"...but even with LDS Church support there are conservative groups like the Sutherland Institute, Standard of Liberty and the notorious America Forever who are attempting to confuse the issue by stating that the Church was being less than honest with its support by asserting that the Church’s statement was just an “Entity” trying to protect itself."
Usually when we refer to Howard Stephenson’s Utah Taxpayers Association it is to point out how they don’t represent the interests of middle-income families. But we, too, were surprised by Gov. Gary Herbert’s nomination of Michael Cragun to the Utah State Tax Commission for many of the reasons that the association noted in its most recent newsletter. Here is what they had to say:
Governor Gary Herbert has just nominated Michael Cragun to replace Pam Hendrickson on the Utah State Tax Commission. Hendrickson has been a Tax Commissioner since 1997, even earning the Utah Taxpayers Association’s “Lifetime Achievement” award this past May. However, Cragun’s record on the Davis County Commission, and his s
ignificant deficits in tax expertise make him a poor choice for the State Tax Commission. The Utah Senate will consider his nomination in extraordinary session on November 17, 2009.
Unlike the Utah State Tax Commission, most boards and commissions in Utah government have no judicial function. They make policy recommendations for the Governor, various agencies and the Legislature to consider. The Tax Commission, however, is an adjudicative and quasi legislative body. Much like a traditional court, the Commissioners hear and decide legal appeals regarding the taxes you pay. Much like a legislature, the Commissioners also promulgate rules that bind taxpayers and taxing authorities.
To adequately perform their job, Commissioners require substantial knowledge of tax related constitutional law, federal tax law and Utah tax laws, in addition to the required procedure in adjucating tax cases, promulgating tax rules, supervising tax employees, and the minutiae of administering the many taxes Utah businesses and families pay. After leaving law school, tax attorneys and accountants spend years learning the intricate and crucial basics of tax law. In the past, both taxpayers and fellow commissioners have paid a high price for unqualified tax commissioners. Cragun is unqualified to be an effective Tax Commissioner.
Cragun’s experience in tax law is from his time as a Davis County Commissioner, where he proposed a 138 percent property tax increase. However, he was defeated in his next election because of his support for that property tax increase. (Davis County voters were so concerned with that property tax increase that every County Commissioner who supported it either lost their next election, or declined to seek reelection.)
Given this background, Cragun’s appointment should be very concerning to Utah taxpayers. Not only does he lack the basic background with and knowledge of tax law that should be a minimum threshold for any possible appointee to the Utah State Tax Commission, but his record on the Davis County Commission suggests his motivating incentive is to raise taxes. That experience alone should terrify taxpayers required to have him decide tax cases as Tax Commissioner. With a record like that, it is hard to understand why Gov. Herbert nominated him in the first place.
Cragun served as head of the Elections Office under Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert. During his tenure, the Elections Office tried to improve the state’s online disclosure system for legislators and lobbyists. However, that improvement remains a complete failure. When a new version was rolled out prior to a filing deadline, many legislators and lobbyists were unable to log in and file their reports, and had to scramble to file paper reports within the deadline. Moreover, the current system didn’t even support people logging in from Mac computers.
Some have speculated that the newly appointed Lt. Gov. Greg Bell didn’t have a place for Cragun on his staff, so Gov. Herbert looked for a soft landing for Cragun. Most other general qualification boards would have been acceptable, but the Tax Commission requires more expertise and experience than Cragun has. (For a list of Boards & Commissions, please visit http://www.governor.utah.gov/boards/home.html)
Others have speculated Cragun was selected because Governor Herbert viewed Pam Hendrickson as holding a “county” slot on the Tax Commission, and Gov. Herbert wanted to replace her with another “county” representative. However, we are unaware of any statutory slot for county representatives on the Tax Commission.
If Cragun views himself as a county representative on the Tax Commission, it would have a chilling effect on many business owners, fearful that the Tax Commission would support the counties’ ongoing efforts to reinstate the taxation of intangibles in the valuation of property. Given his willingness to raise taxes in Davis County, and his general lack of familiarity with the basics and nuances of tax law, that concern is very real.
Fortunately, nominees to the State Tax Commission must be approved by the State Senate. We urge Senators to look very carefully at Mr. Cragun’s qualifications.
(NOTE: For the record, the Utah Democratic Party had a good relationship with Michael Cragun while he served at the State Election Department. In our experience, he was courteous, friendly, appropriately accommodating, and serious about the work at hand even when the outcome was less than optimal.)
Democrats have labeled the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) a failure full of broken promises. Many teachers complain bitterly about the emphasis on testing. Principals hate being labeled as failures. Superintendents say it wasn't adequately funded. And many parents just view it as toxic -- not helping children learn.
However, most give NCLB credit for exposing achievement gaps, and for requiring that we measure our efforts to improve education by looking at outcomes, rather than inputs. NCLB helped expand the standards and accountability movement.
Everyone wants the best for their children and they are willing to take greater responsibility. But when it comes to defining the federal role in education, there is a lot of confusion, uncertainty and division.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Our role in Washington is to support reform by encouraging high standards, bold approaches to helping struggling schools, closing the achievement gap, strengthening the field of education, reducing the dropout rate and boosting college access.” But, he added, “The best solutions begin with parents and teachers working together in the home and the classroom.”
NCLB unfairly labeled many schools as failures even when they were making real progress—placing too much emphasis on absolute test scores rather than student growth—and it is overly prescriptive in some ways while it is too blunt an instrument of reform in others.
But the biggest problem with NCLB is that it doesn't encourage high learning standards. In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when, in fact, they are not. Our schools produce millions of young people who aren't completing college because they are not ready for college-level work when they leave high school. Low standards also contribute to the nation's staggeringly high dropout rate. When kids aren't challenged they are bored—and when they are bored they quit.
Local educators don’t need a prescription for success. But they do need a common definition of success and agreement on what's important and how to measure it —focused on student achievement, high school graduation and success and attainment in college. The goals NCLB reauthorization should include clear standards set by states that truly prepare young people for college and careers—but should be loose on the means for meeting those goals.
It must be flexible and accommodating as states and districts—working with parents, non-profits and other external partners—develop educational solutions that are open to new ideas, encourage innovation, and build on what we know works.
President Obama has challenged us to boost our college completion rate to 60% by the end of the next decade. Over the coming months the Obama administration will be developing its proposal for reauthorization. Now is the time to voice your opinions and lend your expertise.
We don't need another study. We must stop simply admiring the problem. We need action. We cannot waste a minute. Every year counts. Every class counts. Every child counts.
In an opinion piece published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Provo Republican Representative Chris Herrod makes abundantly clear: 1) no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince him global warming is real; 2) he really isn't all that familiar with the earth's geologic or climate history anyway; and, 3) he gets all his scientific and economic misinformation from Republican talking point memos.
When describing his concerns about the science surrounding climate change, Representative Herrod opens with the argument "Since the Earth is coming out of an ice age and been significantly warming throughout its history, most agree this is true." What Rep. Herrod believes most agree is true isn't exactly clear, but one thing scientists do not agree with is the notion the world has been "significantly warming throughout its history."
In fact, the Earth has gone through periods when it was warm and periods when it was cold. It has not, as Herrod claims, gotten significantly warmer but rather has seen climate fluctuations throughout its history. While Herrod and other deniers often point to past natural climate fluctuations as evidence we are going through something similar now, the science simply isn't on their side.
One recent study indicates peak carbon dioxide levels over the past 2.1 million years averaged 280 parts per million (ppm). In other words, throughout all the intermittent ice ages and warming spells which occurred over the more than 2 million years of our planet's most recent history, the average level of a key greenhouse gas was 105 ppm lower than it is today. Virtually all of that increase has occurred in the past 150 years. One of the study's authors states "Previous studies indicated that CO2 did not change much over the past 20 million years..." though he admits the further back in time we go the greater uncertainty we encounter and more research is needed.
But Representative Herrod and others think it wise to throw caution to the wind and use any example of a gap in our understanding of the problem as an excuse to do nothing. Why not keep pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and see what happens when we go way beyond anything experienced in at least the past 2.1 million years, if not much longer?
Representative Herrod also wants proof we can do anything about climate change even if it is real. How exactly would we know anything we do helps mitigate or reverse climate change unless we try? How can we prove expanding our use of solar, wind, and geothermal technology and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will do any good unless we expand our use of solar, wind and geothermal technology and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
Herrod and others claim increasing our reliance on clean energy will undermine our ability to compete with China and Europe, both of whom are now rapidly expanding their development of clean energy technologies. Not so sunny Germany has become a world leader in solar technology, Spain has become a world leader in wind power, and China has begun vastly increasing its investment into clean energy production. Contrary to the denier/do nothing camp's argument, the risks to both the environment and our economy if we just sit on our hands while the rest of the world moves forward are significant.
Unfortunately, the truth is Rep. Herrod and others don't believe in science. As he and others repeatedly demonstrate, no number of climatologists issuing warnings or BYU scientists signing letters will cure them of their anti-science world view. When a legislator or anyone issues a plea for someone to "Please convince me with the science" in response to a letter from local scientists citing "a database search on our university [BYU] library system" uncovering "more than 600 peer-reviewed, scientific articles" addressing just one climate related issue raised by some legislators, we really shouldn't hold out any hope that person will ever be convinced.
The only solution here is for voters to begin demanding their representatives have a healthy respect for science. There is nothing at all wrong with skepticism and asking scientists tough questions. The scientific method demands nothing less. But pretending little to no science has been done when literally thousands of studies are available and more than 97% of scientists are in agreement is, to put it simply, an example of willful ignorance that would make a flat Earth advocate proud.
The veterans of the War for Independence, who founded our country, waited decades for their pay.
Ten years after World War I, veterans marched on our nation’s Capitol to get their promised bonus pay. They didn’t get it. Instead, they got thrown out of town by the active military under the orders of President Hoover.
We live with the memory of VietNam veterans who were too often greeted with contempt and neglect upon coming home, and who continue to pay a price for their honorable service in a nation that has failed to sort out its feelings about that war and how to support people whose injuries are not physical.
Ninety-one years ago today, the battlefields of Europe fell quiet as World War I came to a close. But we don't mark this day each year as a celebration of victory. This day is a celebration of those who made victory possible. Because they did, our country still stands; our founding principles still shine; nations around the world that once knew nothing but fear now know the blessings of freedom. It is a reminder that when we fight, it is with the hope of a day when we no longer need to -- to recommit ourselves to the hard work of peace.
It is not enough to just say, “Thanks for our freedom.” The contributions that our servicemen and women make to this nation don't end when they take off their uniform, neither do our obligations to them.
Diplomacy matters. Building alliances matter. The ability to detect and respond to real threats instead of political maneuvering for power matter. The good judgment of our civilian leaders matter. And an ongoing commitment to mitigate the damage that is inherent to those who provide this service for our country is a moral obligation.
The Democratic Party has a long history of striving to support the troops and veterans in a fashion that is worthy of our thankful nation.
President Obama and our Democratic Congress have demonstrated a strong commitment to our country’s veterans, taking several steps in just the last ten months to expand economic opportunity, strengthen veterans’ health care services, and improve benefits for our troops and military families.
Through the post-9/11 G.I. Bill – the most generous education benefit since the original G.I. Bill of 1944 – more than 250,000 veterans will attend college in just the next two years.
President Obama and Congress have worked to strengthen the VA health care system by transforming it into a 21st century organization that prioritizes community-based services, promotes prevention and takes on the injuries unique to modern warfare, including post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.
And President Obama requested, and Congressional Democrats approved, a 16% increase in the 2010 budget for the Department of Veterans affairs, the largest one-year increase in 30 years.
We have a moral obligation to do these things. A stronger America is fought for abroad, but it is kept healthy at home.
It is a sad commentary that too many of Utah’s representatives in Congress have not joined in fulfilling this obligation to those who have served us. Perhaps they think that because fewer Utahns have served in the military than the national average, that we Utahns don’t support services for those who sacrificed for us. They would be wrong.
All Americans, regardless of political party or feelings about our ongoing wars, are thankful and know we need to support veterans, not just for this one day, but every day.
Last week Republican Representative Kay McIff advocated increasing taxes on working families through an increase in the tax on food. This week Republican Senator Howard Stephenson, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, joined him. 
The November issue of The Utah Taxpayers Association newsletter dedicates its first full page and a half to chastising the Utah Democratic Party for advocating a fairer tax code and then states "most people realize that businesses don't pay taxes, but customers, employees and shareholders do."
Then Senator Stephenson uses his My Corner column to state cutting the food tax with an eye toward eventually eliminating it altogether was a huge mistake. Among other things "Corporate and individual income taxes should have been reduced..." instead. Corporate income taxes? Apparently Senator Stephenson didn't get the memo stating "most people realize that businesses don't pay taxes", people do.
Senator Stephenson then proposes increasing the food tax to 4.75% and thereby adding an additional $188.57 annual burden on Utah working families. Families making "no more than 150 percent of the federal poverty line" ($33,075 for a family of four) should be eligible for a tax credit to defray all or part of this added expense he says, but whatever money that's left over should be used to reduce income taxes, the state's $800 million revenue short fall notwithstanding. After all, "If the Legislature uses the remaining $116.8 million to lower the state income tax...the state would lose no revenue."
Under Utah's constitution, income tax revenue is dedicated solely to education. Sales tax revenue isn't. Therefore, schools would stand to lose the $116.8 million Senator Stephenson is proposing cutting from income taxes. The impact of this proposed income tax cut on per pupil spending - already the lowest in the nation - is completely ignored by Senator Stephenson.
While Stephenson and others go on and on about tax cuts benefiting the economy and fueling growth (trickle down economics), the role a strong public education system plays in attracting companies seems completely lost on them. Utah is already spending about $1,000 less per pupil than the state coming in 49th in education spending. Teachers salaries are becoming less and less competitive with each passing year and, if my daughter's recent experience with public education is any indication, many text books are woefully out of date. Numerous schools are also lacking up to date technology that would help us graduate students ready to compete in the modern world.
Now is not the time to hit working families with a tax increase and simultaneously reduce spending on education. Any benefit to Utah's economy would be short term at best. With a rainy day fund and numerous examples of corporate welfare riddling Utah's tax code, Senator Stephenson and other Utah legislators don't need a lot of imagination to come up with better solutions than this.
Congressman Bishop wants you to know environmentalists are receiving billions, that's right billions, of your tax dollars. In an Op-ed published in the Billings Gazette Congressman Bishop points to a report prepared by a Wyoming-based law firm as proof. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?
In the Op-ed Congressman Bishop co-authored with Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, he argues money received for lawsuits filed against the government by environmental groups and ultimately either won or settled out of court are an abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The EAJA authorizes such payments in the event the government loses a lawsuit, regardless who filed it. Apparently, when the government loses to an environmentalist or environmental group it does not mean the government did anything wrong and should have to pay for the expense of being held accountable.
The report Congressman Bishop is relying on considers eight major environmental groups. It looks at how many suits three of them filed over the last nine years and five of them filed over the last fifteen years. The report then lists how much was paid out to all litigants whether environmental or not for the years 2003 - the first half of 2007. Wow, that's one thoughtful analysis there Congressman.
According to this report, over the past 9 - 15 years these environmental organizations have filed (but not necessarily won) 1,596 lawsuits against the federal government. That sounds like a lot, but when you consider the many thousands more federal environmental decisions made by the Forest Service, BLM, EPA and other agencies over the course of any given 15 year period this isn't many.
Also, as the analysis by the Wyoming law firm makes clear, the number of lawsuits (environmental or not) the government lost and paid out on an annual basis between 2003 and 2006 ranged from a low of 8,161 (2004) to a high of 10,595 (2003). In other words, even if all 1,596 environmental lawsuits had been filed and won in 2003, at most these lawsuits would have amounted to only 19.5% of all pay outs that year. Considering the 1,596 lawsuits Bishop is complaining about are over a 9-15 year period the total percentage of lawsuits which are environmental in nature the government lost is actually miniscule.
But what of the total cost of these environmental suits. After all, Congressman Bishop's larger point is these environmental suits are costing the federal government "billions", and therefore environmental groups should either stop holding the government accountable if they think the feds have violated the law or stop being reimbursed for legal costs if the courts say they are right.
During the four years analyzed in the report Bishop is relying on 41,881 plaintiffs were paid a total of $4,716,264,730 ($4.7 billion). Considering over a 9-15 year period the eight environmental groups the Wyoming law firm considered filed only 1,596 lawsuits (3.8% of the total for the four year period), and probably lost some of those, it is impossible to see how Congressman Bishop and Congresswoman Lummis reach the conclusion taxpayers are providing "billions of hard-earned tax dollars to support environmental lawyers"; unless of course they completely misread the report or are lying about what it really claims.
