Representative Jeff Alexander

Being Proactive

In Mondays Utah Policy Daily there was an article about the need for more proactive legislation. Senator Curt Bramble invited the Utah House of Representatives to join the Senate in becoming proactive in the legislative process. I found this idea to be very ironic.

]]> For the last eight years the House has met in a December caucus to strategize the upcoming session and set priorities. These aren't meetings where discussion is held and decisions aren't made. Priorities are set by the caucus and the House Majority leadership moves forward to accomplish those priorities. I believe the results from the last two sessions have been examples of following the caucus plan.

If Senator Bramble or UPD believe that both houses of the legislature should meet together to define priorities I believe that would be wrong. The reason there is the House and the Senate is so ideas can be worked through and refined before they are sent to the Governor. Senators will always view legislation differently than Representatives.

I hope Senator Bramble gets his wish and the Senate takes the time to prioritize issues and take positions before the start of the next legislative session. It will make it much easier for the House and the Senate to begin the debate.

Support Transportation Questions

It appears the two ballot questions on transportation should pass on Tuesday. This is an indication the public really does understand how crucial the transportation issue is. Not only will the new tax be used to build more roads, but there will also be a focus on mass transit.

]]> This good news can also create a problem. I’m worried the passage of these transit taxes will leave the public feeling the transportation issue is solved. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no doubt the projects funded by these new taxes will help ease some of our pain, but statewide we have more then $16 billion of transportation projects that need to be funded and built. These projects will take more than an increase in the gas tax or small increases in the sales tax. The public needs to support the legislature in making serious decisions in changing how roads can be funded and built. This will need to be a major funding change and one where we need to set aside our special interests for the good of the State.

Please go vote on Tuesday, but don’t think your vote for these transportation questions will solve all problems. It is a great move in the right direction.

A Bigger Tax Change

The question I get asked most these days is about having a special session. It looks like that will happen in a few weeks. The problem for me is that the focus has been on income tax reform and not on a more pressing tax issue.

]]> The Salt Lake County coucil has put an initiative on the November ballot to approve a property tax increase to pay for light rail in Salt Lake County. I believe this is bad policy. I don't believe this is a good use of property tax and I don't like the way the county is framing the issue.

Using property tax for light rail will affect everybody, but will really affect those on a fixed income and school districts. This is the only way a local district can increase their funds and only when it is approved by the patrons in a district. By increasing the property tax for transit it may stop patrons from increasng property tax later when the schools can prove they really need the increase.

I also don't approve of the way the county has written the ballot initiative. All they are asking the voters to do is approve an $895,000,000 bond. There is no mention of a property tax to pay back the bond or how much it might affect home owners or businesses. The county needs to be more honest with the voters.

Instead of leaving this property tax initiative on the ballot the legislature should change the law so a sales tax has to be approved instead of a property tax. Many are saying that the initiative won't pass. I'm not so sure we should take the gamble. Who's going to fight against the intitiative. Even though it is more of a burden for businesses it will be hard for them to speak agains transit funding, which has become very popular. Even the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce has been supporting the initiative.

So the ball is in the Governor's court to put the issue on the special session. The House has already shown strong support to make the change to an optional sales tax. If the issue is put on the call it is time for the Senate to take seriously the need to make the change from property tax to an optional sales tax for transit and transportation.

The Governor Could Fund Medicaid Now!

The Governor’s message in the Tribune regarding Medicaid dental benefits is confusing. It seems that he, and obviously the Media, do not understand how the budgeting process works. The Legislature doesn’t need to approve the Medicaid Dental funding. The Health Department can make that decision themselves.

]]> Here’s how the process works. When the budgets are created during the general session of the Legislature, the different departments’ budgets are broken down into line items. In the Health Department budget, Medicaid, as a whole, is one line item. So, the Health Department has the ability to use the money appropriated for Medicaid in whatever priority they choose. It almost seems like there are individuals in and out of government who wanted the Legislature to take further control of the Medicaid budget and demand detailed priorities. It’s hard to win when we’re also being told to give the state departments more autonomy. In this case, the Legislature chose to leave the Health Department in control.

Now, lest anyone venture that the Health Department doesn’t feel empowered to make those decisions, let me offer an example. This year, when the Legislature changed the benefits for state employees’ insurance, they also recommended the Department of Health make the same changes on the Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP). The Department of Health, within their rights, chose not to follow that recommendation, and instead keep the more expensive benefit. Because that decision fell within one line item, they were not out of line.

In reality, the real problem is that somebody wanted the Legislature to find new money and give extra to the Department of Health to fund Medicaid dental. My position is that if the Department believes that funding for dental is a top priority, they can fund it now and come to the legislature for supplemental funding in the general session. They do this every year for different programs within their budget.

On Wednesday the Daily Herald printed an editorial that said, “Huntsman needs to call the Legislature back to handle this piece of unfinished business, but he must first have his budget planners go over the state's spending package and find the money to finance the program”. This isn’t necessary at all. The Governor can tell the Department of Health today to fund the program, or the Department can do it on their own.

Since the federal government, over the last few years, has continued to fund less and less of the Medicaid programs, the Legislature is taking this year to research the programs and the needs the state will have in the coming years. We already know the funding requirements will be huge. We haven’t wanted to continue a federal optional program unless we were convinced it would be funded one year to the next. Therefore, the Dental program has not yet been funded with new money. Let’s see how really important it is to those empowered to act.

Public Education Funding

There is nothing like Education to bring our emotions quickly to the surface! And last week Education was again in the news. The Deseret News reported that the State Board of Education is considering new ways to ensure adequate funding. One idea was a referendum to freeze the statewide property tax or a constitutional amendment that would ensure public education was funded adequately. Another idea from Patrick Ogden, the state associate superintendent, was to file a law suit, which seems to be the way to solve problems in our society today.

]]> Since public education is designed in Utah to be controlled mostly by the local school districts, I find it very interesting that when the education community has concerns about funding they always come to the State level. I’m sure it is because the legislature is the biggest target, and if they can gang up on the legislature there is a better chance of getting the funding, and all at once.

But, the legislature shouldn’t be seen as the only source for new funding, or even the primary one. We have a great system. Whoever set it up, decades ago, was way ahead of their time. Our system was designed for the state to fund a weighted pupil unit and then for the local districts to use property tax to fund any additional needs. Because local areas have such varying needs, it was never the plan for the state alone to ensure total funding, nor should it be. The beauty of this plan is that the local districts and their boards can show their patrons what the local need is and raise the property tax to fill that need instead of the legislature raising a state wide tax and the local districts not being held accountable for the use of the funds. The dilemma for the education community -- they have to raise the funds one district at a time.

This is a subject that won’t be solved anytime too soon, but there are some districts willing to go to their patrons and ask for more money now. The Provo School District has a vote on the ballot this month which asks for an increase in the property tax that can be used to run the district. They are trying to use the system the way it should be used. I hope their patrons will get out and vote and be a part of the solution.

What a great idea.

Is UTA Finally Stepping Up?

Last week the media reported that UTA has a unique plan to help Utah County with their transportation woes. It is about time. A year ago, after no assistance from UTA, Utah County had to put together their own task force to begin looking at alternatives for transportation in Utah County.

]]> And all this time the political leaders and newspapers in Salt Lake and Davis counties couldn’t figure out why Utah County has been so slow in wanting to increase mass transportation. They have wanted to say that Utah County is holding up progress for the whole state. I say, “What progress?”

Davis County, after six years of paying an additional sales tax and not knowing where the money was going, is finally getting some work started on their commuter rail. Maybe misery wanted company. All Utah County wants is an alternative that will work for our communities. Even UTA is now admitting there should be some changes to future plans.

I don’t want to be one that holds up progress. I hope the county commissioners give the citizens the opportunity to vote on additional sales tax to be used for transportation, but I am glad we have the ability to hold the money as a county and know how it will be allocated in the future. That way we should have better control of our own destiny.

What Makes this Special Session so Special?

The much talked about special legislative session is finally here. I say “finally” only because it will be nice to have the session completed and out of the way. I always am surprised at how excited the media and some political types get over a special session when, for most legislators, a special session is not needed.

]]> This year there are only a couple of items that really should be considered in the special session, and Transportation is one of those issues. We need to deal with the transportation issues so UDOT can start planning for next year.

On the other hand, I am very concerned about the Medicaid issues that have been placed on the agenda. As a result, several legislators want to open bill files on budget issues because this section of the budget will be open. This problem is just what we were concerned about and why we didn’t want to deal with this issue now. We have a task force that will be meeting to discuss Medicaid and give direction to the legislature next year. Why couldn’t we have waited until then? Well, I guess that isn’t our call.

It should be a very interesting day or two.

Civility

During Utah’s legislative session things move fast. Thankfully, each weekend provides an opportunity to reflect on the previous week’s happenings. This weekend, I came to the conclusion that we can do better.

]]> Let me share some of my perspective. It is an honor to serve in the Legislature. I know my colleagues feel the same way. We realize our friends, neighbors and constituents put trust in us to serve with integrity. And we hope they realize we can’t satisfy every person in our districts, but we try to debate and vote with respect for the process and for the state. But, sometimes we may take for granted the great responsibility that has been given to us by the public.

In an article in the February 17th Deseret Morning News Bob Bernick, Jr. shared his thoughts about some bad legislative behavior. Referring to comments directed at the media during a committee meeting he wrote, “Unfortunately, over the 25 years I’ve covered the Legislature such bashing-matches are happening more and more. Leaders are doing nothing to stop it; in fact sometimes they seem to fuel the attacks. Civility is not the legislators’ strong suit.” This quote struck me not only because I’m a legislator, but because I am also one of the leaders about which he is writing.

You may think I am going to vehemently object to Mr. Bernick’s comments but I am not. Bob is right. We have lost civility. Not just at the Legislature but as a society in general.

Legislators, believe it or not, are recipients of as much if not more civil-less behavior than most. Even one of the examples Bob wrote about in his article last week to show the Legislature’s lack of civility could be looked at in a different light. The article mentioned that the chairman of a legislative committee hearing cut off a citizen witness for pointing-out the conflicts of interest of two committee members. And while it is correct that the chairman finally did cut-off debate, it was only after another member of the committee raised a "point of order" that the citizen had gotten way out of line.

First, the citizen confused Rep. Dave Clark with a Mr. "Dave Clark" who works for Intermountain Healthcare (Rep. Clark is a banker) – and then proceeded to vociferously attack Rep. Clark. Second, the citizen violated the very rules of civility that Mr. Bernick’s column argues for. Instead of speaking to the legislation at hand, he spent his entire time personally attacking three (not two) members of the committee.

Just as the Legislature could be more civil, so could the public.

That being said, legislators are elected offices entrusted by the public and we simply need to do better. As the Majority Leader I understand that I must help bring civility back into the legislative process.

Civility is showing courtesy or being polite to another person. We all know that in our world there is not much civility anywhere. More and more people are expecting more of others and giving less of themselves. It is as though we are driven by having the last word.

I’ve always appreciated what President Gordon B. Hinckley has said about Civility. "Civility carries with it the essence of courtesy, politeness, and consideration of others. All of the education and accomplishments in the world will not count for much unless they are accompanied by marks of gentility, of respect for others, of going the extra mile.”

In a much earlier time President George Washington wrote a book about the rules of civility. Two of those rules seem particularly applicable to our present discussion: every action in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those present and show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy.

I regret that sometimes, as legislators, we get so involved in the work at the Capitol that we take our responsibilities for granted. Because there are so many people who want to talk with us and need our help we begin to think we are more important than we really are. Sometimes we forget that if we weren’t legislators nobody would care who we are and in fact most people don’t now.

I don’t always agree with what Bob Bernick has to say, and he knows that. But this time I have to thank him for the wake-up call. As leaders in the Legislature it is time for us to lead and help the House and Senate develop a greater respect for their positions and for the people we serve. Consider that my pledge.

Getting Along Isn't Always Best

It is always very interesting to hear the reactions from the public when the Legislature is in session and it appears there is not agreement between the House, Senate and the Governor.

]]> To people looking in from the outside it may seem like there are a bunch of egoes holding up the process. But from the inside we see the democratic system working just the way it is supposed to.

The House of Representatives is different from the Senate in many ways. In the House there are 75 members who are elected every two years. In the Senate there are only 29 members who are elected every four years. In many ways the House members have a stronger pulse on their consitituencies because we are elected more often and represnt smaller districts. But because the House has so many members it takes longer for us to come to a consensus on issues. The Senate, with its fewer numbers, can meet in smaller groups and make decisions without as much debate.

One body is no better than the other. They just work differently. If the House and Senate always agreed straight out of the shoot the public would not be well served. It is with hard questions and strong debate that good ideas become stronger and from which the best decisions are made.

The next time you hear that the Legislature isn't getting along try and look at it a little differently. You might just agree that disagreement can sometimes be for the best.

Show Me the Money!

I attended a business association meeting recently where I heard an erroneous reference to the state's billion dollar surplus. This is not uncommon.

]]> Many people I speak with, including constituents, quote the same information and attribute it to the news media. The problem is, we really don't have that kind of surplus.

So if the reports are wrong, what's right?

Here's how the money really breaks down; we do have total revenues of one billion dollars. But what we don't have is a billion extra!

The one billion dollars everyone is talking about is really the $640 M we have counted on for the 2007 budget plus surplus money. So where did the surplus come from? In 2005 and 2006 we budgeted based on the assumption that the state would collect $528 M in revenue for those years. As it turned out, more money came into the state coffers than expected so now we have surplus money – kind of like a bonus.

It is important to recognize that the surplus funds are only available once. Why does this make a difference? Simply stated, most programs and services are ongoing and need ongoing money. Can you imagine if the state paid employees or funded education with money we only have this year?

I'm not trying to minimize the fact that we have unprecedented amounts of revenue because we do. But with that, we need to talk truth about the numbers and recognize the limits of surplus money.

The Education Fund

Much confusion exists in this state over how funds for education are appropriated. HB 294 seeks to eliminate much of this confusion through the creation of the Education Fund.

]]> In 1996 the citizens of the State of Utah voted to amend the constitution to allow all income tax revenue to be earmarked for education. Prior to that vote income tax revenue was used only to fund public education. Because income tax revenues were growing much faster than the sales tax revenue it became necessary to ask the citizens if they would agree to allow income tax to also fund higher education. The measure passed and since that time just over 10% of the income tax revenue has been used to help fund higher education.

This year a new fund is being created under HB 294 to help people better understand how the funds for education are appropriated. Most people involved in education have misunderstood how the funds are allocated. Today the income tax revenues are split between public education (Uniform School Fund) and higher education. Therein lies the confusion. According to the Utah Constitution the Uniform School Fund can only be spent on public education. Many believe that all income tax revenues flow straight to the Uniform School Fund and that the legislature has been illegally funneling money to higher education. In reality the income tax dollars flow to both higher education and the Uniform School Fund.

The creation of the Education Fund should eliminate much of this confusion. Under this system, all income tax revenues would initially be received in the Education Fund. The legislature would then appropriate funds from the Education Fund to the Uniform School Fund and higher education. All revenue from the Uniform School Fund would still flow straight to public education, just like it always has.

Lobbyist Disclosure

One of the issues that caught the attention of many - including the media - the first week of the session was lobbyist reform.

]]> As the sponsor of a bill that dealt with this very issue, I was very encouraged when the House passed it the first week. Of course there were some who thought it should have gone further, but nonetheless the bill makes major changes for lobbyists and legislators. For instance, if a lobbyist were to offer a legislator a ticket to an event the ticket would have to be disclosed, by the legislator's name, if the purchase is above $5. Included in the bill is also new language to tighten up conflicts of interest for lobbyists.

As important as the media made the bill that first week of the session it would appear that it isn't very important now - to some that is. The lobbyist disclosure bill has been in the Senate's possession for over two weeks and no action has been taken yet. The House felt the legislation was so important we wanted to get it to the Senate early so they could have good debate. So where is all of the debate?

Although the media is one of the groups wishing the bill went farther, they have said that reform on disclosure is still very important. So where is the media today? If the issue was really as important to the public as the media reports it is (and I think it is), I wonder why they have given the Senate a pass on this important issue. I say put your ink where your mouth is and let the Senate know their inaction hasn't gone unnoticed!

Taxing Issues

The food tax. Ever since Governor Huntsman said he’d like to repeal the food tax it has become an interesting target to dance around. In last week’s Tax Reform task force the Speaker of the House presented a new idea for repealing the tax. The President of the Senate didn’t want to be upstaged so he presented his own plan, which would cut state revenues by $225 million.

]]> Cutting state revenues is a good idea, but even the Senate president knows that is easier said than done. We all saw how hard it was to cut programs or reallocate budgets during the downturn of 2001. If I remember right we really didn’t cut any programs we just reallocated ongoing money from the Centennial Highway fund and the capital accounts. A couple of cuts we did make in Medicaid continue to surface for one time funding each year. In other words, you won’t make up for the $225 million through budget cuts.

As people have talked about changes in the tax system or cutting taxes I have continued to be skeptical. Many have said they want to make the tax changes for the sake of economic development. Others want to protect the education system so we will have the workforce to attract new business. I believe we are leaving out a greater need that will stop economic development before taxes and education even come into play- Transportation!

It doesn’t matter if you are talking roads or transit, we need to make decisions now about how we will handle our transportation issue. It is huge and only getting bigger. On the conservative side we need a plan to fund, at the least, $500 million dollars per year for at least 10 years. I worry that too many legislators are trying to forget this issue because it is so big. If there is a way to reallocate the food tax revenue we shouldn’t be cutting that tax. Instead we should make the reallocations so we can fund transportation expansion. I’ve always felt we would be foolish to cut taxes and then have to raise them again when we finally decide we need to fund transportation.

Last year the House presented an idea to earmark sales tax revenues from automobile related sales to help fund transportation needs. The Governor didn’t want to have anything to do with it. Instead, his budget director wanted to protect those revenues to grow other state programs. If we can’t make a commitment to reallocate these funds for transportation then how is the President of the Senate going to reallocate just to get rid of the food tax?

The Legislature must get serious about the transportation issue now. We cannot keep putting this off hoping a future Legislature will handle the issue. Solving the transportation issue now is an important key to our State having a strong economy.

Who Should Really Do the Rebuilding?

Over the past few weeks our country has experienced two major disasters and the federal government has decided to step up and help the country rebuild. Many in the affected areas are demanding the government come in and bail them out.

I believe most public officials have been afraid to stand up and ask the tough question; should the federal government be offering to rebuild? I say no and here's why:

]]> #1: Federal "help" can cause more problems than it solves. Currently there are a number of issues before the US Congress that are making life difficult for states in the nation. The one that comes to mind easily is education. Education has historically been left to the states. But now the federal government has decided that the states need "help." So without offering any additional funding, the federal government is forcing federal education reform onto states. Now the states are scrambling to change their systems to comply - mostly without being able to meet the federal mark. It is so frusterating that some states are just finally telling the federal govenment, no! But then they risk losing critical federal taxpayer money. Is education really better off?

#2: Money doesn't grow on trees - even for the federal government. The federal government is commiting billions of dollars to help rebuild New Orleans and yet the government is already running huge deficets. The President says we will still balance the budget and do it without raising taxes. If they continue down this path the budget could be balanced without raising taxes but it will only happen at the expense of the states and state taxpayers. The feds will continue to mandate certain programs, like medi-caid, but they will start sending less money. The states will have to balance their budgets within existing revenues or raise taxes at the state level. Either way, it will be left to the states to step up and do what our full time politicians should be doing.

#3: What happened to personal responsibility? Back to the states that are demanding the federal government bail them out. The governement shouldn't be the ones to go in a rebuild. If the insurance companies and the states themselves can't do the job, neither should the rest of us. Maybe people will have to move to another state where the infrastructure is already in place and they can find jobs and put their lives back together. But if they want to go home to rebuild, they should do it without the rest of us paying for the bill.

As for our Senators and Congressmen, it is time for them to realize they can't just keep spending. Until they have a plan in place to balance the budget, they shouldn't be offering to rebuild cities and states.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves?

Over the last few days the media has been celebrating the signing of the Legacy Highway agreement. Most of the local papers are hailing this as the start of construction. Others are saying that the environmental groups shouldn't be negotiated with and that other more important groups were left out of the negotiations. Maybe we should all take a step back and put this into perspective.

]]> Ten years ago, the Legislature would not have even had a voice in all of this. There would be no talk of an up or down vote of any proposed settlement. Case in point - the "David C. " human services lawsuit that was negotiated and settled without the Legislature at all. It cost the state tens of millions of dollars, but did so without involving the branch of government responsible for the budget. Because of the lessons learned with the David C. case, the Legislature changed the law to ensure that when a lawsuit is being negotiated and signifciant taxpayer dollars are at stake (over 1 million dollars), the Legislature must approve it. That brings us to today. The legislature is involved in the Legacy settlement because it involves hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Should we be negotiating with the environmentalists? First of all, the negotiations will be between the plaintiffs and the defendants. That includes the environmental groups and the Department of Transportation. Some are saying the trucking association should be consulted. They are not part of the lawsuit. The Legislature got involved when it was obvious that the original settlement agreement wouldn't pass. Now some feel that the new settlement agreement is a big enough improvement that it should pass in a legislative special session. Not so fast.

Last week's ceremonial signing by the Governor was only the settlement agreement. The final agreement - the real deal - has to be drafted. This will take at least a month and will be much larger than the outline presented last week. Once this draft is put together it will be reviewed by the Legislature. A lot will depend on the content of this final agreement. Some have already said they could vote for the outline but if certain things are in the final agreement they won't vote for it. Also, don't forget that it is an up or down vote. No changes can be made by the Legislature once the final draft is presented. There can be debate for and against, but in the end it will be an up or down vote.

So, don't get ahead of yourself. No matter what you think about the environment, 55 mile per hour speed limits, negotiating with terrorists, etc. It will all come down to one vote and no amendments. Now really is the time for the public to weigh in. There is still plenty of time.