Utah Politics | Tax Reform

David Spackman throws out some really interesting ideas about changing the structure of our state and local tax system. Essentially, he advocates starting from scratch and using income taxes and usage fees in place of every other tax, including sales and property taxes. While I see problems in trying to make such a major shift in our tax policy, it is definitely worth considering and studying. I wonder if some of our Universities will make some studies of these issues and provide some meaningful numerical projections rather than vaugue hand-waving. I wouldn't be comfortable even experimenting with such a change without a lot of hard data.

Mass Transit Motivation

A writer to the Salt Lake Tribune posits: " The sad truth of human nature is that until a situation becomes extremely painful we will not change our ways." The writer's point was that we should stop building roads so congestion becomes painful (like it is in New York or Chicago) and people will finally be forced to move to mass transit.

I can prove the writer's "truth" wrong with two counter-examples. I ride the bus to work about 50% of the time. Why? Not because driving is painful, but because I love the chance to be able to get in a little leisure reading each day. I love saving money on gas. I love not having to worry about icy roads. Driving to work isn't painful. In fact, time-wise UTA is far more painful--taking more than twice as long to get from here to there.

Second, recycling. I want to recycle. When I lived in Orem there was an extra monthly fee to be able to recycle, but I was happy for the chance. It would be easier (i.e. less "painful") not to recycle, but I feel better doing it. I try to find opportunities to recycle whenever I can conveniently do so. I suspect many people feel the same about mass transit. They now the environmental benefits and they want to help.

Inauguration Spending

I thought this statement had been made and refuted sufficiently many times that we could stop this silly conversation. Apparently not. From a letter to the editor in today's Tribune:

"Yeah, but $40 million worth of celebration (Bush inauguration) is obscene. Millions are suffering in Asia, and the troops in Iraq lack the necessary armor to keep them safe. Our 'wartime' president should step forward and prove that he is genuinely concerned over the troops and recent world events."

I heard on the radio today that Clinton spent $120 million on his presidential library and attendant celebrations. Were these same people angry because that money was not diverted to "higher purposes"? I doubt it. They shouldn't have been angry then and they shouldn't be angry now. The celebration of democracy is a worthy reason for a ball. More to the point, it was private donations. If you believe in liberty, shouldn't you believe that people can spend their money any legal way they choose without being made to feel guilty about it?

Okay, I have to confess that there is a big part of me that cringes when I see people spending money on ostentatious homes or events. But the higher principle here is personal freedom and the incentives that make a free market work. I have to except extravagance as the price of a capitalistic society which is the best economic system we currently have.

Social Security: Ratios for solvency

David Tufte proposed an interesting idea. Whether he actually advocates it, I don't know.

"In principle this is an easy thing to fix. If Congress stipulated that the ratio of earners to receivers would remain at some fixed ratio (say 3 to 1), and that eligibility to join the group of receivers would be determined by the availability of slots that did not decrease that ratio, then social security would be sustainable forever."

While this is an interesting idea, it would mean that Social Security would have a very different meaning in 20 years than it does today. I've already heard one proposal to provide payroll tax credits for having children. These children, of course, are the ones that are funding the system and so, the theory goes, people should be rewarded for having them.

Serious questions remain for me about Social Security that must be addressed in any recommendation for reform. First, what impact will lengthing life expectancy have on the system? I was listening to Mike Leavitt's testimony in his confirmation hearing before the Senate to become the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. He noted that as govenor he hosted a luncheon for everyone in the state over age 100. He explained that for a little girl born today in Utah, she would have over 100,000 associates at the governor's luncheon in 100 years. There are a lot of people that are living longer--and that makes a real difference to evaluating a system like Social Security. I don't have the numbers to back me up, but I expect that people wouldn't quality for social security in Tufte's "slot" system until well beyond age 70. Can poor people really wait that long for a benefit? Wouldn't people with low-paying physical labor-type jobs be those that are going to have the shortest useful working lifetime and thus need retirement help sooner?

Tufte commented that Social Security is not a pension system. Perhaps this word has some more precise meaning for economists than that definition which is normally understood (from Princeton WordNet), "a regular payment to a person that is intended to allow them to subsist without working."

Seismic Peace

Keryn and I read a funny piece about someone making peace with their deli man after a heated argument on the subject of the recent tsunami. The author recounts the argument which started thusly: "I remarked, 'It looks worse than a nuclear attack.'
'That's what I think it was,' he responded. 'This wasn't an earthquake, it was an underwater nuclear bomb!'"
Keryn's response? "Doesn't he know how much bigger the energy released by that earthquake is than any nuclear bomb?" Reading a little further down the article we read, "Muhammed, I learned, is from Jordan (where he was a geologist) and is married to an Irishwoman." My wife, also a geologist, could only shake her head.

Buckle Up

We have the very sad story of a young man who didn't like seat belt laws and said so.

And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too.

Later the news is reported, only a few months later, of the same young man:

Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. . . . Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt.

James Taranto conluded his posting, "When you flirt with death, you run the risk that death has something more serious in mind."

The Unconstitutional Filibuster of Judicial Nominees

Senator Orrin G. Hatch claimed that the filibuster of judical nominees was "unconstitutional." I balked at that, figuring that the Senate can make whatever rules it wants since that is their constitutional privilege. However, Hatch went on to make the point clear and I must say that I am persuaded. "Democrats' new filibusters ... [are] unfair to senators who must provide the 'advice and consent' the Constitution requires of them through a final up or down vote."

Save Social Security by... having more kids?

Grabbing a valid point and stretching it to absurdity today is Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation:

"There are many reasons birthrates are falling, but Social Security itself is likely a major cause because of the raw deal it creates for parents and the enormous subsidies it provides to non-parents. By raising and educating their children, parents provide the system with essential human capital. The cost of this contribution, in both direct expenses and forgone wages, is often measured in the millions.
"Yet parents get no compensation from Social Security, nor from the wider economy, for the investments they make in their children. Instead, Social Security pays the same benefits, and often more, to people who avoid the burdens of parenthood. So long as Social Security effectively penalizes people for having the very children the system requires, it contributes to a downward spiral of falling birthrates leading to higher and higher tax rates."

There is some truth to saying that people cannot derive as much benefit from having children in a land of child labor laws. There is some foundation of truth in Longman's argument. But then he goes off the deep end.

"Here's a possible solution. Instead of slashing benefits across the board and borrowing trillions to create a risky system of personal accounts, use the same money to offer substantial tax relief, and extra benefits, to married parents who successfully raise their children. For example, have one child, and the payroll tax you pay (and that your employer nominally pays) drops by one-third. A second child would be worth a two-thirds reduction in payroll taxes. Have three or more children and you wouldn't have any payroll taxes again until your youngest child turned 18.
"When it came time to retire, your Social Security benefit (and your spouse's) would be calculated just as if you had both been contributing the maximum Social Security tax during the period in which you were raising children, provided that all your children graduate from high school."

So let me get this straight. Investing money you earn to support yourself in retirement is "risky" while having children (while not paying money into the system) and betting that they will a) live to age 18 and b) graduate from high school is not risky? What parent can guarantee that their children will not die or not drop out of school due to circumstances beyond the parents' control?
Longman suggests that people will be motivated to become parents because of the tax break they would receive. First off, I think the government is already doing a lot of this incentive with the $1000 per child tax credit. Second, I think that any child born in to a home where he is only welcome because of a tax credit is starting out at a disadvantage in life. Most people I know who are having children would do it with or without financial incentives from the government.
An article of faith for me pertaining to welfare is that a person is first responsible to himself. If he cannot help himself, he should turn to his family. If he cannot turn to his family, he can turn to his community, which for me is church first and government last. Longman suggests that retirement should be welfare to which we turn to the government first. This turns the hierarchy of responsibility precisely on its head. Why would we want to do that?

A Bargin at Those Prices

OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan: "The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama."

Thanks for making us laugh out loud, Peggy Noonan. Welcome back.

"How am I hurting your marriage?"

The most common and difficult question to answer from proponents of gay "marriage" has been this: "How does the state recognizing my love and marriage lessen your love or marriage. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune, by Paul Mero, provides a succint answer: "During the audience question period a young lady pointedly asked me why her 'two moms' were considered a threat to traditional marriage. Great question!

This young lady seemed to be bright and healthy and clearly informed about the world around her. She looked like the beneficiary of two moms. She looked loved. And so I responded honestly - as far as I knew, her two moms were no threat to my family or anyone else's family. But then I told her that such sentiments have nothing to do with Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 is only concerned with the public policy of marriage. It represents the state interest in marriage. It has nothing - nothing - to do with the personal relationships with which we all live. Proof of this is most obvious when we consider that homosexuals may freely marry in all 50 states, in any of the churches or belief systems that bless such relationships, and that homosexuals, just like any other two individuals, are free to enter into private, legal contracts sharing their personal and economic lives. Amendment 3 is not about those relationships. It only regards the state interest in marriage."

Rove is the Devil? Show me the brimstone.

The Salt Lake Tribune had an article written by a high school classmate of Karl Rove. Of course Rove spent some time in high school here in Utah. I eagerly jumped into the article, hoping to gleam some interesting insights. While I did learn some things about Rove I hadn't known before, I didn't get anything meaty from the piece. Instead, the author falls back on silly claims. His only solid accusation of a Rove "dirty trick" was this : "For Karl, winning is the only goal and the tactics used have no ethical, moral, factual or even legal restraint. The latest edition of Rove's smear campaigns came in the form of the Swift Boat Veterans' now totally discredited version of John Kerry's Vietnam service. It did what smear campaigns always do. It diverted attention away from what really matters. "

Dr. Brian Moench, the author of the piece, really owes his readers something more substantial. I was looking forward to the meal that never arrived.

KSL debate between Beau Babka and Chris Cannon

Cannon was asked about the record deficits. He responded that we just need to make government more efficient. Is he kidding? That’s not going to put much of a dent in a budget composed largely of entitlement spending. That can’t be the answer he really believes. Is this where it has to lead as the majority party pushing the pork?

Babka hasn’t said anything very impressive thus far. Particularly, his answer about the Federal Marriage Amendment was weak. He started picking on the proposed Utah amendment (Amendment 3) and showed that he doesn’t seem to understand the ramifications of the amendment very well.

Babka does present himself well. I haven’t agreed with one of his stated positions yet, though I think he seems like a credible contender. I didn’t have that impression before this debate. He advocates strengthening out borders and was willing to denounce illegal immigration. Many are unwilling to do so. Cannon’s answer on this question was just to say, “75% of people agree with my position when it is explained to them.” But what is your position?!

Apology of Teresa Heinz Kerry

Yahoo! News - Statement of Teresa Heinz Kerry

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian...As someone who has been both a full time mom and full time in the workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are..."

Brad pointed out that she gets cast as the wicked witch, so everything she says gets spun that way. So, to continue to give her the benefit of the doubt (I don't always, although I should), she basically misspoke. She does that a lot, but...so do I. I'm just not on a national stage.

Teresa Kerry attacks teachers, librarians?

USATODAY.com - The real running mates

USATODAY.com - The real running mates
(I know this has nothing to do with Utah politics, but it ticked me off just the same.)
From USA Today's interview with Teresa Heinz Kerry: (emphasis mine)

"Q: You'd be different from Laura Bush?

A: Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger — because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about."

Excuse me? NRO's Kerry Spot gives us this information from the White House:

"Inspired by her second grade teacher, she earned a bachelor of science degree in education from Southern Methodist University in 1968. She then taught in public schools in Dallas and Houston. In 1973 she earned a master of library science degree from the University of Texas at Austin and worked as a public school librarian in Austin [until 1977]."

I have a sister, two aunts, and who knows how many friends employed as public school teachers. I teach two classes at the state college down the road. It's not easy work--and working full time trying to teach eight-year-old ESL kids how to construct a sentence is a ton harder. But then again, what do I know? I've never had to slave away at managing up to $1 billion dollars in trusts and accounts.

Then again, to give Teresa the benefit of the doubt: maybe she wasn't slamming teachers. Maybe she honestly didn't know that is what Laura did.

Ivory not on ballot

KSL News: Ivory's Name Will Not Be on Ballot

This announcement just broke while I was watching KSL Evening News--the county clerk has ruled that Ellis Ivory will not be allowed to be on the ballot to replace Nancy Workman. "Until a vote and certification...(by the Republican committee)...he can't be on the ballot." (very rough transcription)

Despite the post below about my dislike of part of Ellis Ivory's campaign, I'm actually not against him winning. (I really don't care much one way or another.) But I've been against the replacement action, mostly because it seems a little sleazy and underhanded. As a write-in candidate, he has, at least in my opinion, an honest chance.