politicalcivility.com Blog

A recent report by the Tax Foundation puts Utah in the top 20 states in terms of friendly business tax climate.  That is down from #15 in 2007.  Perhaps the best news is that Utah ranks #5 in terms of the corporate tax rate index.  More than any “corporate welfare” program or the investment boondogle that is the Utah Fund of Funds, a healthy tax climate will attract business.  In addition an environmental policy that emphasizes conservation versus a strict “preservationist” or land lock up mentality will create an attractive environment for business and manufacturing to come to the state.

The one downside of the report is Utah’s ranking 30th as it pertains to personal income tax.  This is after the record tax reductions over the past couple of years.  In 2004, Utah was ranked 42nd, so we are seeing some improvement.  Unless Utah keeps moving up in the personal income tax area, the great corporate environment we’ve created may be wasted, because who wants to work in an area with high property taxes and high personal income tax.  Companies will have to offer higher salaries or find ways to locate employees elsewhere.  I saw this happen firsthand in Ohio.  The tax burden was so ridiculous that business looked for ways to locate facilities in unincorprated areas so employees could avoid city or county personal income taxes.  So Utah needs to work on both ends, not just on corporate tax breaks.

You may remember how GE and other fluorescent bulb makers lobbied successfully to force consumers to switch to their earth-saving bulbs.  Well, now the EPA has come out revising their recommendations for where homeowners should use the bulbs, because mercury levels in the bulbs could put your little ones at risk if they break the bulb and are exposed to the mercury in the bulb.  (There’s a story about this report on www.thebostonchannel.com)

I don’t know about you, but I get the sick feeling that energy saving bulbs, ethanol and the rest of the long list of earth saving technologies are actually going to do more damage than produce any carbon offset.  It’s what we deserve when we allow bad science and a big government approach to helping us be good stewards over our private property and natural resources.

Here is a link to an OpEd written by my co-worker, Derek Monson, here at Sutherland: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/256596/58/.

I am hopeful that this legislation not only passes, but gets funded. 

I think one of the things that bugs me most as I talk to those advocating for adoption of the Al Gore enviroment plan is that I constantly hear them say that the science is settled or that the only discussion left is what we now do about it.  To me that is intellectually dishonest and prevents any sort of real dialogue about what we should or shouldn’t be doing about climate change. 

For those thinking the science and scientific community is settled, I recommend taking a look at this website: http://www.globalwarming.org/research.

Also, global warming is another one of those “wars” that I referred to in my post quoting Joseph Story.  Advocates are following the pattern perfectly at present.  Makes you wonder how much freedom we lose when they win.

Here’s a link that gives a nice quick overview of what the Grace Commission found about taxation and governement spending.

http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html

This is a follow-up on the $55 dollar tow job post.

If I had any lingering thoughts that government should be involved with health care, they went right out the window today.  You might say what does a tow job and government run health care have in common.  Well let’s take a look at why what normally would be a $55 tow job on the regular free market, becomes a $200 tow job under state regulation.

I live in Lehi and last night was one of the most amazing wind storms and drifting I’ve ever seen.  Frankly to watch how powerful mother nature is was pretty awesome notwithstanding the danger it posed on the roadways.  Anyway I got stuck in a drift, like hundreds of others, on my way home and had to abandon my car or else spend a cold night in the old accord.  I choose to walk the mile or so home.  When I went with some neighbors to dig out my car early this morning, we found it had been towed.  I called Vern’s Tow Shop (which is about two miles from where I was towed), and was informed that my towing fee would be $198.  I was blown away, so I had my wife call in and get a quote for our other car from the same place.  We were told it would cost $55.  For those keeping track that is a $143 difference in cost for the same work.

How does this happen?  Well the state legislature thought it would be a good idea to “regulate” towers by setting standard baseline fees for towing companies anytime they towed an abondoned car.  Now either they didn’t care to take a look at market prices or the towing lobby worked some smoke and mirrors, because the base fee to tow a car you have to abadon in a snow storm is $121 plus a fuel surcharge, plus a milage fee, plus a housing fee, etc., etc.

Now let’s look at what this looks like in a government run health care system.  Let’s say for example, that I have a common cold and need to go to the doctor.  With the current market, it probably costs $75-100 depending on if they give you a test or not.  In the government run “price” controlled system, based just on a simple towing example, I (the taxpayers, because government run health care is NOT FREE) would be paying between $270-$360 for the same visit.  So much for “affordable” government health care!

Don’t believe me…may I recommend the book “A Taxpayer Survey of the Grace Commission.”  This book outlines how a Home Depot hammer costs the military several hundred dollars and many more examples of how when government gets involved affordable goes out the window

It is always great to listen to really smart people.  Sometimes when you get into the grind at work, you forget how good it feels to stretch the mind.  I think it’s one of the things I miss most about MBA school, that being bombarded with new ideas and new concepts.

Anyway, Ed Feulner, a co-founder and current president of Heritage Foundation, spoke at Sutherland Institute today.  The guy is amazing in his ability to absorb information.  He was in AZ yesterday speaking to a group, and tomorrow he heads to Los Angeles to make another speech tomorrow, and yet he was completely up to speed on what Sutherland was engaged in and knew all those involved with the institute.

With respect to his remarks, I think the one that stuck out the most was the need for “intermediate” institutions to help foster civil society: family, church, schools, and of course my favorite, local policy organizations.  Our recent trend in Utah and across the nation is to weaken these intermediate institutions and solely rely on the state, which ultimately give us the all the bad government we deserve.  Let’s push our legislators and local elected officials to push legislation that puts decision making back in the hands of “we the people” and our intermediate institutions.

Final Low Lights:

(4) Subsidized Total Cost per Passenger Boarding

• Bus: 87% or $5.11
• Light Rail: 86% or $3.51
• Vanpool: 75% or $3.53
• Paratransit: 92% or $36.82

In sum, this means that the Utahns are subsidizing public transportation to the tune of $162 Million in 2006.  All this for a service that does little to relieve congestion, adds significant amounts of pollution, and lacks oversight and accountability.

More Lowlights:

(2) 4.5% of traffic using some form of mass transit.  The most opptimistic estimates put usage of mass transit at 7% in 2030.  The problem is given population increases over that same time, mass transit is going to do little or nothing to reduce congestion, and if bus use goes up, pollution will actually be worse as car emissions are reduced by technology.

(3) Lack of independence and lack of accountability: the state audit found that:

“We are concerned about the strength of the board’s oversight.  We question whether the board is prepared to ask questions regarding such matters as the adequacy of ridership data, the level of taxpayer subsidy, and whether UTA has an appropriate pricing strategy.”

The UTA is a mess on many fronts.  Last week the Utah legislature received an audit of the UTA.

 Lowlight (1): UTA adding significantly to pollution woes.  From the Audit:

“In fact, buses create more NOx (really bad pollution fumes) than if all 2006 transit passenger miles had been traveld in passenger cars.”