I am:

• White
• Male
• Middle Class
• College Educated
• In debt because of this
• Actively seeking a job that is not in a call center or service industry
• Not qualified to receive unemployment
• An otherwise contributing member of society

Truman said it best: “A recession is when your neighbor looses his job, a depression is when you loose your job.” Well, let there be no doubt, I am in a “depression” as we speak.

I want a job, I want to contribute, and I want the society I have been a part of (and paid into I might add) to help me at this moment. No, I am not a welfare queen or a trust fund kid who does not care – no, I am young, I want to work, and I can’t.

This recession is not about bloated government spending, it is not about socialism penetrating our hospitals, it is not about how our rights have been taken away. No, this recession is about good, honest, hard working people struggling to keep their head above water, and I am thankful that this administration is trying to make changes that allow me to do that.

The role of the government should never be to tell me how to live my life, it should be to give me the tools I need to ensure I make this nation a better place. Frankly, I feel a lot of talking heads and politicians have lost sight of this.

For those of you who do not know that LRGC is, don’t feel stupid, the legislature doesn’t either. The LRGC is to help draft and review laws to see if, amongst other things, laws will violate that ever so pesky Constitution. Oh, sure, they still weigh in on the legality of bills, but it is clear that the legislature never really gets that far down in reading any particular law.

Take this excerpt from Senate Bill 11, a law which passed the Senate 19-10 and the House 56-17:

As required by legislative rule and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill…Congress has provided a comprehensive system for regulating the manufacture of firearms, including broad licensing requirements. Congress has also provided that contrary state laws are invalid. Existing judicial interpretations of Congress’s power to regulate intrastate conduct allow the manufacture of firearms to be restricted by federal law. Accordingly, because this legislation purports to limit the reach of the federal law and is inconsistent with the federal firearms provisions, this legislation is highly likely to be held to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

In other words: this bill is unconstitutional and we will most likely loose in court if you dig-bats pass it into law.

But, of course, the bill did pass by a wide margin and we probably will go to court over this issue (though, in this particular case, Montana was kind enough to pass a similar law first. We might just luck out and not get sued first).

And ignoring LRGC is a common trend in this message bill loving state.  Time after time we pass bills because they are “the right thing to do” to send a message to those filthy (insert derogatory statement here).

So I say dump em’. As I recall there were 8 to 10 staffers for LRGC who work throughout the entire year. Each one probably makes anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 a year for a possible savings of $320,000 t0 $800,000 (not including other staff and supplies).

Woah golly! We might actually be able to afford those lawsuits after all.

Of course, if legislators would actually listen to these hard working individuals, they would be worth their weight in gold.  But these part time legislators, many of whom have no real concept of how the legal system works, must know best.

I direct your attention to HB 217 – Income Tax Revisions.

I want you all to think back to 2007, times were ok, though not great, but Utah’s economy was starting to settle into nice, steady, growth. The argument was put forward that, because times will always be good, we should simply have a flat tax of 5%, if only because we wouldn’t have to adjust things and upset people when we do – sure, we may loose a few bucks here and there, but overall, the citizens of our state will be happier.

And then the bubble burst. Because we don’t have different taxes for different incomes, it is alot more difficult to balance the budget without going back to the old formula – we would have to raise taxes in an attempt to raise revenue.

So, Wimmer, being the smart policy maker that he is, attempts to balance the budget…by lowering taxes even more.

Yes folks, Wimmer is using the classic “trickle down” argument to justify tax cuts in a year where vital services are being slashed in an attempt to stay afloat. And he is not doing this by a small amount, no sir, he is doing it by reducing the corporate and personal income tax by a full .25%. Now that may not sound much to you, but when your billion dollar plus budget takes a .25% hit, you notice. In fact the fiscal note attached to this bill says that we would notice it to the tune of over $1.6 million over just the next two years.

That is $1.6 million we no longer have during thin times when dollars are already being stretch thin. That is $1.6 million the taxpayer is already used to paying. That is $1.6 million that originally would have gone to our schools, and just our schools – all because Wimmer feels that money will simply trickle down from the top.

Now I have always been a fan of “trickle down economics” because its name is so descriptive – it is literally the rich pissing on the middle and lower classes – they get to buy an extra flat screen TV and we get to buy an extra tank of gas in a given year.Yes, if you earn $20,000, you get a whopping $50 more in a year.

Wimmer fails to realize that, as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. We are not in fat times where lavish spending is taking place for government services, rather we are living in times where vitally important programs such as meals on wheels and CHIP are being cut in an attempt to maintain some sort of service, we are living in a time where roads go one extra year without maintenance, we are living in a time where schools are asked to use the same books again. We are living in a time where everyone is tightening up – and Wimmer, apparently, wants to take even that away.

This is not the time for tax cuts.  If I am wrong, it means that the recession lasts a bit longer that it could have, but if I am right, we have created long lasting damage that could take years to recover from.

Click here to contact Representative Wimmer.

Now, to be fair, Ray’s bill, HB 196 – Tobacco Tax Revisions, is a more toned down version of last years bill.  This does not mean, however, that it still is a good bill.

You see, last years bill more than doubled the tax on each individual cigarette and cigar. This years tax would raise the tax on cigarettes and cigars by a little less than double – from 3.475 cents to 6.55 cents per cigarettes and from 4.075 cents to 7.68 cents per cigar respectively. It should be noted that the bill adds something else: the raising of the tax on snuff from 75 cents to $1.41 per ounce. But the bill still does not address my two principal concerns: health education, treatment and prevention of the effects of tobacco, and the usage of this tax as a crutch.

The bill does state that one million dollars of the revenue gained from the tax will go towards the Department of Health for use in the “Gold Medal Schools” program (whatever that is), but otherwise remains silent on health education. I presume this million dollars will go towards the tried and true “don’t smoke kids” argument we have seen before – but it could easily be directed towards other substance abuse programs…or placing hand sanitizers in schools – the bill is not specific.

The bill also does not direct funds to more logical sources, like the treatment of health problems associated with the consumption of tobacco products.  Perhaps more funding towards our hospitals or cancer centers that focus both on research and treatment. As it stands now, smokers simply drain the system if they can’t afford treatment, and cancer research benefits not just those who wish to puff up.

Finally, it appears that this bill is designed to pad the state coffers. Now, I am not inherently opposed to this, especially with our budget in as bad of a shape as it is, but I am always weary when we talk about raising so called “sin taxes” to get us out of debt.

You see, Ray may argue that the bill discourages smokers while increasing revenue.  But this is talking out of both sides of ones mouth.  If we want fewer smokers, we will have less revenue; likewise if we have more smokers, we will have more revenue.

My point to this is that it is not a stable tax when compared to, say, homeowners tax. It fluctuates and is, therefore, not a good way to balance a budget in difficult times, if only because you simply can not predict how much revenue will come in.

In the end, this is a better bill than last year, but it still has the same fundamental flaws and should not pass.

Click here to contact Representative Ray

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.

As the state is staring down a $1 Billion deficit, some difficult decisions have to be made regarding how we are going to balance our budget while still providing for the needs of the citizens of the state of Utah.

To be sure, cuts are going to have to be made to make sure that the state is fiscally sound, however it is politically unwise for both Republicans and Democrats alike to chop off such a large amount of money from the states spending – we will have to find new sources of revenue to ensure that the state is able to pay its bills.

This is where state liquor laws come in.

State liquor licenses have officially, if you will pardon the pun, dried up in the state. You see, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is only allowed to offer a liquor license per 7,850 people according to state law. Now, when the state was smaller and more Mormon, this was a somewhat reasonable number – balancing the beliefs of the predominate religion with those who choose to drink. Today, however, the states population has changed, and the demand for drinks has officially topped out; supply has outstripped demand.

The state of Utah currently has an estimated 2,736,424 people, equating to 348 liquor licenses. If state law were changed, even slightly to, say, one license per 7,250 people, 377 total (or 29) new licenses would become available over night – or to put it another way, one new liquor license per county. Now, it was touted that the famous Port O’ Call brought in $1.2 million yearly in tax dollars to the state, county, and city. But not every bar is a Port O’ Call – let us suppose that each bar will bring in, on average $50,000 in liquor taxes including licensing fees. Suddenly we have an additional $1,450,000 in our coffers.

Now it is fair to point out that this would only cover some 2 percent of our state deficit, but it is a start. Furthermore, it is one of the better types of taxes to impose – a usage tax – if you don’t drink, you don’t pay the tax, and if you do…well thanks for the extra buck. Mind you, we have not even talked about “raising taxes,” just releasing more licenses so that more alcohol can be sold in the first place to a public that is clearly demanding more access. A penny per gallon increase in beer and hard liquor could further increase funds to the state.

I would also be remiss if I did not point out that this policy would, logically, increase the number of alcohol related legal and medical related incidents in our state. I would argue, however, that there is not a one-to-one relationship to alcohol access and abuse. People prone to alcoholism are probably not going to start drinking simply because a new bar opened up down the street – these people will, most likely, already be abusing alcohol regardless of state rules and mandates. Furthermore the person just starting to drink is not likely to over-indulge at a bar – either they are underage and at a friends house, or they are legal and more aware of the consequences of their actions.

Finally, I would like mention the fact that the free market capitalism is attacked under the current system. The state monopoly on licenses not only prevent free enterprise, but they also stifle economic growth in a very real way…Of course I am sure the Republicans on the hill will consider that if and when they discuss this topic.

Now, to be fair, one of the joys of resolutions is that you can practically say or do anything with no real consequences. As I have said before, resolutions usually act as a suggestion for people to follow. So why do I even bother stressing over S.J.R. 17? Well, in short, it is due to the fact that it is so full of partisan rhetoric that it makes me want to either laugh or cry.

The concept is tied up in the title of the bill: Urging Congressional And Presidential Opposition to Federal Bailouts and Promotion of Fiscal Responsibility. Representative Frank clearly is not a fan of the stimulus package and, more specifically the bank and auto makers bailout that occurred late last year. Now I am not here to debate the stimulus itself, rather the conclusions that Representative Frank thinks is so abundantly apparent…along with his oh so sounds conclusions.

Ah, but where to begin picking apart this resolution? I can start almost at the beginning. “the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (was) crafted to allow activist attorneys to force otherwise responsible financial institutions to issue mortgages to low-income, credit-risky individuals.”OOOOOH I HATE THOSE ACTIVIST ATTORNEYS, TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR LOW-INCOME PEOPLE!

“(T)he United States Senate added one hundred fifty million dollars in additional unnecessary spending to the (Emergency Economic Stabilization) Act.” Now one of these days I am going to have to write a post concerning one mans pork being another mans stimulus spending. Long blog post short – who do you think builds the buildings and staffs the offices? Rich people who don’t need the jobs?

“(D)eregulation allowed financial institutions to overextend and over-leverage their credit in pursuit of toxic assets like Mortgage Backed Securities…”…I actually kinda agree with this one, sorry.

“(S)ince January 2007, prior to the bailouts, Congress had already been authorizing 2.8 billion dollars of additional deficit spending per day, proving beyond question that deficit spending as an economic stimulus strategy fails to forestall economic recession…” O.K. 1) You don’t honestly think that in an $13.84 trillion a year GDP is suddenly going to turn itself around in a month with $84 billion (.6% of the economic output); 2) who is to say that this spending hasn’t made some progress in dampening the recession?

But this one is my personal favorite: “(Treasury Secretary Paulson) would instead “inject equity” directly into banks, a process that effectively nationalized a significant portion of the nation’s banking system, moving the free market-based economy another step closer toward unconstitutional socialism.” Please, representative Frank, show me exactly where socialism is unconstitutional? Name one article, one amendment, or one preamble that mentions any sort of economic system at all? Show me one Supreme Court ruling that established that capitalism is a penumbra of the Constitution? Try me.

In the end this resolution will pass, if only because the legislature is full of howling monkeys who baulk at the idea of any sort of government spending (though I am sure they won’t mind the stimulus money coming to our state shortly). Furthermore, as I said, it is a resolution, not a law, that just makes us look even more idiotic than usual in the eyes of the nation.

But this logic is not perfect. Our material wealth is built on the government services and infrastructure that only a government is willing to undertake. Indeed, when you look at the cost of educating students, building roads, and keeping our citizens healthy, it seems almost impossible to imagine a company to undertake such tasks.

What the majority of these fiscal conservatives fail to remember is that our government is a provider of last resort – they they only step in when a service is needed and the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide. Furthermore the government has no requirements to turn a profit in the next five, 10, or 20 years. These two factors add up to the need for government spending.

Think of it this way – it was not too long ago the only people to receive an education were the ones who could afford to pay for it, likewise the term “turnpike” comes from the early days of our colonization wherein private individuals would build roads only between locations they felt they could profit off of – they would guard people from recklessly using their road by putting a pole, or pike, at entrances and charging a toll to enter.

Where would our republic be today if we still stuck to this method? Only the rich would educate their children, leaving a dearth of uneducated workers, never being able to live a comfortable middle class. Roads would suddenly stop and companies could not ship to the little burbs and hamlets not connected to the system, leaving millions of people with no access to quality goods.

The argument that non-profits will also provide when the government won’t is bunk as well. Although there are many very good groups that do very good things, they simply can not be everywhere at once. Although one section of the nation may have great access to health care for the poor, what is to say that you will live in that area? Only by creating a federalized system can we ensure that all of the citizens of this nation are healthy. Furthermore, is it fair that Idaho has a great non-profit education system but Utah can’t seem to get its act together? Finally, no organization is more affected by the ups and downs of the market than a non-profit. Indeed look how hard these groups are having at even staying afloat, let alone expanding their reach.

In short we need government spending despite the protests raised by the conservatives of this world. Sure we can set up a system wherein the government only protects its citizens from others, but is this really the system we would want to live in? I prefer one where the citizens live a happy, fulfilling, and comfortable life – not just one where they eek by hoping that one day they make it big – all the while hoping that they have access to infrastructure that will benefit them.

Of course we should make sure that we are spending our money wisely, of course programs that are not working should be changed or dropped, and it goes without saying that pork spending is a bad thing. But just because you don’t like paying for, say meals on wheels, you should still appreciate the fact that this social safety net is there to ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare.