Sausage-making, referendum ghosts and other things the Utah Legislature has been tackling this week

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

While national politicos are engaged in bare-knuckle cage fighting, our local lawmakers are busy with solemn public policy deliberations — otherwise known as sausage-making. We review the malodorous ingredients and whether you should watch or avert your eyes.

In the first week of the legislative session, lawmakers scuttled the tax reform they passed in December. Although referendum ghosts still haunt the Capitol, will tax measures be revived to increase the general fund and reduce revenue flowing into the education fund?

Pignanelli: “Modest proposals are better than grand designs: they serve the political function of registering concerns, but are too small to provoke opposition.” — The Economist

On rare occasions, professional and amateur chefs will unintentionally create an inedible meal. But always immediately after, additional attempts to feed patrons or the family are undertaken. Lawmakers are developing another meal of tax reform — with less controversial ingredients. These will include the taxation of some services and activities unlikely to generate public opposition. Another approach will be reallocating revenue sources currently depositing into the education fund into the General Fund.

A classic example is the tax on liquor, in which a substantial portion of proceeds are dedicated to the school lunch program. For many decades my drinking companions and I congratulated ourselves on contributing to the nutritional benefit of Utah children. I unselfishly recommend re-directing these fees to the General Fund toward the worthy cause of tax reform. (Of course, consumption will not alter.)

Also, because the Uniform School Fund is where the money is, lawmakers are torturously redefining programs as an education activity.

So, the best flavors for this next round of tax reform are those less offensive to the public palate.

Webb: Tax reform died an ignominious death at the hands of a rare left-wing/right-wing coalition. But the tax imbalance remains, and it’s a serious problem. Lawmakers must be careful doing piecemeal tax reform. Cutting income taxes (which fund education) does nothing to bolster looming shortages in the general fund.

It’s a lot easier to do substantive tax reform with a nice surplus to work with. Even with a tax cut sweetener, tax reform was defeated. It would be even more difficult to try to solve the structural imbalance without having money to move around.

It still makes great sense to pay more of transportation spending with user fees. It still makes great sense to broaden the sales tax base as service purchases replace product purchases. It still makes sense to reduce earmarks and provide flexibility.

What are some of the unexpected issues that are percolating as a result of private citizens and well-organized special interest groups pressuring lawmakers?

Pignanelli: Those who question the strength of modern democracy in the 21st century need only spend an hour at the Utah Legislature for a change of mind. Every day, hundreds of private citizens descend on the Capitol personally or through email to communicate with their representatives. It is effective.

The cost of pharmaceuticals — especially insulin — has evolved into a hot topic this season as constituents bombard state officials with frustrations. (The public hearing reviewing insulin costs filled the largest committee room). Thus, legislation to address these concerns is a certainty.

Clean air legislation was expected, but not to the degree reflected by the number of proposals before lawmakers. Additional action to promote less pollution is expected.

Webb: Speaking of sausage-making, I (along with a lot of other people) am carefully watching SB91, sponsored by Sen. Dan McCay, which would repeal SB54 and allow political parties to revert exclusively to the caucus/convention system to select party nominees.

McCay’s bill, if passed, will create a civil war within the Republican Party, dry up contributions to the party from business leaders, probably spark referendum or initiative efforts, and generally take the state back to the political dark ages. The right for all party voters to select party nominees, rather than a relatively few delegates, needs to be protected.

This newspaper published poll data showing that most Utahns are OK with Sen. Mitt Romney’s vote to convict Pres. Donald Trump and remove him from office. However, 60% of Republicans disapproved. Will fallout continue, or have disgruntled Republicans moved on?

Pignanelli: Immediately after the vote, Romney shrewdly flew home to soothe feelings and explain his thoughts to legislators. This accelerated the healing process and any legislation to publicize frustration was shelved.

Webb: While I disagreed with Romney, I accept that he voted his conscience after much deliberation. But no one should be surprised at the negative reaction. After all, Romney is usually among the “can’t we all just get along” crowd. But in this case, he voted to utterly destroy Trump politically. Nothing is more divisive than attempting to force someone out of office. Those who want to recall Romney are suggesting the same outcome that he sought for Trump. It’s hard to achieve any sort of political unity when each side is attempting to annihilate the other.