act expands on the success of the Making Home Affordable Program first announced in February.  By reducing foreclosures around the country, the average homeowner could see their house price bolstered by as much as $6,000 as a result of this plan, and as many as 9 million homeowners could get help making their mortgages affordable and avoid preventable foreclosures.

Those dealing with a job loss are collecting an additional $25 a week in unemployment benefits – assistance more than 12 million Americans have already benefited from. 

Families who qualifying for food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have seen their benefits increase by more than 13%. 

More than 51 million seniors, as well as veterans and other high-need groups, have received $250 relief payments.

President Obama’s budget makes historic investments in health care, energy and education to help us move beyond the bubble and bust economy of the past, to one of sustained economic prosperity for all.

President Obama re-authorized and expanded health insurance to four million more low income children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), an action President Bush vetoed twice. Now, 11 million children are covered under SCHIP.

President Obama lifted a ban on federal funding of stem cell research, ensuring that scientific decisions are based on facts, not ideology.

Families who rely on COBRA health insurance are paying 65% less for their health coverage.

State governments have received more than $34 billion in additional Medicaid funds just as they are facing record budget shortfalls. 

President Obama signed new tobacco legislation – Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - that will finally give the FDA broad authority to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. This landmark legislation that will prevent tobacco companies from marketing to our kids and do more to protect our kids and improve our public health than any tobacco law in a generation.

The President signed a national service bill (Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act) create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for people to serve their communities.

During his first few weeks in office President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, finally guaranteeing equal pay for equal work -- something activists all over this country have dreamed about for a long, long time.

President Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination, Sonia Sotomayor, brings more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years. She is the Court’s first Latina Justice and the third woman to serve.

The President signed a presidential memorandum that will extend key federal benefits to the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees.  He signed the first federal hate crimes law to protect LGBT and the disabled – paving the way for long-overdue progress in our pursuit of equality and a more perfect union.

President Obama signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, one of the most sweeping pieces of conservation and public land management legislation in years. Among other things, the bill designates about 2 million acres of new wilderness areas.

President Obama announced new national emissions and fuel efficiency standards for American cars and light trucks. For the first time ever, limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be combined with fuel economy standards in one single standard.

These new standards will make the American car fleet cleaner and more efficient, saving families money at the pump, while reducing harmful emissions. By 2016, the American fleet will be almost 40% cleaner and more fuel-efficient than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

President Obama has also taken important steps to restore our alliances and our standing around the world. The Obama Administration has prohibited torture, and has begun the work of leaving Iraq to its people, taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rebuilding our military, and restoring our alliances and our standing around the world.

His work to make hope manifest is not over. Now, the President is working to pass comprehensive health insurance reform that will lower costs, guarantees choice and ensures all Americans have access to quality, affordable care. Every President since Harry Truman has tried and failed to reform our system, but we are closer than ever to passing real reform. Reform will end unfair insurance industry practices and provide everyone – people who already have insurance, and those who don’t – with eight basic consumer protections to make sure the American people are getting a fair deal from the insurance companies.

President Obama will continue to create a new energy policy that will help fuel a lasting economic recovery, break our dependence on foreign oil, jumpstart our clean energy economy with the creation of millions of new good, green new jobs and finally address the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

President Obama is working to reform our financial regulatory system, by building on the strengths of our current regulatory structure and correcting its flaws. Reform will fix the gaps and weaknesses in our regulations to help guard against future crises. And give regulators the tools they need to respond quickly to any future crisis, and to prevent that crisis from causing widespread harm.

He is working to reform our education system, so America’s students are competitive and can succeed in the global economy.

President Obama has done much during the first months of his presidency.

The President is making the tough choices and critical -- and often long overdue -- investments in our infrastructure and in our future.

While President Obama and his team continue their work to rescue our economy, they are also working to rebuild it stronger than before so America is ready to compete and lead in the 21st century.

It is our duty to help the President make hope manifest. Your efforts and energy are not in vain. As we pursue our individual dreams, we must act on the words of Barack Obama July 27, 2004 . . .

“We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.  Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?  Hope in the face of difficulty.  Hope in the face of uncertainty.  The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; a belief in things not seen; a belief that there are better days ahead.  I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.  I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.  I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.”

Ted Wilson to advise Gov. Herbert

Our congratulations to former Salt Lake City Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ted Wilson on his new job as senior advisor on environmental matters to Gov. Gary Herbert.

Ted Wilson is well-known for his experience as an activist for environmental causes. The State of Utah and our citizens can greatly benefit from this appointment.

Ted has supported protection of our wild places, preservation of open spaces, clean air and water, improved health from lowered pollution rates of toxic and radioactive waste. We have not seen a commitment to those things from Gary Herbert in the past.

In fact, just the opposite, we have seen strong opposition from Gary Herbert to the things that Ted has fought for – opposition to EPA standards for clean air, opposition to protecting wilderness, failure to support Congressman Matheson’s legislation to prohibit foreign import of radioactive waste, blaming the Forest Service and Wilderness designation for the wild fires at Mill Flat, support for selling-off public lands including wilderness, and, worst of all, endorsement of anti-environmental extremists like Rep. Mike Noel who Herbert called “one of the strongest and most reasoned  voices when it comes to multiple use of the public land in Utah.”

We hope this appointment is more than political window-dressing to make Herbert look moderate. Actions will have to speak louder than words in this case.

Our direct message to Gov. Herbert: Don’t waste our tax dollars to hire a talented person like Ted Wilson if you don’t intend to act on his advice. We want the State of Utah to benefit from Ted’s service, not just your political profile.

Tax increase on food is wrong - especially now.

Republican Representative Kay McIff has renewed his push to raise the sales tax on food.  With the state facing upwards of an $800 million shortfall, this time around he may actually have a reasonable shot at passing this tax hike. 

     After years of arguing taxing a necessity like food is wrong, low income advocates and other Utahns finally got the GOP dominated legislature to begin lowering this tax a couple of years ago from the old rate of 4.75% to the current 1.75%, with the promise of eventually eliminating the tax altogether.  The idea every Utahn should now face a 3% increase in their grocery bill at the very moment they can least afford it is upsetting to say the least. 

     The sales tax, or any flat tax based on a percentage not adjusted for income, is regressive to begin with.  When it comes to food, we all need around 2,000 calories a day whether we are rich or poor, and while the quality and cost of those calories varies some with income, millionaires don't generally spend considerably more to feed themselves in dollar terms than those earning minimum wage.  Therefore, any tax on food, be it the current 1.75% or the proposed old rate of 4.75%,  takes a significantly larger bite as a percentage of total income out of the pockets of the poor than it does the rich. 

      Because we are talking about a substance necessary for our survival, the poor don't have the option of cutting back, at least not much.  The Purchase of other items like an automobile or a new flat screen television can be postponed by low to middle income people during tough times.  Food, however, must be purchased or people start to get sick, or worse.  Therefore, this particular sales tax can't be avoided and that, according to Rep. McCiff, is the point. 

     Rep. McCiff opens a November 1st Deseret Morning News Op-ed by stating quite plainly "Good tax policy requires broadening the base" and "narrowing exemptions..."  Fair enough, but why pick as a good place to start increasing the tax on something essential to our survival and imposing a disproportionate impact on lower income citizens?  Why not, for example, take a look at one or more of the many sales tax exemptions currently written into Utah Code which exempt some - primarily corporations - from taxes most if not all Utah families have to pay? 

     To take one glaring example, let's look at the exemption on sales of natural gas, electricity, coal, and fuel oil for industrial use.  This exemption cost the state nearly $30 million in 2008 according to the State Tax Commission's annual report for that year.  Why are those using these products for industrial use exempt while those of us using one or more of these products at home, primarily electricity and natural gas, not exempt?  Why not "broaden the base" and "narrow the exemptions" here first before talking about increasing the tax on food?

     Corporations also received just over $105 million in sales tax exemptions in 2008 on "Manufacturing machinery and equipment" with at least a three year life.  This is no doubt in addition to the tax deduction most businesses get to take on equipment as a cost of doing business.  However, you and I don't get a sales tax exemption on "machinery" we buy to keep our home running efficiently. The sales tax will still very much apply should we buy a new stove, refrigerator, washer, or dryer. 

     If the point here is to "broaden the base" and "narrow the exemption", why are we continuing exemptions for companies doing business in our state the citizens of Utah don't enjoy?   If the goal of this and similar corporate exemptions was to offer an incentive to purchase machinery, why wouldn't the government consider a similar incentive for average citizens to stimulate the sale of durable goods?  Either way, shouldn't we be sharing the burden or not sharing the burden ("broadening the base") as equitably as possible?

       There is little doubt everyone is likely going to end up making at least some sacrifices once the legislature figures out how it is going to close the $800 million gap between current spending and revenue.  Before asking every Utahn to pay 3% more for food, the legislature may want to take a look at sales tax exemptions that currently benefit corporations but are not enjoyed by citizens.  Otherwise, any talk of "broadening the base" and "narrowing exemptions" will rightly be viewed with considerable skepticism by most taxpayers.