Utah's Arch » Taxes

Balance the Budget but Don’t Amend

Travis Grant — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 06:38:55 +0000

I support a balanced budget. I have balanced my budget. My wife have been living a debt free lifestyle for over 3 years now. It was a tough road, but well worth the effort. We have to cut back. I can’t buy all the toys that I want, and our children don’t wear the most fashionable clothing. However, we manage to rough life with some nice things, and we are happy.

I support our government living with a balanced budget. We need to get our government back in line, and we need to stop the excessive spending of money that we do not have.

If you follow the Republican Party in Utah, the phrase of the day is Balance the Budget. It’s a great theme to run a campaign on. It’s something that most of us can agree on. I admit I agree with it. However, most politicians, included my most favored candidate for the new 4th district, likes to add another word to the phrase balanced budget.

And that word is amendment. Balanced budget amendment is the real catch phrase in Utah Republican politics, and problem in other parts of the United States as well.

However, As I have expressed in the past, I am not a big fan of amending the Constitution. That isn’t to say that I am opposed to any amendment to the Constitution because it is fundamentally wrong. I don’t believe that. There are reasons and times when an amendment is necessary.

The question is now the right time? And is a balanced budge the right reason?

It sure looks like the right time. It sure seems that if we don’t do this now it will never get done. However, the bigger of the two question is whether this is the right thing to do.

Sure, I would love to hold our legislators accountable for their actions. Arguably they are the one’s that got us into this mess.

However, forcing their hand will lead to further corruption.

The only way that you could safely pass a balanced budge amendment is to add certain rules of exceptions. A whole bunch of legalese gobble-dee gook that will mess up the process.

One of those exceptions will surely be for cases of war.

Let’s remember who has the power to declare war. That’s right, the same people who have control over the budget. So, if these people want more money. What is there to stop them from declaring war.

Sound too extreme? Don’t believe it will happen? Remember all the promises made when social security was created. Are any of those promises broken? Has there been any corruptions from that.

I only use ware as one example of the corruption that could develop because of a balanced budget amendment. Our best and only bet to prevent further corruption in the government is to elect good citizens. Men and women whose hearts are in the right place, but also have he will to stand up to the already powerful evils that exist in the government.

Don’t amend. Just elect the right people for the job.

Possibly Related Posts:

Utah’s Online Tea Party

Travis Grant — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:05:59 +0000

I woke up this morning and saw a few of my Facebook Friends who were heading to the Tea Party. I was envious. Then as I drove to Work, Bob Lonsberry was calling his program the Tea Part on Air. Realizing that there were a lot of you who may be like me. You may wish you could go to a Tea Party Event, but often find yourself having to care for your family (either by being at home or working a job). Well, now is your chance to participate.

After you read my rants, take a minute to share your Tea Party ideas in a comment below. As is one of the themes of the Tea Party. Your voice is the one that matters. So, here you will not have to listen to a bunch of politicos. Instead you get to hear your voice and the voice of your neighbors. So, please join my online Tea Party.

Now for my rant.

When I first heard of the Tea Party movement, one of the things that struck me was the elite’s response. They treated the Tea Party movement as a fly-by-night bunch of know nothings. They couldn’t be bothered by it.

It struck me as that was the same reaction that England had when the Colonialist started to rebel. They didn’t think that such a movement could have a place in their empire. They ignored it, and hoped it would go away.

Well, just like history has shown, when the cause it right, it doesn’t go away. The Tea Party has grown and the greatest part about it is that it is a truly grassroots organization.

We are over taxes. We need to do something to change that. We need to get rid of the tax and spend Democrats. We need to get rid of the tax and spend Republicans. All congresspersons need to know that if they want my vote, they will stop taking my money and giving it to their special interests.

It is time for real change. Time to make congress a representation of the people and not of special interests. This isn’t going to be done through some amendment to the constitutions, or some fancy campaign finance law.

This is going to be done at the ballot box. And the Tea Party is helping to raise awareness of this.

Enough of my rants. Please share your ideas below.

Take Our Poll

Possibly Related Posts:

Jordan District Proves Their Unwillingness to Help Students

Travis Grant — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:02:53 +0000

This morning the Deseret News reported that the Jordan School district has rejected a deal that could help them save a lot of money, and keep them from raising taxes again on the Citizens on the South West Side of Salt Lake County. While they claim its for the best. Let’s look what what the real reasons are.

First, let’s look at why the Jordan School District Board refused to accept the offer from American Preparatory Academy (APA). They claim, “It makes no sense to build another school in an area where the population is declining,” said Steve Dunham, district spokesman. “And while, yes, we could build it where we might need a building, their charter is still designed to target a specific demographic.”

However, the offer was to build the school wherever the District felt that the growth was needed. While talk is that they would charter the school out of the abandoned building on 104th South and 1300 West. That wasn’t a part of the initial offer.

So, let’s take a look at the real reason the Jordan School has refused the offer. The first, and perhaps the most revealing, reason is the close connection that the Jordan School District has with the Utah Education Association (UEA). If you have watch the actions of the Jordan School District it has almost always been at the bidding of the UEA.

If they grant APA the right to open a school in their district, then that means less jobs for the UEA. That means that the UEA will make that much less money. This isn’t about best serving the citizens of the south west valley. It is about serving the UEA.

The second reason is the fear that APA will do better than they have done. Consistently, Charter schools have out performed of the public schools. This is pretty much regardless of location and the general make up of the student. This success is also done with a lower per pupil spending than the public schools.

If the APA succeeds in a new school, then it will show that the Jordan School District is failing. It will show that the Charter School system works. The Jordan School District doesn’t want to admit that. And the UEA doesn’t want that to be proven.

If the School District and the UEA believed that Charter Schools were bad, then they could use this as a chance to prove it. However, they won’t, because Charter Schools have been a success, and that make the competition too great for the Jordan School District.

The worst part of this is not that the School District won’t embrace this idea. It’s that students are hurting. Students are suffering because of the pride of the Jordan School District Board. It isn’t about the money for me. It is about the students. And the School District doesn’t seem to understand that.

As far as I am concerned, it is time to clean up house in the Jordan School District. Many positions are up for re-election this year, and I know that I will not be voting for any incumbents, and I will be supporting at least one candidate who can and will make a difference. In encourage you to do so too.

Take Our Poll

Possibly Related Posts:

The Case FOR Amending the Constitution

Travis Grant — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:51:40 +0000

This is part three of a three part series on controlling the power of our representatives. The first in the series was on term limits. The second was on seniority in congress.

After having read my first post in this series, I am sure many believed that I am opposed to amending the constitution. I wish to state now very clearly I am not against amending the constitution. I feel that amending the constitution is a very constitutional act. Conner Boyack addresses this very well, and I will let you read his comments instead of spending too much time on that issue.

However, as Boyack mentions, there should be at least some measure by which a constitutional amendment must be measured. Among there 27 amendments, there are several that I feel should never have passed. Boyack expresses at least two of them, but his reasoning for opposing them are different from mine.

To understand that difference, we need to take a closer look at the first 10 amendenments, better known as the bill of rights. Here’s a quick rundown just to help refresh your memory:

Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.

Right to bear arms.

Freedom from quartering soldiers.

protection from unlawful search and seizure.

Right to due process and protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination and eminent domain.

Right to criminal trial by jury.

Right to civil trial by jury.

Protection from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Protection of individual rights not specifically mention in the bill of rights.

Protection of state’s rights.

Let’s take a look at these amendment as a whole. What do each of these amendments have in common. It might be easier if you look at just the first nine. Each of the first nine are focused around individual rights and liberties. While the tenth is often though of as the state’s rights clause we must not forget that it grants the same rights “to the people.”

While history tells us that these amendments were added because of the demand by the people for an enumeration of the rights of the people, I think that it sets a very interesting precedent. When amending the constitution, we must look at it’s effects on the rights of the people.

Of the remaining 17 amendments, the most problematic one are those that limit people’s rights. One example of this is the 18th amendment. By prohibiting alcohol, we limit individual freedom. Fortunately, the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment and individual freedoms were restored.

The amendments that have be beneficial to us are those that are about clarifying individual rights. The best examples of this are the 13th and the 19th amendments which granted freedom to slaves and allowed for women’s suffrage, respectively. These are generally celebrated amendments and that is because the have at their hearts the same thing that was at the heart of the first 10 amendments: individual rights and freedom.

I don’t oppose amending the constitution. I support it, when it is about guaranteeing rights, freedoms and protections.

One such amendment would be repealing the 16th amendment that made it legal to impose an income tax on the citizens. Not so much because I don’t like income taxes. Rather, because I feel that an income tax is an attack on my freedom as a person.

I would also support repealing the 17th amendment. You might question my reasoning on this. Doesn’t the 17th amendment give individuals the right to vote for their Senator. However, I would argue that the right to vote for your Senator was clearly not granted in the original constitution, and for good reason. That reason being that the founders didn’t want a democracy. And that the original intent was for the Senator to represent the state’s and not to represent the people. But that is a lengthy constitutional discussion that is beyond the scope of this post.

Another reason I support repealing the 17th amendment, such an amendment would effectively remove the desire for Senators to try and “bribe” the people with earmarks and entitlements. The Senators would now become servants of the states and not servants of the masses. It would be easier to replace an incumbent Senator under the original program, and would thus remove the need for term limits. It would also take care of the issue of seniority to a great extent.

I support amending the constitution. But only when those amendments are clearly in the interest of establishing the rights of the people, and the rights of the states as we see by the precedent established by the Bill of Rights.

Take Our Poll

Possibly Related Posts:

Do Utahns Really Want a Tax Increase?

Travis Grant — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:04:57 +0000

I haven’t spoken much lately about a faulty Deseret News poll. Not because they haven’t had them, but for the most part they were uninteresting. Oh, they have gotten slightly better, but still they are skewed.

However, the lastest poll results about Utahns wanting higher taxes is another example of their bias. Look closely at the poll question to the right. What do you see wrong with this picture?

First, look at the question. Is this not a leading question? It is so leading that it is proceeded by 3 sentences. Of course this is only to keep the uneducated public informed before they answer such an important question. They wouldn’t be trying to influence poll takers votes, that would be unethical.

But they go further than that. Look at the exact question: “Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to reduce or avoid further cuts in education, health and human services…?” They might as well be asking people, “do you want to be a bad person and not fund education and health and human services?”

What would happen if they asked the question like this: “Gov. Gary Herbert has proposed a balanced state budget with no tax increases. Utah has one of the highest tax burdens of all 50 states. In past years, the state has succeeded in managing the state without tax increases. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in order to reduce the burden on Utah citizens?”

If you were to ask this question, the response would be a resounding “Don’t raise my taxes.” People would be in favor of not adding additional taxes. People would support Gov. Herbert.

In addition to the biasing question, there is one other little item that the Deseret News fails to draw your attention to. It’s that pesky little “+/- 5 percent,” or the margin of error, found that the bottom of the graphic. This +/-5 percent can be added to the “definitely willing” group and the “probably willing” group. So, this statistic means that their is a high probability that 43-63% of Utahns’ probably support a tax increase. If the real statistic sits between 43 or 49 percent, then most Utahn’s are against a tax increase. Again, I have to point out that this is based on an already biased question.

Despite these problems with the survey, there is some interesting results in this survey, and it is really telling to me about how many Utahns really support a tax increase. Take a look at the second graphic provided by the Deseret News.

What kind of tax increase do Utahns support?

That’s right, they support a tobacco tax and an alcohol tax. So, what percentage of the people taking this survey do you think smoke and drink? Well, I would guess that less then 50% are regular consumers of such products.

So simply put, according to these two survey results, Utahns support a tax increase as long as they don’t have to pay it. Tax someone else, but don’t tax me.

Do Utahns want a tax increase? No. This poll doesn’t prove that. In fact, I think it is an excellent proof to the contrary.

I support Gov. Herbert and any of the legislators who are going to work extra hard to avoid a tax increase this year. It is the right thing to do.

Possibly Related Posts:

Unintended Consequences

Travis Grant — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:07:39 +0000

I met with a couple of legislators this past week. And when one of them was asked why are we having to wait in long lines to get our driver’s licenses renewed, the response was it’s an “unintended consequence” of the bill that we passed.

To be completely honest, he seemed more interested in excusing their actions by calling them unintended consequences, then trying to explain the purpose of the bill that requires us to go through a longer lines to renew our licenses. I personally support the reason behind this bill, and I am willing to go through the longer lines. Fortunately for me, I go in June and hopefully a lot of the kinks will be worked out. My wife is going there sometime in the next couple of weeks, and she will have to suffer through the long lines.

But this legislators response reminded me of a similar response I heard another legislator give when asked about the district split bill. As a resident of the south west valley of Salt Lake County, I was one of the citizens whose property tax rate was raised because of the recent district split of the Jordan School District. In essence, the legislator responded that the tax increase was an unintended consequence of the bill.

As a resident of the south west valley, I support the reasoning behind the district split legislation. I believe in smaller more localized school districts. I feel that the Jordan School District was (and still is) too big to properly serve the needs of Utah’s students. However, I don’t support the unintended consequences of the bill. In this case there were two unintended consequences. The first was that a large body of people couldn’t vote on a change that directly effected them. the other unintended consequence was the needed tax increase on the citizens of the south west valley.

The issue that bothers me here is that these bills aren’t being thought completely through. They aren’t recognizing that their are ramifications in real people’s lives when these bills are passed. If they were, the bills would be written in away to prevent extensive unintended consequences.

My understanding is that if a bill has a financial impact that this must be studied. It seems to me that every bill should be studied similarly to prevent non-financial impacts on the community. Unfortunate consequences like long lines and voters not being allowed to vote. I never want to hear the word “unintended consequences” from a legislator again.

I don’t believe that all unintended consequences should be avoided. However, I think that the need to avoid a consequence should be directly proportionate to the impact that consequence has on society.

With these two particular legislators, I support them and the work that they are doing. Politically they are both very similar to me. But I would appreciate if they would take the time to understand that EVERY bill they pass will have unintended consequences and they need to write the bills in a way, that these consequences are minimized so that they have very little impact on the people.

I hope that every legislator will take an oath, that after the 2010 session, that they will never have to use the excuse of “unintended consequences” when they have to explain their bill.

Update (1 Feb 2010): Wow, I am shocked to admit that for once I agreed with KSL. They posted a commentary with the same title on their news today. We do part ways on part of it, but the meat of the subject is the same.

Possibly Related Posts:

Is It Charity If It Is Forced?

Travis Grant — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:09:19 +0000

It is the season of giving and many people are feeling a little more charitable than usual. many of us donate a little more our favorite organizations. Here where I work we raised money for a coworker whose 1-year-old daughter is struggling with cancer. It’s a good thing.

As I study the concept of charity, I am often taken to Mosiah 4:16-19 where we are counseled to care for the needy. It is important for us to care for those who need our help. It is an important principle of the gospel.

So, why not support the welfare system?

Pyrolitical offers a great explanation of why government isn’t the proper way to care for others. Prior to reading this article, I understood what they refer to as Strikes #1 and #2. When we are forced to care for others it really isn’t charity. When we are forced to care for others we aren’t afforded the opportunity to grow (either as the giver or as the receiver).

I am greatful for this article from Pyrolitical because it offers me a greater understanding of charity and why government as the means to perform charity is wrong. First, I am struck by strike three (yeah, I am cheesy enough to use that pun). Government mandated charity separates the giver from the receiver. It opens doors for the receiver to want more. It also closes a door for the giver to want to give more. It becomes antithetical.

Further, I appreciated how they explained that:

In an act of charity, the giver is exalted as they see or become aware of someone in want and reach within themselves to find a way to satisfy that person’s want of their own means. Often this act requires the giver to humble themselves and to reach further than may be comfortable in order to give, in other words, to make a sacrifice. This sacrifice empowers the giver to more fully recognize the great abundance with which he has been blessed. Serving others also carries with it the natural by-product of an increased love for all mankind. This occurs because one has copied the Lord’s example of serving others.

And they recognize that the giver is also blessed in charity:

Conversely, those who are in want are exalted because of the potential for great spiritual growth through first, increased humility in the giving of thanks and the showing of gratitude for the care and support, and secondly, through the humbling act of requesting help from an individual or organization. Through this process of receiving, the receiver draws closer to the Savior, by realizing he is not alone, and that God is looking out for him through His other children.

As we near the end of another great year and a season of giving. Let’s remember that our service to our fellow men brings us together as a people. All are blessed when we voluntarily give to others.

Possibly Related Posts:

Tobacco Ads Make me PUKe.

Travis Grant — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:08:57 +0000

I don’t listen to the radio much any more. I just find myself too busy. However, I have heard several ads recently asking me to encourage my legislator to increase the tax on tobacco. These ads are apparently from the American Cancer Society. However, in the ad they say they are with the Protect Utah Kids (empire). So, we will refer to them as PUKe to keep things simple.

When you go to PUKe’s website to view the reasons why increasing the tobacco tax would be good, you don’t get much. Rather, you keep getting pushed to sign their petition. The best reason to increase the tobacco tax, that I could come up with from PUKe was this:

Utah’s cigarette tax is among the lowest in the United States. In fact, Utah hasn’t raised taxes on cigarettes in eight years. Other states have raised cigarette taxes a combined 101 times since 2000.

Trends from other states show that raising tobacco taxes reduces cancer rates. Higher taxes in Utah could also prevent 19,000 young people from starting to smoke and encourage 3700 others to quit smoking.

So let me get this straight. The best reason that we should do it is because “everybody else is doing it.” I seem to remember my mommy telling asking me as a kid, “If billy jumped off a cliff would you?”

But there are more reasons not to increase the sales tax on tobacco. The Heartland Institute provides 10 reason why a tobacco tax should not be raised. Here are just a few of my favorites:

1. They are regressive and disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income people.
…
5. They encourage cross-border, black market, and Internet purchases. (See more on this.)

6. They help keep government spending up. (and I would add have a negative effect on health.)
…
10. Projections for tobacco tax revenues are frequently over-estimated.

I like number 10 because it directly attacks the arguments from PUKe. Their numbers are overestimated. This is a regressive tax and it will only hurt the lower-income smokers.

I don’t like smoking. I have never smoked in my life. I can’t imagine what it must be like to be addicted to tobacco. However, punishing people with a tax burden is not the right way to get people to stop. Education and hard work are the best activities to reduce smoking.

I hope Utah legislators do the right thing here and keep the tax burden on tobacco the same. It won’t encourage tobacco use. Tobacco is no longer vogue. People are quitting more and more. This tax will only hurt the state more than help it.

Possibly Related Posts:

Herbert Takes Over the Reins

Travis Grant — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:02:34 +0000

It’s about the only thing in the news today. Jon Hunstman was sworn in as the U.S. Ambassador to China, and Gary Herbert was sworn in as the 17th Governor of the State of Utah. In my opinion this is a win-(hopefully)win situation for Utah.

Governor Huntsman was a moderate. He was well liked by the state, but he wasn’t the governor that I would have chosen to lead this state. His departure opens the door for the more politically conservative Gary Herbert.

I have written in the past about two separate incidents where Herbert had looked like the conservative that I would like, and the liberal that I would not like. So, I listened to his inaugural address with an open mind hoping to hear the political direction he plans on taking this state.

While I applaud his emphasis on the economy and on education. This wasn’t what I was paying attention to. These are two great goals, and I hope for the best on both. What I am interested in is what Herbert’s approach will be accomplishing his goals.

So, let’s look at his own words to determine his direction. First he says, “To protect our existing jobs, we must maintain a healthy business climate, a well-educated and highly skilled workforce, and competitive tax rates.” Here he recognizes the important connect between education and the economy. He also comments that a competitive tax rate is important for thriving business. So far, I am impressed with his approach.

However, he gives me pause when he says, “My commitment to you is that, first and foremost, we will recognize the great significant importance of our own local businesses and work with you for your continued success.” While he isn’t specific, I wonder just how much does he plan on working with them. If he plans on subsidizing and industry, then I am opposed. But if he is looking to create better education or more skilled labor then we might be able to agree.

However, his speech does lean to wards some great free enterprise and limited government statements that I liked. Here are just a few:

I believe in free enterprise, the risk and reward system that some call capitalism. But “free enterprise” is best characterized as “freedom.” I believe in empowering the private sector… As we work together, Utah will continue to be a leader in promoting free enterprise.

Later he states:

We can, and we must, develop our natural resources, but we must do it responsibly and with an eye to our children’s future.

We will not forget our duty to be good stewards of our land and protectors of our environment. Clean air and clean water are something we all value. The Utah quality of life is greatly enhanced by our beautiful canyons, our stunning mountains, and our incomparable red rock deserts. Protecting our extraordinary natural wonderment and meeting our pressing energy needs are not mutually exclusive goals.

He expresses his limited government approach by declaring:

let me also affirm that I believe in the appropriate – but limited – role of government. I believe that what government we have ought to be well-run and efficient. As stated by former President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address, “There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” As Governor, I will lead the charge for government efficiencies in all that we are tasked to do.

He also affirms his belief in a self-reliant society by stating:

I believe in self reliance. This pertains to both the individual and the State. As a nation we seem to be drifting from a culture of self reliance. Government entitlement can never substitute for individual responsibility or for the inherent roles of family, neighborhood and community.

And finally, and this is a very important one to me:

I also affirm my support for the principle and importance of state’s rights. We should never forget that we, as a nation of United States, created the federal government, not the other way around.

While I am still hesitant to declare Herbert as the conservative that we need to govern Utah. I am very hopeful based on his inaugural address. Only time will tell, but so far Herbert has impressed me.

Possibly Related Posts:

Jordan School District Board Wears Earplugs to Public Comments

Travis Grant — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:24:31 +0000

My wife and I attended the first part of the public hearing at Riverton High School for the Jordan School Districts “Truth” in Taxation Meeting. And the Jordan School District wasn’t holding the meeting to hear our opinions. They were holding it because they were required by law.

I don’t wish to deal with minutia on this matter, but it was amazing how little “information” they seemed interested in sharing. First of all, for almost half of the slides that were presented at the beginning of the meeting the font was so small that you needed binoculars in order to read them. (On a funny aside, I almost brought my binoculars as a joke; I now wish that I had).

Also, during the presentation there was a lot of accountant speak. Okay maybe that is to be expected, but a lot of it sure went over my head. I am glad that one of those who voiced his opinion during the comment section understood it. Because he basically called them to the table and said that they shouldn’t be funding certain areas in economically trying times.

Further, it seemed that the only numbers that were shared were numbers that made it look good. I don’t have the time to do all the investigating, but I know a statistic snow job when I see one, and I am pretty sure that I saw one last night.

Besides the unwillingness to share accurate and informative information, there was a solid sense that this board was not willing to change. Their minds are made up, and they refuse to give in. This is the part where the main stream Utah media didn’t cover.

Perhaps, the biggest shocker of the evening came, when Barry Newbold (Jordan School District Superintendent) publically admitted that he would not petition the School Board for a reduction in his salary. While only a minute drop in the budget deficit, if he even rounded his salary down to $200,000, that could help the budget more than $34,000 dollars. The same goes for the rest of the board. This could result in almost $300,000 in savings.

The biggest message that the board didn’t hear was that the people want administration cuts. This is apparent by the fact that they raised taxes more than they cut expenses. And according to a Dan Jones survey, cutting administration was bigger on the constituency desires than was tax hikes.

During the comment period, many great ideas were suggested by the public. Suggestions that might not save the entire budget, but items that would definitely help. Things like encouraging volunteerism at the school (on all levels, cleaning toilets to teacher’s aids). Reducing the salary of uncertified substitute teachers. Using technology to reduce class size and reach more students. And many more great suggestions were made.

But over all, it was obvious, that the Jordan School District was holding this meeting with only one thing in mind. They had to hold the comment period according to law. They didn’t want to hear the over 200 people who signed up to comment, they had to.

As of this typing, it is apparent that the Jordan School District will pass it’s tax increase. Because they haven’t gotten the picture that the people are painting for them. However, they will get the picture at the next election cycle, because they are representing us to the schools. They are representing the schools to us, and they have it wrong.

Possibly Related Posts: