The clock on the wall said 11:15 pm on the last day of the 2006 Legislative General Session—you could just sense the drama!

It appeared, that at literally the eleventh hour, House Majority Leadership had no appetite, no intention of supporting the Second Substitute of Senate Bill 242–the Flatter Personal Income Tax Reform Bill.  (It had, and continues to have, many aliases.)

Rep. Ron Bigelow, House Appropriations Chair, instructing the body stated, “I just feel like we’re going very fast on a very major policy.  I would say, too, if you fully understand this bill and you fully agree with the provisions of it, I think you ought to vote for it, but if you don’t, then I think you shouldn’t—and, I’m not going to.”

Rep. Steve Urquhart, House Majority Whip, declared, “Here, we are contemplating completely redoing our tax structure, at the eleventh hour.  This was studied by some people, but, it was not brought before this body.  This is where we have the great debates.  This is where we have to have the debates.”

And with that…the clock struck twelve, the gavel fell, the lights dimmed…and…the bill was dead! (Or, rather, sent to Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee for “further study.”)

Political “Junk” Philosophy

Often complex and sometimes overwhelming issues are presented to the Legislature for immediate attention.  As a new Legislator, I was taught the political, philosophical adage, “When in doubt, vote no!”  Generally speaking, the application of this philosophy will hold current statute status quo, giving the body another chance to debate the policy another day.

Is there ever an excuse for a Legislator to vote affirmatively for a bill before he or she completely understands the policy change or budget impact?  (Remember Rep. Bigelow’s instructions to his colleagues?) After all, every time the Legislature implements a new policy or changes current statute…someone’s life is changed, someone is impacted.  And, we do that about 350 times in a six week period every year.  So we’d better darn well be sure.  But are we?  Do we ever vote YES when we’re…just not quite sure, when we “don’t fully understand” a bill and its intended or unintended consequences? (And, that’s another debate for a different day…see how well that worked?!)

So, here we are…another day.

So, Who’s The Big Guy On the Table?

There’s $70 million dollars (minimum) still sittin’ on the table.  You know…The 800 Pound Gorilla.  He’s big alright, but, we’ll just reach around him and pretend like he’s not there.

(Oh, and I won’t even mention the other five 800 pound gorillas that just entered the room.  What gorillas, you say?  OK…here we go…five gorillas [I just threw the 800 pounds in there to confuse this rather uncomplicated mathematical word problem; and, all you using Math Investigations can put away your graph paper now…because the problem will be over by the time you sharpen your pencil] times $70 million each equals $350 million new surplus.) 
 

The presence of the proverbial 800 pound gorilla is the direct result of the promise we made to the taxpayers of Utah, as a Legislature and the Governor, that we would return that surplus Personal Income Tax money back to the people who originally paid it—or, who over-paid it in this case.

Since the closing night of the 2006 General Session, there hasn’t been a topic more discussed among the Legislature, more debated at the water cooler, and more exploited in the Utah Media, than the $70 million waiting for legislative action.  (Maybe I’m a bit hypersensitive about the whole thing because I sit on the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee–you know the committee that SB242 was referred to for further study?!)

We Can’t Possibly Know Everything

I am convinced that no matter how much we debate, how much we learn, how many multi-colored charts and graphs we produce, it still won’t be enough for those who will still vote NO on tax reform because for some reason it’s not politically expedient before November’s Election; or, because we just don’t have ALL the facts.  Yet, if we don’t continue this debate in the Legislature NOW (before the next wave of 2007 General Session bills hits us like a tidal [thanks for the spell chek, Golden] wave—there’ll be about 800+ of them) we will, in fact, continue to over charge the taxpayers of the state and continue to accumulate large (Unconstitutional) buckets of surplus bucks, just sittin’ around collectin’…well…interest, I guess!

So, let’s study up on the issue (the best we can) and let’s get back to the floor for the Great Debate–where all great debates happen.