When I first noticed HB 30, Unemployment Insurance Amendments as proposed by Representative Jeremy Peterson (R – Ogden, District 9), I have to admit that I was ready to completely rip into the bill, but after much consideration, I have decided to only point out its many flaws.

The long and short of the bill is that it would reduce the unemployment insurance rate that employers have to kick in to the unemployment fund by two percent, reducing it from the current rate of 9 percent to 7. This bill would expire in 2013, thereby resetting the rate back to 9.

Now, being the pinko commie that I am, I immediately have to ask why we are defunding unemployment insurance at a time when, unfortunately, we are forced to use it? After all, one would not decide to cut their food budget after having a kid.

But then I got hung up on the whole “expires in 2013″ thing.  ”AH,” I so cleverly said to myself, “this is clearly meant to be some sort of program designed to incentivize business to invest.”

Sadly, this logic has some misleading flaws.

Though it is true that businesses would have more money for the year, the expiration date  means that any smart company knows that it should not spend its money on an ongoing expense (read employees). This means that businesses will do one of three things with the extra money they now have: 1)pay for debts already incurred (and, therefore not increase growth); 2) Put the money away in savings to ensure a buffer exists in the event that the company takes a turn (again, not increasing growth); or 3) Put the money into capital investments (i.e. new equipment or a new building).

I must admit that this third option could grow the economy – if this were permanent. The problem is that, once a building is built, a company isn’t going to build another one. Once a machine is ordered, the factory isn’t going to need another. In short, the effects of this bill would be more like a hit of a drug, not a dose of a cure. Some jobs will be created, but this policy would do very little to sustain economic growth.

Meanwhile, what this policy would do is reduce the amount of money people already in need could receive.  I remind you that the unemployed draw from unemployment insurance – not unemployment welfare. Every single person on unemployment is only able to take advantage of the poorly named “benefit” because, at one point, they were paying into the system when they were employed.  Just as you have the right to receive a check from your insurance agent if your car gets in an accident, you have the right to receive a check from the insurance fund in the event you loose your job.

By reducing the buy-in that companies provide, you are naturally reducing the amount of money the insurance provider is able to payout. The safety net people expected to land on becomes just a little bit smaller.

So, if this bill had no expiration date it would be bad because it kicks people when they are down; because it does have an expiration date, it will kick people when they are down (but only for a year), and do little to actually fix the problem.

I think Rep. Peterson thought he was making a good bill on this one, however it just falls flat.

To contact Rep. Peterson, Click Here or call 801-317-5386

Impact: 2

Need: 2

Overall: -1

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

It is an understatement to say that Utah has poor renters rights, placing greater worth on landlords and property owners. In the class of renters, there is an even worse off group of people – those living in mobile homes.

State and local laws are so bad that, currently, mobile home renters have no process to challenge rent or service charge increases, can have their rent change from month to month, and can have any of their services cut off at any time and for any reason. Yes, there are ways to challenge such things; but most people living in mobile homes simply do not have the time or resources to actually challenge the ruling of a park owner.

That is where Rep. Janice Fisher’s  (D-West Valley City, District 29) proposed bill comes into play. HB 63, Mobile Home Park Residency Act Amendments specifically address these and other issues related to mobile homes.

It is easy to forget about those living in mobile homes, often times parks are tucked away in areas where land is cheep and, therefore, off the beaten path.  But just because you don’t see the people living in these areas does not mean that we must simply ignore their right to have access to housing.

This bill would not give mobile home residents carte blanche to not pay rent or be poor neighbors, but what it does do is ensure that if they are upholding their end of the bargain by paying their bills and not creating a problem for other residents, that the park owner can not simply cut off their power or gas, or raise their rent to exorbitantly high rates on the next moths rent.

This is a good bill that will have an immediate and positive effect on the lives of those who are already having a rough go.

To contact Rep. Fisher, Click Here or call 801-250-2698

Impact: 2

Need: 4

Overall: 3

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

It should come as no surprise that debates are raging here and across the nation about government spending. Often, conservative law makers point to social programs as the greatest sin against the taxpayer, but we have started to reach a point where reasonable cuts can no longer be made. With Republicans refusing to budge on raising taxes (well, in most cases), we start to see the true colors of their party. One particular quote in particular bothered me…from none other than Representative Carl Wimmer:

Though I agree with the idea that forced charity isn’t charity at all, I fundamentally disagree that this means we should make such aid voluntary.  The cutting of this would mean that the severely poor would have no heating, no water, no electricity, no phone, and no real means to advance themselves because they are to concerned with simply surviving.

It has been said that you can judge a society based on how they treat the lowest members of that society, and what Representative Wimmer, and conservatives of his ilk, seem to be saying with statements such as this is that our society should not inherently value the life of the lowest classes who struggle just to get by. Don’t we, as human beings, have the common decency to prevent people from freezing to death if we have the means to do so?

Of course, a fair debate is to ask how far we should take this type of public assistance. Indeed, if we were to take this particular aid argument to its logical end, homelessness, and indeed poverty itself, would be eliminated from the state, with the public paying to ensure that everyone has a basic level of quality of life. As nice as this may be, at the current moment it is both politically and economically impossible.

But we the people, through the power of representative government, did decide to create what amounts to a communal charity when Utah Code 54-7-13.6 was voted on by the legislature and signed by the governor. We as a community collectively decided that the extra money we have to pay on a utility bill is worth it to ensure the poorest of the poor are able to have a certain level of comfort in their lives.

My tax dollars frequently go towards things that I, on my own, would not want to pay for. I am not a fan of having to pay for the inevitable lawsuits that occur after any particular lawmaker passes a message bill…but I pay them. I do not enjoy my hard earned cash going towards building roads that lead to sprawl…but I still turn in my check. Likewise, I am sure Representative Wimmer does not enjoy paying to assist the poor if he has not done so under his own free will. I get that, I really do, but taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. 100 percent of my funds could go to whatever I want, but the problem is I would live in a society that had the infrastructure of Somalia and, most likely, a similar form of government.

But when do proposed budget cuts stop being dire and start to just be mean?

Well, I know, for example that on my last power bill, this particular program cost me 11 cents a month – that is .003 cents a day or  the amount I earn in less than one sixtieth of a second at work. Meanwhile, it would take over 400 people to power my home if I were on a such an income assistance program – an entire neighborhood would be needed to help one person in it make it another month. But that is a tax that I pay on my power bill and the cost of saying that, as a society, I think it is more important that people have power than to have an extra 11 cents in my pocket at the end of the month.

But what Wimmer is suggesting is that the average Utahan simply can not spare 11 cents, or 20, or even 50 whole cents on bills that go up as the size, and presumably the price (along with the income needed for a mortgage), of a house goes up? If this isn’t the case, than he has to be suggesting that it is preferable to have people – women, children, babies, live ice cold homes in the winter and sweltering hot apartments in the summer is because the inherent idea of forcing people to pay any amount of money to another is reprehensible.

And I dare say that is where the mean factor comes in.

Some conservatives would rather battle the theoretical harm caused by even the slightest tax rather than recognize the real heartache the lack of such programs cause to real people. They seem happy to steal from the poor to give to the rich because it just doesn’t seem very nice to force the rich to do something they don’t want to do.

By being dogmatic in saying that we should never raise taxes, many conservatives remove half of governments ability to balance a budget and provide for the people. Family budgets don’t work this way – if you have cut everything as much as you can, no cable, no internet, no phone, no entertainment, poor food quality, you don’t say to yourself “whelp, I guess there is nothing left to do” when you still have bills to pay, no – you find another source of income, you don’t say “well, I guess I will sell my clothes because it costs me to maintain them.” At some point you simply can not cut anymore.

When you are a government, you have to consider the same possibility and look to increase your income, not just decrease your costs. It is mean to force those already struggling to get by to take a further cut because we refuse to accept that sometimes we need to maintain or increase a tax.

I will admit that it is important to find a balance between social programs and hyper taxation; but at some point, budget cuts stop being about cutting the fat, and start to be about being selfish and isolated from the realities of the world.

In the end policy makers and the public have to accept that we simply can not have it both ways. We can have many programs and a high tax rate, few to no programs and a low tax rate, or moderate programs with moderate tax rates – what we can’t have is low tax rates with a moderate or high amount of programs. If the public wants to have programs, it must be willing to pay for it, and if policy makers wish to have a program, they must ensure that it is funded.

I find it funny that, during these tough economic times and severe budget cuts, that Republicans still refuse to raise taxes. Thank goodness Senator Stuart Adams (R – Layton, District 22) is willing to make the hard decisions, and tax the lower and middle class.

By proposing SB 270 – Modifications to Sales and Use Tax, Adams is making it harder to buy potatoes, but easier to purchase fur coats.  Enjoy your once a week steak dinner? Well the cost for it just went up, but don’t worry, that Porsche you were looking at will come down by a few thousand. But, don’t worry, the price of Jimmy Dean chocolate chip Pancakes and Sausage (ON A STICK!) will remain unchanged.

The bill would raise the food tax on yucky “foods” that have the nerve to from the ground, or directly eat the things that come from the ground. Yes, Utah foods such as wheat, beans, potatoes, onions and corn, cherries, beef, eggs, and yes, the lauded Sugar Beet, will see an almost 3% tax increase, while the tax on other goods, such as 3D flat screen TV’s, granite counter tops, and the materials to turn that cluttered two car garage into a three car dream-scape, will go down by .3%.

I also think it is bold for Senator Adams to point out the poor have to eat, so we should do all we can to squeeze 2.7% more blood out of the turnip that is the working men and women in this state by callously pointing out that this bill would stabilize our tax base. It is also good to know that, even though such stabilization he will make it more difficult for people to eat, lowering the sales tax will make us more attractive to outsiders.

I am sure people will have the common courtesy to simply starve to death rather than further taxing programs such as food stamps to just get by, and that people on the fringe now won’t take government assistance to keep food on the table when this tax affects the one area of spending they can’t regulate with ease.  No, they should just know that, when they are ready, they can buy that  xbox 360 just a little bit sooner – you know, after they pick up a third job to pay the bills.

But don’t worry, this bill harms Senator Adams too. After all, when he drives down from the foothills of Layton (a neighborhood where the average  income, adjusted for inflation, is $93,600, and  home prices average $315,000 before the bubble burst) to go to the store, he will have to pay more for his food as well – thank goodness his pool table will be a little cheaper.

Bravo Senator Adams, way to solve the problem, and all you have to do is harm the majority of Utah’s citizens and help the richest in the state to do it.

Urgency Score

Click here to contact Senator Adams.

You may recall the dustup associated with splitting of the Jordan School District and the very painful headaches it caused up and down the chain. One of the biggest problems associated with a split such as this is the question of financial obligations and how to fairly divide divide them in the event of a split.

Though Jordan and the newly created Canyon School eventually hammered things out, it was a long and messy process. In an attempt to put some ground rules in place, Representative Sumsion (R – American Fork – District 56) has proposed HB 195 – Debt Service Obligations of a Divided School District.

In essence, the bill would create a sort of “virtual” school district that represents the original boundaries of the school districts – those in the virtual boundaries would still be responsible for paying off the debts they incurred at the first place.

Naturally, those breaking away from the district would not like this, as the main reason (though not always discussed) that people break off from a school district is because they don’t want to pay for other peoples kids getting an education.

Ah, but those wishing to maintain the district would at least be able to meet their obligations and build for the future. As an example, the Davis County School District would be in a world of hurt if the established communities at the southern end of the county decided to break off – everyone decided to build the schools, but now the tax base has been cut and payments are more difficult to make. The end result? Kids suffer as because the school district would have fewer resources available towards education.

Will this have a chilling effect on the creation of smaller districts? Yes, but in the same breath, we have to acknowledge that the people under the original district agreed to the tax in the first place. It is only fair that they have to pay.

Urgency Score:

Click here to Contact Representative Sumsion.

As clamor continues to rise around the possibility of raising the food tax, one has to wonder why Republicans are eager to reinstate this regressive tax.

In an oh so unofficial poll issued by Fox news of “political insiders,” some 68 percent of Republicans (presumably legislators among them) say that they support reinstating the tax, while 81 percent of Democratic insiders don’t support the same measure. Furthermore, nearly 60 percent of Republican insiders say that the legislature will “probably or definitely” raise the food tax.  Again, if one were to presume that at least some of these political insiders are legislators, it is safe to say that an increase is coming.

Now, I am going to be a realist and admit that the tax on food will probably be put back in place, but the fact that Republicans in the legislature is so eager (or at the very least, unapologetic) about the reinstatement of this butt saving, but poor harming tax, concerns me.

At no point have I heard honest distress about the fact that we are willfully harming the poor from the right – yet they hem and haw about repealing the states long established tax structure a few short years ago because it overtaxed those on the higher end of the income bracket, all in the name of “fairness.” As I recall, repealing the food tax was one of the compromises made in the first place to ensure that Utah had a flatter tax.

Taxes are a tricky matter, what is fair to one is utterly disgusting to another. Furthermore, we all want lower taxes (yes, even us Democrats don’t particularly like sending our money away every April), but we pay our share in order to live in a civilized society with police, roads, and meals for the poor. This is why we must consider all new taxes, the repeal of old taxes, and the reinstatement of established taxes with great care and compassion – not as cold and callously as Republicans appear to be at the time.

As a side note, I hope the Legislature considers two things when discussing this issue: that a sunset clause be placed in the bill to ensure that the state has to reconsider the bill every year until we are out of this fiscal crisis and that tax brakes be extended to those who are at or below the poverty line and to 20 percent of incomes above the poverty line.

P.S.  I would like to note a correction made to this post.  I failed to add the word “don’t” in the sentence “Democratic insiders don’t support the same measure.” Furthermore, a link to the poll was added to confirm this.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This AP photo shows us that there is still a tax that we as citiziens have to pay to excercise their right to vote.

Around the country people have been waiting in line to vote for one, two, three, and upwards of six hours waiting to vote.

Tell me that this is not taxing on the people who chose to stand in line just to have their voices heard. The math is rather simple, really. If it takes you one hour to vote and, you take off twenty minutes to get to your polling location and twenty to get back, suddenly it has taken you nearly two hours to vote. Even at the minimum wage, your vote just cost you around $10. This, of course, is assuming that you don’t try to come back a second, third, or fourth time because you were intimidated by the line you saw when you tried to vote early.

This is, of course, assuming that people making minimum wage can afford to miss two hours of work in the first place. For that matter it assumes that every single voter has the ability to stand in line for an hour. Every single physically impaired or elderly person will be able to suck it up and tolerate massive amounts of pain simply to vote. Never mind the average citizen who has children who need watching, never mind the average voter who are working two jobs just to get by and can’t miss any time for fear of losing their job.

Everyone, I mean everyone, is paying a tax to vote when they have to wait in line – after all time is money.

Now I commend those who do decide to wait in line. They are the epitome of democracy – willing to wait just to make sure their voice is heard. Also we must not forget that democracies should not be an easy thing; citizens must invest time and energy in making their decision.

But we must balance this with the fact that democracies require the participation citizens in order to be healthy. We must never forget that is much easier to sit at home and not vote and that anything that could dissuade voters will. For this reason, and this reason alone, the actual act of voting should be quick, easy, and fair. Once someone has made their final decision, they have the right to exercise it without interference – either through malicious voter intimidation or through apathy from polling officials who do not wish to remove barriers to voting.

Long lines will always discourage a portion of the population from participating in something – even if they want to. I would not wait in line to go to a showing of the next Harry Potter movie, even though I do want to see it; the same logic holds true when it comes to voting. We can never know how many people won’t vote because they saw a long line.

Early voting is a good thing, as these lines alleviate some of the pressure come Election Day. But I feel that one should have to wait no more than five minutes to vote, anything more and we are placing a legitimate tax on the right to vote. Both states and the Federal Government need to comply with the 24th Amendment by providing an adequate number of voting machines to ensure that everyone’s has the opportunity to cast their ballot.