Utah Top Priorities???
I went to the Utah Foundation’s Utah Priorities lunch today, which included remarks by the Governor. I have to say that there should be a general rule that politicians should be limited to 20 minute speaches, because that’s about the time people started tuning out the governor and started chatting quietly with their neighbor. Anyway the length of political speeches is not the reason for this post.
A couple of takeaways for me from the Foundation’s report.
- Education has been subplanted by concerns over energy (gasoline, utility prices, etc.). I found this interesting because we had the voucher debate in November and given the level of contention I would have thought that education would have held onto the top spot. It is also interesting to note that in Southern Utah, education came in at #5. The survey results seem to indicate that voters are most interested in what hurts the most and if the economy continues to struggle and gas & utility prices remain high, I think voters may not pay much attention to candidates running on an education platform, which does not bode well for those looking to gain momentum on the voucher defeat.
- Economy: Our governor has a one track mind and that is “creating and growing the best economy in the country.” I was sad and disappointed that it appears that the governor doesn’t get that more important priority for Utahns (even if it didn’t show up on the survey) is not creating the GREATEST economy on the planet but is strengthening the natural family. When a growing number of Utah’s families are in trouble (divorce, addiction, abuse, etc.), the resulting lack of health will undermine any attempts the governor may make to build the best economy on the planet. When families are sick it impacts almost every aspect of our society and exponentially grows the cost to maintain any semblence of a civil society. Not only is the family, the most fundamental economic unit in an economy; it is also the best and most cost effective mechanism in creating productive citizens that add rather than subtract from the economy and the public coffers.
Jeremy said,
March 26, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
#1 makes sense.
I’m not sure I follow you as closely on #2. I’m a little curious how you think the government should get more involved in helping families. What exactly does my family need from our governor/government to help make it “less sick”? This past session the most obvious debate about strengthening the “natural family” was Sen. Buttar’s attack on Salt Lake City’s domestic partnership registry. Are you advocating for more of that type of government meddling or something else?
jasonthe said,
March 27, 2008 @ 2:16 am
I have to agree with Jeremy. It’s too much of a logical leap to follow you on this one Lyall, although I can appreciate the efforts you’ve made to “go there.”
Addressing issues of “divorce, abortion, etc” as the “real problems” when families are struggling to pay the mortgage and put food on the table while working two or three jobs is putting the cart before the horse. Prop up your personal definition of natural family as high as you want, it has squat to do with economics, or economic stability. Attack every registry, and marginalize every “non-traditional” family in this state, you will not change the fact that an instable economy hits home in a way that Sen. Buttars’ tirades cannot salve. Ensure their ability to feed themselves and pay the mortgage, then you can preach to them. Approaching it from the other direction, you simply have a multitude of struggling, frightened, and hungry people giving you the finger for your moral smugness.
Lyall said,
March 27, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Thanks for the comments Jeremy & Jason. The pushback is always useful, although Jason I was tempted to delete your last sentence because calling me out for what you determine as “moral smugness” does nothing for dialogue and ruins the credibility of the rest of your post. Jason you make your fair share of logical leaps in your own post, so next maybe be a little slower to point the finger.
Let me say a little more on point 2 and see if it helps. I don’t guarantee that it will.
I think the government can do a lot to help strengthen families both economically as well as relationally. Sometimes this means doing a lot less. One of the things government can do to strengthen families is to go through a family impact statement before any policy is considered. Another is to uphold the constitutional doctrine of “the fundamental right and intersest of parents.” This doctrine reaffirms that parents are to be given the freedom to raise and educate their children without having the state step in and act like the big brother. Another issue where we at Sutherland worked to strengthen parental rights was helping to pass the Waivers of Immunity bill this past session, that made state employees who act with malice open to legal action by the families they harm. Currently, DCFS and other agencies have complete immunity and we have seen multiple cases where this immunity has led to abuse and the unnecessary breakup of families. Utah is not the first state to pass such a law. Our waivers of immunity bill was paterned after California’s, where there were some brutal cases of children being taken from the home and forced by DCFS counselors to call parents abusers or else the therapy session would not end. Tax credits for children is another area where economically governments can encourage families. Also rewarding people for being married, where in some cases it is better for families to avoid marriage because of the tax penalties.
As to Jason’s comment, I think Jason this is a case of “both/and” not “either/or.” You are right family life is hard enough if you then add the burden low wages, high home prices, gas prices, etc. So in the end I am not suggesting, as you assert that I am coming from the other direction, I am suggesting that they need to be considered side by side. To ignore the health of families is to ignore the very source from which sustained economic prosperity can arise. The economic drain of failed family relationships cost all of Utah a great deal, which adds to the tax burden of every other Utah family. That economic drain looks like additional crime (which necessitates more taxes to pay for prisons and law enforcement), higher drop out rates (which impacts the ability of someone to earn a living wage), increased teenage pregnancy (which usually means that girl and her child will live below the poverty line), draining of the public school funds (my mother-in-law is a reading specialist at a Centerville elementary school and 95% of the kids she works with come from broken families where the parent simply doesn’t have the capacity to read with the child). I could go on and on. All these costs add up quickly and place a heavy burden on taxpayers here in the state.
I could say more, but hopefully that gives you a sense of where I’m coming from and clarifies my “leap.”
Mike said,
March 27, 2008 @ 10:34 am
There is no question that we would have less crime, better education, and lower taxes if we had more stable two parent families. The data are very clear on this. The correlation between poverty and households with children headed by single parents is stronger than practically any other correlation ever discussed (education performance and per student spending, for example). A disproportionately large share of criminals come from single parent families.
However, the federal government already treats families well in the tax code, especially middle and lower income families.
Most middle income households ($50K to $70K) with three or more children pay nothing or next to nothing in federal income tax due to the fact that children are worth deduction ($3,500 personal exemption in TY2008) *and* a tax credit ($1,000 per child, generally refundable). Child tax credits and personal exemptions are start phasing out at $110,000 and $239,950 AGI respectively. It’s very rare in the tax code that a taxpayer gets a credit and an exemption/deduction for the same thing.
Utah’s income tax also has credits for children (6% of 75% of federal personal exemption, phased out at 1.3 cents per $1.00 AGI over AGI of $24K in TY08, like other credits).
Most of Utah’s tax relief for families occurs with property taxes. Primary residences receive a 45% exemption while businesses and secondary residences receive 0% exemption. Compared to other states, this is very generous.
SI may argue that the 45% primary residence exemption is not necessarily a benefit to the Natural Family because gays, lesbians, and singles are also eligible for this exemption and the exemption does not increase with number of children. Nevertheless, most of the beneficiaries of this tax break are families.
Jeremy said,
March 27, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Lyall,
Thanks for your response and your explanation. As a more libertarian minded Utahn I tend to get skeptical when I hear about conservatives wanting government to get more involved in “strengthening the natural family”. I agree with your “Sometimes this means doing a lot less” comment and am glad to be on the same page with The Sutherland Institute on the issue of parental rights.
Your comment reminded me of SI’s VVV document during the voucher debate. I found the VVV document’s policy prescriptions on vouchers to be severely flawed but it was hard not to admire the militancy with which your organization supports the rights of parents raise their children.
Mike,
I have never thought of the property tax primary exemption as a pro-family measure but I agree with your explanation. It is interesting to consider the policy from this different perspective.
Jeremy said,
April 17, 2008 @ 10:13 am
I’m curious how The Sutherland Institute will respond to the apparant total violation of parental rights taking place in Texas. I know it is hard to make a statement on something without a lot of information but it seems to me that this might be a textbook example of government violation of the rights you’re talking about.
I’m not usually a fan of his but Bob Lonsberry posted a great piece of commentary yesterday about what is taking place in the prosecution of the FLDS members in Texas.
Paul Mero said,
April 17, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Yeah, Jeremy, the FLDS/Texas situation can fit any number of cliche responses and still not be over-stated. This is a tragedy and government at its worst. The upside is that at least Texas is learning…this time they didn’t kill everyone.
It is VERY tempting for me, or us at Sutherland as an organization, to weigh in…even with a law suit in defense of the FLDS, but our scope is Utah. This whole thing makes me shudder and from a policy perspective it is exactly the sort of thing we fight against in protecting Utah families. The mentality in Utah among government agencies carries the same spirit as those in Texas…even if one child is in danger, all children must be.
The sickest part of this whole debacle is that it is more anti-religion than anti-parent. These Texans hate what they don’t (can’t) understand and are using an alleged child welfare case to disband an organized group of religious adherents. Every Latter-day Saint ought to shudder over this one.
Paul Mero said,
April 17, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
And concerning the economic weight of the natural family, there has been a long and ongoing academic debate about whether “more money” or family structure is the best measurement of economic well-being. Our Sutherland site even has a very good article on this by one of our colleagues, Chris Fawson, an economist from Utah State (former dean of the economics department there). Maybe Lyall can post the link (sorry I am still novice at this).
Clearly, we come down on the side of family structure being more important than “more money.” The Left believes that more money is the answer to every question…which is why they support aggressive attempts to use government to redistribute wealth.
What we seek is to use public policy, where appropriate, to encourage legal marriage, family formation, and intergenerational supports. As I have said frequently, the compelling interest for the state in the family is 1) get married, 2) have children (and as many as feasible), and 3) stay married. When people do this society and individuals prosper. Period.
On the other hand, give everyone more money and there is no assurance that any positive benefit will come from it. I mentioned at our press conference yesterday, when posed this question by Elaine Jarvik from the Des News, that all the jobs in the world won’t matter if your family and community are shot to hell (morally, culturally, spiritually).
And this understanding is what makes an authentic conservative.