Mar 12
What Next… Water?!
2009 at 10:24 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 35 comments
Rep. Craig Frank
District 57
Utah House of Representatives
Mar 12
2009 at 10:24 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 35 comments
District 57
Utah House of Representatives
March 12th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
[...] go here and listen to Representative Frank explain it for [...]
March 12th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Thanks for the link Craig! I wish I heard you on the radio with Ethan. I talked to a number of guys at work about because I had been reading rumblings about it, and it seems I guessed right. Your point is well taken, and notwithstanding that I don’t use tobacco products, why are we preying upon a few weak people in their weakness. If we’re needing another tax to help us in these times of financial distress, why not go for a broader based tax. Tongue in cheek understood, but point well proposed of how to tax on an addicted substance… IF WE WANT TO CREATE A TAX ON ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES AT ALL… (is that what I’m hearing?)
Thanks!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Thanks for the link Craig! I wish I heard you on the radio with Ethan. I talked to a number of guys at work about the issue because I had been reading rumblings about it, and it seems I guessed right. Your point is well taken, and notwithstanding that I don’t use tobacco products, why are we preying upon a few people in their weakness. If we’re needing another tax to help us in these times of financial distress, why not go for a broader based tax. Tongue in cheek understood, but point well proposed of how to tax on an addicted substance… IF WE WANT TO CREATE A TAX ON ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES AT ALL… (is that what I’m hearing?)
Thanks!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
There is a difference between taxing tobacco and caffeine. Somebody drinking a coffee next to me does not affect my health, their smoking does. The costs of smoking to the government and the rest of us is great and it should be taxed. Studies also show that higher tax rates on tobacco prevent young people from staring. Caffeine is harmless to bystanders. I wish the Utah legislature wasn’t in the pocket of the Tobacco lobby.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Why not spend less and tax less…I thought that was what the republican party was about…smaller government and less taxes…at least it used to be.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:03 am
well, we’ve gotta back-fill that budget somehow, right?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Why do you care about the 3-legged tax stool? I thought you were the king of the Fair Tax.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am
And, all this time John (Rep. Dougall)…I thought you were the King!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I would expect that if this stupid waste of time passes, that you will have to go straight to the church and tell them that Coke a Cola is now forbidden, oh that’s right it already is, but they won’t admit it. The mormons are the largest consumers of coke a cola in the state. And how will we pay our tithing if you pass this? Seems like Phil Reisen’s bill made more sense, talking and driving, out-lawed in most forward-thinking states. I guess UT isn’t.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I would have preferred the tobacco tax hike to the vehicle registration tax hike. But I do appreciate your concern about government becoming “addicted” to tobacco money. I believe government typically makes more off a pack of cigarettes than the company selling them. Still, tobacco produces many third-party effects that have to be taken into the calculation as well — taxing individuals to compensate society for those third-party costs seems only fair.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Great analogy, even if people won’t admit it. Would you consider moving to my state–North Carolina?
P.S. How on earth will they fund all these things after they tax the tobacco industry out of existence?
March 13th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Hey, don’t forget the tax on tea LOL Maybe we can revive the Boston Teaparty? Maybe even get taxation WITH representation.
Actually, tea has a lot of caffeine in it So all the people who think coffee is evil (even though God provides it) and who are drinking tea – they should be a gold mine.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I agree that it is foolish to target one group in their weakness for tax dolloars. It needs to be spread evenly. The comment about “caffine” not aaffecting me is silly. Instead of taxing caffine, let’s raise the tax on alcohol. It does kill. Look at the statistics! Their logic escapes me. I am not a smoker. And I don’t hang around people who do.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I find it humorous (yet embarrassing for sane Utahns), that like minded local politicians (read: Mormons), up on the hill want to tax perceived immoral behavior. The state is just beginning to grow up with changing the liquor laws to actually make sense, then this Caffeine talk comes up??
These radically right politicians drive me absolutely crazy!
This state, once again, is embarrassing itself by acting so juvenile!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
It is absolutely ridiculous to compare taxing caffeine and taxing cigarrettes. In addition to the damage second hand smoke causes to those around you, there is an actual monetary figure that can be calculated that smoking costs our government. This cost comes from what we pay to take care of the illnesses caused by smoking – heart attacks, lung disease, strokes, vascular disease, lung cancer, throat cancer – the list goes on and on. Don’t believe me? Spend some time in the ER or hospital in your district. Watch the people who get admitted and realize that the majority of them smoke. You should also spend some time on the Peds floor, where the majority of kids who get admitted there for any kind of breathing problem are exposed to cigarrette smoke. And you know what? We pay for a lot of their health care costs, as well.
Caffeine, on the other hand, is not currently linked with any major illness or anything that costs out government money. I am a fairly conservative person who dislikes taxes as much as the next person, but I’m also a doctor who knows all too well the costs – both in money and lives – that cigarrettes pose to our country.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Whoa Frank. Rather than continuing to tax those things that are discouraged by the LDS Word of Wisdom, how about putting a hefty tax on candy and ice cream. That way the Mormons for once would pay their fair share of “sin” taxes based on their poor habits. After all, obesity in Utah is a growing problem with all of its attendant health problems. You could strike a blow for better nutrition and eating habits and fill the state’s tax coffers in one easy stroke. The only downside is that it would make Mormon birth control a lot more expensive, if you know what I mean. : )
John
March 13th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Now you’re catching on!
March 14th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Are you telling me that you have never drank a soda in your life…. maybe you have heard of a soda called Sunkist, Bargs Rootbear, or Squirt to name a few. They all have some caffiene in them, also chocolate has caffine in it. Are you telling me that you have never had any chocalate in your life. Are we eventually gone to tax everything we eat. This is a insane tax and you now it Mr. Craig Frank.
NOT A HAPPY TAX PAYER!
March 14th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Paul, take 5 minutes and watch the video. Please.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I am surprised that you would even mention a “Caffine Tax” If you must find something to tax I suggest that you look into the Mormon Church as they have numerous entities that generate income for the church. These are entities that should be taxable and not exempt. These alone would generate more income for the State of Utah and wipe out the deficite.
I suuggest you look into a full time job as you seem to be bored with your part time job. It gives you too much time to make these outlandish statements. Thank you for your time
Ralph Price
American
March 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Hey Frank,
Still glad you are the man! . . . Also glad to see all this crap completed for another year! I have enjoyed the opportunity to have your explainations available right from the “horse’s mouth”. Say hello some time, and let’s blow some bubbles off Catalina or somewhere warm.
Best Wishes,
PS . . . I am worried about what you guys are looking forward to, before you dip into the Half-Billion dollar “rainy-day-fund”. It got awful wet out here for a bunch of folks on set incomes and with special needs!
March 14th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Aubrey #15: Do some research into the second hand smoke studies and the other view on it. Also, smokers should be allowed to smoke and get cancer/die if they want. This is a free country! The cigarette tax is ridiculous and is not justifiable just because it’s unhealthy.
Just because something is addictive or harmful doesn’t mean we should tax it. Less taxes, less spending, less nannying by government. Just because you may know better doesn’t mean that you can force it on me. If cigarettes and alcohol is legalized, so should marijuana.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811 – 2nd hand smoke charade
March 14th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Just to let you know Frank, I am aware your suggestion to tax caffeine was just tongue-in-cheek. My suggestion to tax candy and ice cream is dead serious. It is about time the LDS folks paid an extra tax for their addictions to help pay for the glut of children they dump into the educational system each year.
John T.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
John, what about me? The glut of children I “dump into the educational system” were, for the most part, not born to me. Should you punish me some more for reaching out and taking in kids with no parents and no other place to go? (Although we don’t buy much ice cream – I’m allergic to milk)
I see you and others slam big families and yet I also don’t see you stepping up to help kids without families. You are a retired teacher, apparently with an ax to grind.
So what’s the solution? I’ve never taken a dime from the government to help with raising my kids, but I also don’t think that I should be taxed extra because I have lots of kids, whether that comes from increasing the tax on food, or on limiting the exemptions on our income taxes.
And for those of you still having a cow about the caffeine tax, it was a JOKE. Watch the video. Rep Frank is not serious…..but he did a great job of proving a point, now didn’t he?
March 14th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Casey – I’m a physician. I see the effects of second hand smoke come into my hospital and into my office every. single. day. Children of smokers have respiratory illness and asthma at a much, much higher rate that children of those who are never exposed. People with asthma who are forced to work in places with cigarette smoke have much worse problems with their lungs. The kids who I admit to the hospital are almost ALWAYS children of smokers. Coincidence?
You should also spend some time in an ER or hospital to see the effects of smoking (and how much money it costs our government) yourself. The biggest group affected by a cigarette tax are actually teens – they are much less likely to start smoking if they can’t afford to get them. And no smoking teens mean that they will have much longer, healthier lives, which I’m pretty sure everyone would recognize as a laudable goal. As I said, I don’t like the government raising taxes, but given the high, high cost that cigarettes pose to our society, I think it’s something that should be done.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:19 am
So, in the little video here he says
“Out of jest and out of trying to prove a point I proposed that a caffeine tax be applied to the citizens of the state of Utah…”
What is he the court jester? A little comedien? If you want to make jokes or make points do it on the floor not in a bill where the ACTUAL PROPOSAL is.
He says tageted taxes are wrong but yet he puts it in a bill. Who elected this guy? Tounge in cheek has no place in politics.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Al: The “bill” (HJR21) in this case is the annual Master Study Resolution. The Master Study Resolution is nothing more than a list of very loosely requested POTENTIAL interim study subjects that may (or may not) be picked up by Legislative Management Committee or Committee Chairs for their consideration during the 2009 Interim. This bill is a LIST…a Resolution…and certainly non-binding…it never becomes LAW…and…never signed by the Governor…I’d hate to think he’d VETO the Resolution because of Item #149. The “Caffeine” item was #149 out of #199.
By the way, to reinforce the fact that this “bill” is a loose framework for interim…it passed 72-0-3 in the House AND 26-0-3 in the Senate. I would venture to say that not a single Legislator read this bill all the way through. At any time during the House or Senate Floor debates any member of either body, thinking Item #149 was inappropriate, could have had the item removed by a majority vote. However, by the bodies’ actions, a majority in both houses must have felt it a proper study item…or, didn’t care enough to further debate the item.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
So your “jest” was passed by a bunch of Legislators too lazy to do their jobs of reading and understanding what their voting on? Study it up. Any way you and your fellow politicians can put your grubby little hands deeper into the taxpayers pockets. Better yet maybe you could propose a study for a tax on those with bowels and tax the number of times they move them a day?
Also, how much is this study going to cost the taxpayers of Utah? If there is anywhere you can find fraud, waste and abuse it is definately located in the government offices throughout this country. Maybe the next campaign you run the slogan can be “Forget about the big issues, we’ve got smaller ones to deal with.”
March 15th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Al, I hear you are frustrated, but you are taking it out on the wrong guy.
Interim “study” simply means it COULD be discussed during the 10 months between the end of one session and the beginning of another. There are some 200 ideas on the master study list. It’s not a “bill”, in that it will not become law, but simply a list of items people want to talk over some more – the fishing bill from this year, for example, or licensing a new profession. Rep Frank is one of several legislators that staunchly opposes putting their grubby hands into tax-payer pockets, as you so kindly put it. If they even do “study” the caffeine issue, which I find unlikely, there will be no tax payer dollars expended unless it is the daily rate lawmakers receive – averaging less than $10 an hour, btw.
If you have specific areas of waste that you have seen, report them at http://utahwastebuster.blogspot.com – they take you seriously.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Holly, no one is slamming big families. I am merely making a statement of fact that those Utahns who choose to have their large families in all fairness should pay more in taxes to educate those same children and not less as the current system allows.
Our state has the largest class size as well as the lowest per pupil expenditure in the United States due entirely to the extremely high birthrate of the members of the LDS church. I think it is unfair for those who choose not to have a flock of children to have to support those who do by paying much higher state taxes since they don’t have the large number of deductions.
By the way, if you in fact have a houseful of children why aren’t you home taking care of your kids instead of spending 8 hours a day playing legislator on the hill? Oh wait, I think I know the answer already. : )
March 16th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
And I’ll say again, I should not be punished for being willing to step up and care for those who had no one else to care for them.
As you know, my children are in school. And “playing legislator”? Hardly. How about “playing reporter”? At least be accurate.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Sorry, it’s Item #145 in HJR21…if you’re looking.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Rep Frank:
I really think you are serious about a caffeine tax – and I did watch your video. Taxes on everything, and yet the tax burden is not equal. Why don’t you consider a straight percentage tax? It would be much fairer to all people no matter their income.
It is time to tax sugar, flour, cream & fried foods……they make those who are “addicted” to food consume more, so tax them additional penalty taxes. Every person who is arrested for illegal drug use should be taxed – before they get bailed out of jail! Every pregnant mother who is addicted to drugs should be taxed – it damages the baby and increases the hospital bills. I also want to tax anybody who idles their car – the pollution is so harmful to my asthmatic children. Let’s tax food dye colors in food, which are harmful (get my point?).
March 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Maybe it’s time to seriously consider the “Fair Tax”…..
March 19th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
If this crazy discussion leads us to a real discussion on a flat tax, then it is all been worth it.
I can’t believe how many folks around here don’t have a sense of humor!