Discussion with Representative Brady Brammer (Note: this is currently misfiled on the Red Meat website under North American Cities Business Climate http://redmeatradio.com/north-american-cities-business-climate)

 – According to Brammer, reinstating the sales tax on food helps limit the volatility of sales tax revenue during economic downturns [because people have to eat]. Like an investor the state needs to have a mixed portfolio to smooth out economic downturns – income tax (volatile because shoots up during good times, drops as people lose jobs), sales tax (less volatile when food is taxed because people have to eat even if they lose their jobs), etc.

– Howard Stephenson, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association and co-host of the radio program, said that the wealthy benefit most from the current sales tax exemption on food as opposed to a family on public assistance. Rusty Cannon, Vice President of the Utah Tax Payers Association and program co-host noted that under the bill that passed low income Utahns get a food tax credit to offset the sales tax they pay on food [while other Utahns pay the sales tax on food.]

– Stephenson said people signing petitions are most upset at the food, gas taxes and service taxes. However, they are basically saying that they do not want a $160 – $200 million tax cut. Brammer said that he didn’t think the petition people were rejecting the tax cut and that it is the legislature’s fault for not better messaging the bill. Brammer thinks that the public is being educated and as people learn about volatility and other things. Once the people understand that bill will be accepted by most Utahns.

– Representative Brammer couldn’t recall all the additional services that are taxed under this bill but noted that streaming services and Uber/Lyft are probably the most noticeable. In addition, Brammer wasn’t certain about the amount of tax savings because things changed at the last minute – thinks it was $245 million this year and then $160 million next year. [And he wonders why citizens are having trouble understanding this complex bill with all of its different moving parts.]

– Brammer referred to the calculator on the Utah 2019 Tax Referendum  Facebook page.  He said that whether people save or lose depends on the number of dependents and that only about 30% of single filers get a tax cut.

Soon-to-be Gubernatorial Candidate Greg Hughes – Does not Support Referendum  http://redmeatradio.com/hughes-pre-announcement

 – Hughes said that signature gathering is the low level information way of doing things. Legislators are better informed and able to make better decisions; however, the public does not see what is going on as this occurs. Hughes said, “I am not in support of the referendum” (7:10ish into the clip on Hughes’ pre-announcement segment). The day of the special session Hughes said that he couldn’t track all of the changes, and if he couldn’t the public couldn’t. He put the onus on Governor Herbert to sell and defend the bill.

 Discussion with House Speaker Brad Wilson (Note: this is currently misfiled on the Red Meat website under North American Cities Business Climate and Wilson’s comments follow those of Brammer http://redmeatradio.com/north-american-cities-business-climate) (http://redmeatradio.com/north-american-cities-business-climate)

-Wilson said the bill that passed combined a tax cut for almost everyone with budget certainty. The structural imbalance was fixed by raising some taxes and lowering others. The gas tax was increased by a dime and since not everyone uses the roads equally this is more equitable to everyone. He touted restoring the dependent income tax exemption but did not explain why it took the legislature two years to do so and why they didn’t make it retroactive in order to return the overpayments to Utahns.

– Wilson said that legislative staff had developed a calculator to let people see how much they would save. He had difficulty using it on his cell phone when he tried to show how much families at various income levels would save. He said that he would like to make that calculator available to the public since now it is restricted to government officials.

– Wilson said that there is a lot of misinformation out there. People believe that haircuts will be taxed even though they won’t. It is important for people to know what they are signing since the referendum increases taxes. He wants people to understand that if the sign the referendum they are signing to pay more to the state of Utah.

– Wilson said that the biggest winners are low income Utahns. Almost all those who will see a tax increase are zero filers.

Throughout all of the discussions, Stephenson and Cannon came back time and again to the Utah Taxpayers Associations’ talking points that were put out earlier in the week labeling those supporting the referendum as hysterical and supporting the bill that passed.

  Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D.
Co-Founder, CitizensForTaxFairness.org
12-30-19

LaVarr Webb, the publisher of UtahPolicy.com, had a “deplorable” moment when he accused a broad cross-section of Utahns of joining the “fringe groups” that are attempting to repeal the Herbert administration’s and Utah legislature’s tax reform package. If those collecting signatures succeed, Webb can only thank himself for motivating the “fringes” to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.

Just to be clear, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a fringe group is a “group with marginal or extremist views.” According to RationalWiki, “On the right, the fringe consists of fundamentalists, fascists, anarcho-capitalists, white supremacists, and other loons. On the left, it consists of revolutionary socialists and communists, especially in a Maoist or Stalinist form.”

If that wasn’t insult enough, Webb doubled down by accusing “Utah’s gubernatorial candidates of pandering to the baser instincts of voters.” So, according to Webb, those who want to vote on tax reform are following “a subconscious urge, behavior, or intuition directed by primeval, animalistic, self-serving, and/or ignoble motivations.”

But Webb doesn’t stop there. He then attacks Republican gubernatorial candidates when he says that it is “easy for them to demagogue the tax package.” He must know that a demagogue is defined as “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” And he even accuses them of lacking courage because they choose to stand with the people rather with those who make up the “Utah Swamp.”

Webb then shows his contempt for Utahns who have come together from all across the political spectrum to collect signatures and to oppose the Utah Swamp when he writes, “I would expect liberal Democrats and far-right people to oppose the tax package and support repeal. They are outside the mainstream of Utah politics and love to complain about nearly everything.”

He concludes by once again labeling those supporting the referendum as “fringes” when he writes “But I am disappointed that gubernatorial candidates who no doubt consider themselves mainstream Republicans are supporting the fringes.”

The day after Webb posted his “fringe” piece, a UtahPolicy.com poll was released. It found that “More than 2/3 of Utahns say they oppose the primary elements of the tax reform package passed by Utah lawmakers in a special session earlier this month.” Does this mean that more than two-thirds of Utahns are “fringes?”

For someone who prides himself on being an expert in political messaging and on public policy, Mr. Webb has really stepped into it big-time. Just as Secretary Clinton’s unfortunate use of the term deplorable galvanized then candidate Trump’s supporters, Webb’s labeling good, honest Utahns of all political stripes as “the fringes” will only bring them closer together.

After all those supporting the referendum already stood side-by-side during a press conference in a multi-partisan show of unity. They coordinate together on the Utah 2019 Tax Referendum Facebook group. They are working together on signature gathering. People signing the referendum packets come from across the political spectrum including large numbers of Webb’s so called “mainstream” Republicans.

Webb’s article may well ensure that those supporting the referendum are even more motivated to fight Utah’s sneaky tax reform that benefits the Utah oligarchs and privileged big businesses. And it will further encourage primary election challenges to Republican incumbents by the “fringes”—Republican Senators Fillmore and Ipson already have challengers. In addition, Democrats will benefit substantially by standing with the people on this issue.

As Craig Bowden wrote in response to Webb’s article: “Yesterday, I was holding the first event in Senator Hillyard’s district at the Logan Library. We had a line out the door. You know who showed up? Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, independents including every county party chair, vice chair, and precinct captains. We had teachers, welders, mechanics, a professor, millionaires, people in poverty, newly married couples, students, politicians, former county commissioners, etc. All walks of life. We are not stupid and don’t assume we are.”

Another comment read: “And who are you calling Fringe? The signers of my petition packet come from all walks of life and from multiple political parties. We the people are POd.” This same sentiment was expressed by a comment reading “LaVar (sic), I think you, and the legislature, have kicked the hornets (sic) nest.”

If those collecting signatures succeed, Webb can only thank himself for motivating them to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds by labeling them as “fringes” and accusing them of acting on “primeval, animalistic, self-serving, and/or ignoble motivations.”

And if his beloved “mainstream” Republicans and fellow oligarchs who support them suffer losses at the polls and in their political power, he will have to take some responsibility for that as well.

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D.
Co-Founder, CitizensForTaxFairness.org
12-21-19

The Utah Association of Realtors (Realtors) provided key support for Utah’s so-called tax reform legislation that was passed during a special session of the legislature just days before Christmas. This column provides background on Realtor activities and concludes with a series of questions for real estate professionals.

Background

The Realtors have been heavily involved in the efforts to reform Utah’s tax system. Unfortunately, many of the so-called reforms that they support negatively impact the vast majority of Utahns. They support the state sales tax on food, the state sales tax on gasoline and the taxation of additional services.

In addition, Realtors expressed support for new and much higher property taxes even though this would severely impact current homeowners and further increase the price of housing.

For example, in March, 2019, a lobbyist for the Utah Association of Realtors told listeners of Utah’s Red Meat Radio that an entirely new state property tax was the solution to Utah’s tax modernization efforts (March 11, 2019 podcast at 15:30 in the discussion). According to the Realtor’s lobbyist, a new state property tax that automatically brings in more revenue as home values increase would raise between $300 million and $700 million in new, stable, broad-based, discretionary revenue (that’s right, “discretionary” revenue) for the state.

As tax reform efforts progressed, the property tax discussion was deferred to the 2020 general session of the legislature. By that time Republican state Senator Ann Millner is expected to have a bill ready that would automatically increase school district property taxes by the rate of inflation every year without a truth-in-taxation hearing.

It’s important to recognize that either a new state property tax or automatic school district property tax increases would quickly wipe out any tax savings Utahns may have realized in the past as property taxes shoot up. Will the Realtors support this property tax change? If so, can anyone say Proposition 13 and Homie?

In any case, as the tax reform discussions wrapped up, the Realtors threw their full support behind the bill that was eventually passed during the special session of the legislature on December 12, 2019.

The Realtors reportedly spent over $100,000 to develop a website titled Support Utah Tax Reform and on a mailer sent out to 90,000 voters across the state. The website and mailer supported re-instating the state sales tax on food, imposing a new state sales tax on gasoline (roughly 10 cents a gallon to begin with) and imposing sales taxes on a wide range of services such as pet boarding, ride sharing services, shipping and handling charges, dating services, identity theft protection, parking lots, the installation of tangible personal property when part of a taxable sale, etc., etc.).

According to the draft minutes of the December 9 meeting of the Tax Restructuring and Equalization Task Force, “Christy Vail, Utah Association of Realtors, expressed gratitude and spoke in favor of the draft legislation” that taxed food, gasoline and additional services. That draft legislation was basically what was passed by the legislature during the special session and signed by the Governor.

Questions for Real Estate Agents

This raises the question of where individual real estate agents stand on tax reform. So, it wouldn’t hurt to ask your friends in the real estate business if they agree with their Associations’ actions. Also, ask them if they will support the citizens’ referendum to give voters the opportunity to vote for or against the tax reform bill that was passed during the special session.

Here are some questions you may wish to ask:

1. Did you know that the Utah Association of Realtors reportedly spent over $100,000 to mail out 90,000 postcards and to create a website in order to generate support for the sales tax on food, the sales tax on gasoline and the sales tax on additional services such as pet boarding, Uber/Lyft, shipping and handling charges, dating services, identity theft protection, parking lots, the installation of tangible personal property when part of a taxable sale, etc.?
2. Are you aware that legislative leadership and the governor are considering imposing sales taxes on still more services? Do you support imposing sales taxes on realtor services?
3. Do you support a new state property tax as proposed by the Realtors’ lobbyist and do you support automatically increasing school district property taxes each year by the rate of inflation without a truth-in-taxation hearing?
4. Do you support putting the implementation of the new sales taxes and the reduction of the state income tax rate on hold until the citizens can vote on these changes in November, 2020? If yes, will you join those supporting the referendum and help collect signatures by going to this Facebook page and signing up: Utah 2019 Tax Referendum.
5. 5. Will you call the Board members of the Utah Association of Realtors and the board members of your local association to express any concerns you have with the positions they have taken on tax reform?

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D.Co-Founder, CitizensForTaxFairness.org
December 12, 2019

The following is the author’s detailed review of and observations on the passage of Utah’s tax reform bill by a special session of the legislature.

Democrats – more transparent and more responsive to their constituents

Democrat legislators were much more open and transparent than were their Republican counterparts during the multi-month tax reform process. They actually listened to what their constituents were saying and acted on that. On the other hand, the Republican governor and legislators, with the exception of those in highly competitive districts, only listened to powerful business interests, legislative staff and possibly to a few big donors. The result was that, as Senator Todd Weiler openly acknowledged, Republicans now find themselves ahead of public opinion.

When it comes to transparency, the Republicans have always lagged behind their Democrat counterparts. The Republican Senate caucus is always closed to the public and the House caucus is usually closed—both were closed on the night of the special session. The Democrats’ caucuses are open.

Because of this, those attending the Democrat House caucus on the afternoon of the special session, saw Republican Norm Thurston come into the Democrat caucus, whisper something to the minority leader and then watch as he and Representative Jennifer Daily-Provost left the caucus room. Later in the evening, Thurston and Daily-Provost could be observed talking at the back of the House chamber. Shortly, thereafter Representative Daily-Provost proposed to replace the Republican bill with a substitute – the 5^th substitute. That substitute would have required big businesses to help shore up the general fund rather than giving them a complete pass and putting the burden on middle income taxpayers as the Republican bill, which was passed, does.

Washington style politics are now embraced by Utah Republicans

Utah Republicans have now fully and very openly embraced Washington style politics.

• Under current Republican control, it is the citizens of the state of Utah who serve the government and the powerful business interests favored by that government.
• Republican leaders are fixated on ensuring that government will continue to grow and guaranteeing that it will never have to tighten its belt during economic downturns.
• The Republican governor and Republican legislators load middle-class Utahs down with ever more taxes in order to support big government, corporate socialism and Utah’s elites.
• The Speaker rules the Utah House with an iron fist just as Nancy Pelosi does in Washington.
• Republican legislators pass a massive tax reform bill that they haven’t read in order to find out what is in it without a single Democrat voting for it. And the fiscal note for the bill is not finalized until after the Senate passes it and it has been taken up in the House.
• The Republican governor and Republican legislative leaders misuse $150,000 of taxpayer funds to create a propaganda campaign disguised as a listening tour. This is done in apparent violation of state procurement rules and without an appropriation of funds. They then deny doing it.

Senate Action on the Bill – Democrats push back; Republicans toe the line

The Republican controlled Utah state senate is totally focused on (1) ensuring that the state revenues are always rising, (2) that government programs are always growing and (3) that state government never has to reduce spending or programs during the bad times.

In his presentation of the Republican’s tax reform bill to the Senate, Senator Lyle Hillyard carried out a mini-filibuster waiting for the 4^th substitute of the bill to be finished so the body could pass it—which they did just minutes after receiving it. Citizens were given no time to review the final legislation before it was passed.

Focus totally on ensuring that government has the funds to continue growing

Hillyard made it crystal clear that for Republican’s tax reform is all about ensuring that government has growing, stable revenue sources that will hold government harmless during economic downturns. They achieve this by imposing the state sales tax on food, gasoline and a handful of service providers who lack the political power to fight back.

It quickly became apparent that the personal and corporate income tax cuts were largely designed to do two things: First, lock in the Republican votes necessary to pass the Republican’s tax reform bill. Second, prepare the field for future negotiations with the public education establishment in order to remove the constitutional earmark that dedicates the entire income tax to public education. This would be done in exchange for authorizing local school districts to automatically increase property taxes every year without a truth-in-taxation hearing.

The one-time payments that certain individuals who pay state income tax will receive in early 2020 are just a small percentage of what taxpayers overpaid because the legislature refused to restore the dependent credit in 2018 (roughly $200 on a $2,000 overpayment). The state keeps the major portion of the overpayment and its billion dollar surplus.

While presenting the bill, Hillyard repeated the discredited claims that sales tax growth has not kept up with population growth and that people were no long buying goods. In addition, he failed to acknowledge that huge chunks of sales tax revenue had been given up by Republican legislators in order to give big businesses an estimated half-billion dollars in sales tax exemptions. There would be no need to increase sales taxes on food or gasoline if these exemptions were eliminated.

Blames drop in child births and an aging population for the need to tax services

Hillyard argued that Utahns are having fewer children which further reduces spending for goods. In addition, the state’s population is aging and old folks spend their money on such things as medical services which aren’t taxed.

Acknowledges that online sales tax money has already spent or used for tax cuts for big business

Hillyard acknowledged that the online sales tax money has already been spent on items in the current budget and on a sales tax cut for big businesses. Therefore, the task force had to find new sources of general fund revenue that go up at the same rate as population growth.

He further argued that in order to reduce the income tax, sales tax revenue had to increase. The tax reform bill achieves this by taxing food, gasoline and a few services. Under the bill, general fund revenues will be more stable and will constantly ratchet up as food and gas prices increase. He expressed his disappointment that they weren’t able to tax even more services.

Puts a positive spin on income tax and food tax rebates with a little fuzzy math

Hillyard noted that a one-time payment was now included in the bill to offset some of the extra individual income taxes that will be paid on 2019 income. This was only necessary because the legislature refused to reinstate the dependent credit in either 2018 or 2019. Under this bill, taxpayers will only get a small portion of what they overpaid back. A partial food tax credit will be paid in July and $500,000 will be allocated to Workforce Services so it can help people eligible for that credit to claim it.

Using fuzzy math, Hillyard argued that even though the sales tax rate on food almost tripled (from 1.75% to 4.85%) that it won’t triple the price of food so it is not really a tripling. Besides, the sales tax on food is a stable source of revenue since everyone has to eat even in the bad times. Based on this bill, it would seem that Governor Herbert and Legislators are totally lacking in compassion for individuals who may be struggling to make ends meet during economic downturns otherwise why would the tax their food?

Justifies sales tax exemptions granted to business and a sales tax on gasoline

Hillyard justified huge sales tax exemptions given to big businesses. He then said that the imposition of a 10 or 11 cent per gallon sales tax on gasoline is necessary because the existing gas tax isn’t providing enough money for roads. He failed to acknowledge that in 2018, the people of Utah had voted 65% to 35% against a 10 cent a gallon increase. Efforts will be made to replace the sales tax on gasoline with a fee based on miles driven in four or five years in order to tax alternate fuel vehicles. However, as Ronald Reagan said “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau (or tax in this case) is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

Hillyard said that additional revenue will be collected for roads by requiring that there be three people in a vehicle in order for the driver to use the express lane at no cost. Months earlier another state senator hold told constituents that this would be in the bill and that in future years additional freeway lanes will be designated as toll lanes.

Argues that not everyone benefits from roads

Senator Hillyard argued that using sales taxes paid on goods not related to roads to pay for roads is unfair because people paying those taxes don’t benefit that much from the roads. He said that an agreement was made to limit the increase in taxes on diesel fuel to six cents a gallon for two years and then increase it to ten cents because diesel is cheaper in other states. It didn’t hurt that the trucking industry had good lobbyists whereas the citizens didn’t have anyone at the table to push back on the gas tax.

More services will be taxed

A number of additional services will be taxed including shipping and handling on taxable goods, parking, dating referral services, identity theft protection, Uber, etc. These taxes are on final consumption according to Hillyard. Actually, these services are the weaklings in the herd and easiest for the legislative coyotes to take down. They will be back for the stronger members of the herd in order to impose service taxes on them at a later date.

Five Million dollars to buy votes of rural legislators and county government officials

Rural counties will receive $5 million in funds to help them with roads. This is another example of Washington style politics. Can anyone say “Cornhusker Kickback?”

Argues that a reduction in income tax revenues for public education helps public ed

Even though this bill reduces income tax revenues which are dedicated for public education, according to Hillyard, it actually helps public education. It does this by strengthening the general fund so it can be tapped to help support public education when income taxes drop during an economic recession. This is why the sales tax on food is necessary. It won’t drop all that much when people lose their jobs because people still have to eat.

Property taxes are the governor’s and legislature’s ace in the hole. The idea of a state property tax for education was floated by a lobbyist for the powerful Utah Realtors. Senator Ann Millner is working on a bill that makes it easier for local school districts to raise property taxes in return for giving up the income tax earmark for education. That way the governor and legislators can tap income tax money to grow government while homeowners are being priced out of their homes due to constantly increasing property taxes. Can anyone say, Proposition 13?

Increasing property taxes deferred to another day in order to pass this bill

Hillyard noted that there is nothing in this bill about property taxes. Of course, that wasn’t included since it would have killed the bill. Now that sales taxes have been increased, property taxes will be dealt with in the regular session. In fact, Senator Millner is already working on a bill to end the constitutional earmark for the income tax. Her bill will reportedly authorize local school districts to raise property taxes automatically each year by the rate of inflation—without holding truth-in-taxation hearings in return for freeing up the income tax.

Tax reform task force will continue in its quest to find more things to tax

Senate President Stuart Adams touted the public vetting that this tax reform bill had received. In response to a question from Senator Anderegg, Adams said that there was no intention to repeal the tax reform task force. Therefore, it will continue in its quest to tax services and to drive people from their homes by increasing property taxes each and every year. Anderegg said that since the food tax credit would be partially paid up front and because the task force would continue to find services to tax that he would vote for the bill.

Senator Weiler notes that the legislature is ahead of public opinion on tax policy

Weiler referenced the elite’s favorite, Natalie Gochnour, and then said that he was convinced that the poor would be better off once the sales tax was reinstated on food due to the credit they would receive. He also noted that the governor and legislators are ahead of the public on this in spite of spending $150,000 in taxpayer funds to shape public opinion. He said that legislators will be criticized but food and gasoline have to be taxed in order to avoid cutting social programs.

Senator Davis’ amendment to require businesses to pay more fails

Senator Gene Davis tried to amend the bill in order to increase the corporate franchise and corporate income tax rates. He failed. He also pointed out that much of the new sales tax revenue from the online sales tax had been used to give additional sales tax exemptions to big businesses. The Republicans justified this by saying that it was done to prevent the windfall from online sales taxes from being spent on government programs. Hillyard opposed the amendment and it was voted down. Big business interests had remained untouched.

Hillyard reaffirms bill’s purpose is to guarantee growth in state funding

Hillyard summed up by saying that President Adams was a great leader, that Olene Walker gets credit for the rainy day fund that helps ensure that the state will not have to cut back its spending during times of economic downturn and that the income tax needs to be supplemented by general fund revenue in the bad times so schools are held harmless. Nothing was said about the people paying for all of this—mainly middle-income taxpayers.

Senator Fillmore is proud to vote for the biggest tax cut in the state’s history

Speaking to explain his vote, Senator Fillmore said “I am proud to vote aye”—because this is the largest tax cut in the history of the state.

Senator Harper votes for the bill because people are better off under it

Senator Harper said that he was voting yes because people are better off under this bill.

Senator Iwamoto votes “No” because of the harm done to the most vulnerable

Senator Iwamoto said that it was important to look at sales tax exemptions granted to big businesses, the impact of the sales tax increases on indigenous people who live in remote areas and have to drive long distances and on the elderly who are among the single filers who may pay more taxes under this bill.

All senate Democrats and two senate Republicans vote “No” on the bill

The tax bill passed the Senate by a 2/3 majority by getting 20 votes. All Democrats and two Republican Senators (Thatcher and Henderson) voted against it. Neither Henderson nor Thatcher spoke against the bill. When the bill was voted on a second time later in the evening due to an amendment made in the House it only got 19 yes votes because Senator Okerlund had left. Therefore, on final passage it failed to get a 2/3 majority. However, this didn’t matter because the bill failed to pass the House by a 2/3 majority.

House action – Democrats push back, Speaker controls Republicans

House Sponsor not sure what is in the bill

When the bill got to the House, the bill’s sponsor, Francis Gibson, gave a short explanation of it. He tried to explain why the new gasoline sales tax was not really an increase. He then said that the total tax cut was $255 million. Therefore, the cut went from $80 million to $160 million ongoing then to $255 million ($160 million ongoing and $95 million one-time funding) in order to get the votes needed to pass.

The day after the bill passed, legislative leaders were saying the total cut was $240 million. That includes $80 million one-time money for a limited rebate for those families that have dependents. What they didn’t mention was that many of these families will be paying up to $1,000 in extra income taxes for the second year in a row and all they get back is $200 with the state pocketing the other $1,800.

It is important to understand that the $95 million or $80 million or whatever amount was added to the bill was done in order to buy wavering members’ votes and to give members cover by allowing them to repeat over and over again that this is the biggest tax cut in the state’s history. This $95/$80 million figure shows that legislators, including the bill’s House sponsor, didn’t know what was in the bill until they passed it because the fiscal note wasn’t completed until hours after the special session had been called to order.

There was never any talk about the one-time tax cut for 2019 income taxes until I sent every legislator a series of questions. A number of these questions essentially asked why they were taking the income tax windfall that resulted from their failure to restore the dependent exemption for the second year in a row. I also pointed out that no one would see any noticeable tax reduction until their income taxes were filed in 2021. So, it could be argued that my questions resulted in the legislature rebating $80 million to taxpayers who were the victims of its failure to restore the dependent exemption in 2018 like they should have.

Democrats were the only ones to openly fight back against the bill in the House

The Democrats in the House offered numerous amendments. All failed. Finally, Jennifer Daily-Provost proposed a 5^th substitute that would have deleted the sales tax on food, increased the sales tax rate on aviation fuels, increased the severance tax rates on oil and gas, increased the tax rate for radioactive waste facilities, etc.

Her substitute bill was the only significant attack mounted in the House against Utah’s, Republican created corporate socialism but it failed by a vote of 21 for and 46 against. Prior to the motion to substitute the bill, Republican Representative Norm Thurston was seen talking with Daily-Provost which, as noted earlier, may explain what their earlier meeting during the Democrat caucus was about.

Several House Republicans spoke in favor of the bill. Melissa Ballard praised all aspects of the bill including the fact that it helps give the state a stable source of income. She concluded by saying that if it didn’t pass there wouldn’t be money for transportation.

All House Democrats and 11 Republicans vote against the bill

The bill passed the House by a vote of 43 to 27 which was 7 short of a 2/3 majority required for the bill to take effect immediately. All House Democrats voted against the bill along with 11 Republicans—Coleman, Dunnigan, Eliason, Hall, Judkins, Lyman, Pierucci, Quinn, Thurston, Ward and Winder. Many of these legislators are in competitive districts and one is running for Congress. None of the Republicans voting against the bill spoke against it. The bill was then sent back to the Senate because it had been amended in the House and the Senate then voted 19 to 7 on final passage. As noted above, this was one short of a 2/3 majority since Senator Okerlund, who had originally voted for it, had departed.

Governor and legislative leaders “buy” and coerce enough votes to pass the bill

So, despite strong public opposition, the governor and legislative leaders finally cobbled together a bill that garnered enough votes to pass. They did this by “buying” the votes of numerous legislators through the addition of larger income tax cuts ($80 million ongoing to $160 ongoing funds), $80 million one-time funds for income tax rebates on 2019 taxes and pre-bates on food tax credits, $5 million for county roads, etc. Reportedly legislative leaders also threatened legislators with loss of committee chairmanships and assignments, ability to move legislation in the 2020 general session, etc. In addition, according to a reliable source, lobbyists were told to get behind the legislation or else. Talk about Washington style politics.

Big winners are government and big businesses; losers are middle class taxpayers

The big winners in this exercise are 1) state government which has a larger, more stable revenue stream and 2) the states’ big businesses that kept all of their exemptions while pushing still more of the tax burden onto an already overstressed middle class.

The losers are the middle class taxpayers because their short-term gains will end up being long-term pains as they are forced to pay more and more and more to support government and Utah’s corporate socialism. Had public opposition not been so great, the income tax cut would have been a paltry $80 million rather than $160 million ongoing and $80 million one-time. That extra $160 million ($80 million ongoing, $80 million one-time) is money that they were planning to spend while pleading poverty to justify new and higher taxes.

In conclusion, Washington style politics is alive and well in Utah. The top priorities for Republicans now appear to be growing and sustaining government while promoting corporate socialism. This is alienating them from many of those who have traditionally supported Republicans without question.

Democrats on the other hand are basking in the bipartisan glow resulting from their opposition to increased sales taxes and support for maintaining high levels of public education funding. However, this will likely quickly disappear unless a bipartisan referendum to undo the bill gains traction. If that happens, then the bipartisanship that this bill has generated will likely continue and Democrats will be well position to make further gains in Utah.

Report: Utah’s Oligarchs – Fighting to Maintain Their Political and Economic Control
Take a Dive into Utah’s Swamp
An Investigative Report on Utah’s Elite
By Ronald Mortensen, Columnist at Utah Standard News / April 30, 2018
Originally published at: https://www.utahstandardnews.com/report-utahs-oligarchs-fighting-to-maintain-their-political-and-economic-control/

An oligarchy is a system where power rests with a small number of people—the rule of the few. The oligarchs may be distinguished by their wealth, their family ties, or by corporate, religious or military control. The word “oligarch” is generally used when referring to Russian entities.  President Trump recently laid sanctions on 38 Russian oligarchs, government officials and business groups. In Utah we have our group of oligarchs who exercise disproportionate political and economic power.

Utah Oligarchs and Ballot Initiatives

The Utah’s Oligarchs’ fingerprints can be found all over the Count My Vote (aka Buy My Vote), Our Schools Now and Medicaid expansion citizen (ballot) initiatives. The Count My Vote initiative greatly enhances the Oligarch’s political power by ensuring that money plays the key role in deciding the outcome of political campaigns. The Our Schools Now initiative forced the 2018 legislature to raise taxes and increase education funding. And, if passed, the Medicaid expansion ballot initiative will allow the Oligarchs to shift a portion of their health care costs to the taxpayers.

Over the years, the Utah Oligarchs have consistently fought to maintain their power whenever they felt threatened.  In 2000, the Oligarchs were surprised when Governor Michael O. Leavitt was forced into a primary election but he still won so no real harm was done.  Four years later the Oligarchs were angered when Governor Olene Walker was denied the Republican gubernatorial nomination but they let it pass since she entered the race late and delegates sent two candidates who were fully acceptable to the Oligarchs to a primary election – Jon Huntsman, Jr. and Nolan Karras.  However, they were shaken to the core when Senator Robert Bennett’s career was unceremoniously ended by the delegates to the Republican State convention in 2010 and they resolved to never let it happen again.

In January of 2012, Leavitt announced that he was supporting the Oligarchs’ Count My Vote ballot initiative that would be placed on the 2014 ballot.  That ballot initiative was subsequently withdrawn after the Utah state legislature caved-in to the Oligarchs’ demands and passed SB54 in March 2014.  SB54 gives candidates a dual pathway to the ballot—by the convention or by gathering signatures. This ensures that the Oligarchs can maintain political control by financing campaigns which are now money driven.  When the Oligarchs faced pushback against SB54 from Republican Party activists, the Oligarchs resurrected their ballot initiative and are close to getting it on the 2018 ballot.

The second Utah Oligarch driven ballot initiative in 2017/18 was titled My Schools Now. Like the original County My Vote ballot initiative, it achieved its desired results without requiring a vote of the people because the legislature caved-in and gave the Oligarchs most of what they were demanding: a property tax increase, sharply increased education funding and an agreement to put a question on the 2018 ballot asking taxpayers if they support a 10 cent per gallon (33%) gas tax increase. The Oligarchs were for the most part held harmless because over the years, they have managed to get the legislature to either totally eliminate or sharply reduce the taxes they pay.

The third ballot initiative supported by the Oligarchs would require Utah to fully implement the Obama Care Medicaid expansion.  This would allow the Oligarchs to shift some of their health care expenses to the taxpayers by moving lower paid employees from their employer health plans onto Medicaid.  Perversely, the Oligarchs are relying on the non-profit, United Way to support the Medicaid initiative on their behalf.

Identifying the Oligarchs—Follow the Money

Utah’s Oligarchs can be identified by following the money and by looking at the intricate systems that they have put in place to grow and protect their political and economic power.

The Oligarchs who developed and/or provided major funding for the Count My Vote ballot initiatives include former Governor Mike Leavitt, Gail Miller, Scott Anderson, Kem Gardner, Dell Loy Hansen, Khosrow B. Semnani, Bruce Bastian, Mark Miller, John Price, H. Roger Boyer, Brent Beesley, and David Simmons.  Other Oligarchs giving substantial support to the initiative included Val Overson, Kirk Jowers, Norma Matheson, S.F. Eccles, Bryson Garbett, LaVarr Webb and Rich McKeown. Oligarch controlled organizations that provide support included the Salt Lake and Sandy Chambers of Commerce, the Hatch Election Committee, Garff Enterprises, and the Huntsman Corporation.

Many of the same oligarchs that support the Count My Vote ballot initiative were behind the Our Schools Now tax increases passed by the legislature.  These include Scott Anderson, Gail Miller, Robert Garff, Kem Gardner, Brent Beesley, and Mark Miller. They were joined by Lane Beattie, Bob Marquardt, David H. Burton, and the heads of major Utah businesses including Bear River Mutual, CBRE, the Boyer Company, Jacobsen Construction, Clyde Company, Intermountain Health, NuSkin, Leavitt Partners, Sandy Chamber of Commerce, City Creek Center, and Maverick.

As will be seen below, the names of the individuals and corporations that are associated with the ballot initiatives come up over and over again as one looks at the systems that have been put in place to achieve the Utah Oligarchs’ agenda.

Organizations that Support and Further the Oligarchs’ Agenda

The Oligarchs rely on a wide range of organizations to shape public opinion.  These include the Salt Lake Chamber and its numerous front groups (Prosperity 2020, Utah Transportation Coalition, the Downtown Alliance), Utah Policy, Utah Pulse, the United Way, the Utah Foundation, Envision Utah and the Kem C. Gardner Public Policy Institute.  The Oligarchs fund these organizations and are represented on their boards of directors. In return, the organizations give legitimacy to the Oligarchs’ agenda, build public support for Oligarch initiatives and discredit or neutralize any opposition to the Oligarch’s agenda that may arise.

Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce:  The Salt Lake Chamber is where the Oligarchs come together to develop their plans and it plays a key role in implementing the Oligarchs’ agenda.  The Chamber has conferred its “Giant of the City Award” on leading Utah Oligarchs—Roger Boyer and Ellis Ivory, Bishop H. David Burton, Kem C. Gardner, A. Scott Anderson and Harrison Simmons, Michael O. Leavitt, Gail Miller and Senator Orrin Hatch.  A. Scott Anderson, Kem C. Gardner and Mark Miller have chaired the Chambers’ board.

The Salt Lake Chamber helps develop the Oligarchs’ public policy initiatives ranging from the Utah Compact to gasoline tax increases.  It serves as the lobbying arm of the Oligarchs and it creates front groups to promote Oligarch Programs. The Salt Lake Chamber funds that advances the Oligarchs’ agenda and has seats on their boards of directors.

Utah Policy: Utah Policy plays a key role in maintaining the Utah Oligarch’s control of public policy in Utah.  Their activities “are designed to help policymakers accomplish their objectives.” Utah Policy is joined at the hip with Utah Pulse which is a Zions Bank product. The President and CEO of Zions Bank, Scott Anderson, is also a major supporter of the Count My Vote and Our Schools Now initiatives. In addition, Zions Bank is a major funder of Utah Policy’s push polls which are designed to get predetermined results that show strong public support for the Oligarchs’ political and policy objectives.

LaVarr Webb is the publisher of both Utah Policy and Utah Pulse. He is also the founder of the Exoro Group, a political consulting group that proclaims: “We find the answers, relationships and resources you need to get the change you want.”  Among Exoro’s clients are Count My Vote, Zion’s Bank, the Salt Lake Chamber, the Downtown Alliance, Sandy City, Utah Policy, and the Utah Foundation.

Utah Pulse: Zions Bank’s Utah Pulse lists Utah Policy as one of its partners. Other Utah Pulse partners are the Governor’s Office of EconomicDevelopment where Leavitt’s former chief of staff and spokesperson serves on the Executive Management Team, the World Trade Center—Utah where Zions’ president and CEO, A. Scott Anderson serves on the Board,  USTAR which Anderson once championed and chaired and where LaVarr Webb played a role, and Mountain West Capital Network (business networking organization). But perhaps Utah Policy’s most important partner is the powerful and ubiquitous Salt Lake Chamber.

According to the Deseret News, Zions Bank President & CEO, A. Scott Anderson’s “fingerprints are all over the state.” Anderson is a former two time chair of the Salt Lake Chamber’s board.  He was honored by the Chamber as a “Giant of the City.” In turn, Zions Bank has been a “Chairman Level Sponsor” of the Salt Lake Chamber and the Salt Lake Chamber, is Zion’s Partner in Utah Pulse.  Zion’s Bank also funds and has seats on the boards of directors of many other organizations that support the Oligarch’s agenda.

Prosperity 2020: The Salt Lake Chamber hosts Prosperity 2020 which is a partnership of 21 chambers across the state of Utah. Prosperity 2020 promotes increased government spending and tax increases that are designed to maximize the benefits that accrue to the Oligarchs.

Zions Bank President & CEO A. Scott Anderson has been a member of Prosperity 2020’s Business Executive Leadership Council. In 2014, he published an Op Ed in the Deseret News promoting the Prosperity 2020 agenda.

The Salt Lake Chamber and Prosperity 2020 were listed as partners of Education First Utah which morphed into the Our Schools Now ballot initiative.

Utah Transportation Coalition: In order to further the Oligarchs demand for increased funding for transportation, the Oligarch driven Salt Lake Chamber created another front group, the Utah Mobility Coalition around 2011, to focus on long-term taxpayer funding and planning issues related to Utah’s mobility. The Chamber’s former executive vice-president and general counsel, Robbin Riggs, was chosen to lead it.

By 2013, the Chamber and the Oligarchs had replaced the Utah Mobility Coalition with another front group, the Utah Transportation Coalition. The Transportation Coalition’s Director, Abby Osborne, has a Salt Lake Chamber business address, a Salt Lake Chamber e-mail address and a Salt Lake Chamber phone number.

The Utah Transportation Coalition collaborates with its partners “to make smart and sustainable transportation choices and to secure adequate, stable and long term [taxpayer] funding to support a high quality of life and economic growth in Utah.” This includes a 20% gas tax increase that was passed in 2015 and a demand for yet another 33% gas tax increase.

The Transportation Coalition’s members include tax consuming (governmental) entities, the Salt Lake Chamber, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), and the major construction and other transportation oriented companies in Utah that benefit directly from taxpayer funding of transportation projects.

In April 2013, LaVarr Webb of Utah Policy wrote: “I work with the Utah Mobility Coalition, sponsored by the Salt Lake Chamber, so I am involved in a variety of transportation issues.” He then moved on to work with the Utah Transportation Coalition.

Health Systems Reform Task Force: On the health care front, the Oligarchs, through the Salt Lake Chamber, favored a “measured approach” to Medicaid expansion which would have allowed the Oligarchs to move their lower paid employees onto taxpayer funded Medicaid. The Chamber sponsored a survey designed to show strong public support for Governor Herbert’s “Healthy Utah” plan and the Chamber uses another front group, the Health Systems Reform Task Force, to push the Oligarch’s health care agenda.

Downtown Alliance: Another Salt Lake Chamber front group is the Downtown Alliance which is “dedicated to building a dynamic and diverse [Salt Lake City] community that is the regional center for culture, commerce and entertainment.” The Alliance is headed by Jason Mathis and the Downtown Alliance’s address is the same as the Salt Lake Chamber’s. Since 2008, Mathis has served as both the executive director of the Alliance and Executive Vice President of the Salt Lake Chamber.

Mathis also headed the Oligarch’s efforts to obtain amnesty for illegal aliens and for the Utah Oligarchs who unlawfully employ them. Mathis was named a Champion of Change by the Obama Administration for helping get the Oligarch’s pro-amnesty, Utah Compact in place.

United Way: Perversely, the Utah Oligarchs rely on the Utah United Way, a non-profit charitable organization, to advocate for many of their initiatives including increasing the size and scope of government and tax increases. The United Way supports the Oligarch’s Medicaid expansion efforts, educational initiatives, and efforts to increase taxes.

Deborah Bayle, who served as the President and CEO of the United Way for many years, was formerly the Chamber’s Chief Operating Officer. Bayle shifted the United Way’s focus to one of creating meaningful and measurable social change and under her leadership it enhanced its public policy and social change strategies. The current United Way CEO, Bill Crim, serves on the Salt Lake Chamber’s Board of Governors.

The Oligarchs exercise strong control over the United Ways’ governance both directly and indirectly. Utah Policy, Prosperity 2020 and the Salt Lake Chamber are among the United Way’s advocacy partners. LeeAnne B. Linderman, Zions Bank Executive Vice President and Corporate Secretary, serve on the Executive Committee of the United Way as do representatives of the Larry Miller family and the Mark and Kathie Miller foundation. The Salt Lake Chamber is represented on the Board by the Chamber’s Chief Operating Officer, Heidi Walker..

According to the United Way website, advocacy includes influencing public policy. The United Way actively advocates and lobbies for greater taxpayer funding for Oligarch supported priorities including Our Schools Now, early childhood education and government provided health care—CHIP, the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, community health centers and a ballot initiative that would require the state to take full advantage of Medicaid expansion. To pay for the state’s share of the larger Medicaid program, the Medicaid expansion initiative would raise the state sales tax from 4.7 percent to 4.85 percent – or a 3.1 percent increase.  According to a December 2017 Utah Policy poll, 60% of Utahns support the Medicaid expansion initiative.

Utah Foundation: Another organization that the Oligarchs use to promote their agenda is the Utah Foundation.  The Utah Foundation “promotes a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce, and a high quality of life for Utahns by performing thorough, well-supported research that helps policymakers, businessand community leaders, and citizens better understand complex issues and providing practical, well-reasoned recommendations for policy change.” Zions bank along with the Larry H. Miller Group of Companies are Platinum Level sponsors.  Both have a seat on the Board of Trustees as does the Salt Lake Chamber (Heidi Walker) and UtahPolicy (LaVarr Webb).

The Utah Foundation’s studies are frequently designed to obtain results that support the Oligarch’s agenda. Utah Policy polls, which are often funded by Zions Bank, are then used to show that strong public support exists for the Foundation’s findings and recommendations.

Envision Utah: The Oligarchs also support Envision Utah which helps drive the Oligarchs’ agenda.  Scott Anderson serves on Envision Utah’s board of directors as does the Director of the Kem Gardner Policy Institute, a representative of the Salt Lake Chamber and LaVarr Webb as well as many others who are on the boards of other Oligarch supported groups.

Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute: In 2015 the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute joined the ranks of Oligarch supported organizations. Like the Utah Foundation, the Policy Institute develops information that allows individuals and the community to make informed decisions. It prepares the state’s official population estimates that drive legislative decisions. Zions Bank, the Larry Miller Group and the Gardner group are all Legacy Partners ($100,000 contribution).  The Salt Lake Chamber is a Sustaining Partner ($50,000 contribution).

Natalie Gochnour, serves as the director of the Policy Institute. She also serves as the chief economist for the Salt Lake Chamber. In addition, Gochnour has advised Utah governors Norm Bangerter, Mike Leavitt and Olene Walker.

In summary, Utah’s Oligarchs have established an entire network of interlocking organizations to reinforce their political power and to help make their agenda, the state’s agenda. The fruits of their labor can be seen in the plethora of tax and fee increases passed by the Utah State legislature in recent years, by the unwinding of the caucus/convention system and by the growth of government at all levels.

Questions that legislators were asked to address before voting on tax reform

1. Why isn’t the effective date of for the income tax cut December 31, 2019 so the new 4.66% rate applies to 2019 income returns? Why should Utahn’s pay sharply higher income taxes again in 2019 after already being hit hard in 2018?

2. Since the proposed bill doesn’t affect 2019 income tax payments, is it really necessary to pass it in a special session? Or is this being done to generate additional general fund revenue by taxing food and gas as early as possible in 2020?

3. Since you didn’t restore the dependent exemption in 2018 like Idaho did, some Utah families will have paid in excess of $2,000 in additional income taxes by the time the proposed tax cut takes effect. How many years will it take for those families to recover $2,000 under this proposed tax reduction? Is this a tax cut or is it simply returning some of their own money to them? Why didn’t you take care of the exemption issue in 2018 when Representative Quinn tried to get you to do it?

4. Why do most Social Security recipients continue to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits under this bill? Is it because you agree with a member of the task force who said that individuals with investment income—such as IRAs—don’t need their Social Security and can afford to pay state income tax on it?

5. Why are you requiring elderly widows and widowers to pay higher taxes under this bill—single filers pay more?

6. Were remote sales tax collections included in the calculations used to determine the overall tax savings that individuals will realize if this bill is passed?  If not, doesn’t that reduce the amount of the tax cut from $160 million to a significantly lower number?

7. Why aren’t you including the impact of Senator Millner’s planned automatic property tax increases in the analysis of this tax reform’s impact? Automatic property tax increases will more than offset the tax cuts in this bill in just several years while destroying the truth-in-taxation process.

8. Why are you increasing the state’s gas tax by roughly 40% (10 – 15 cents per gallon based on price) when just a year ago, your constituents voted 65% to 35% against a 33% per gallon increase? And why are you imposing the gas sales tax all at once when you phase in the flat rate 10 cent per gallon diesel tax increase over three years? Is this because you treat businesses with high paid lobbyists better than the average citizen? Finally, why do rural legislators support this gas tax increase given the long distances their constituents have to drive?

9. Why aren’t you repealing any of the half-billion dollars in sales tax exemptions granted to big businesses? Doesn’t this loss in sales tax revenue have to be made up for by requiring low and middle income Utahns to pay sales taxes on food and gasoline?

10. Why are you increasing the sales tax on food and gasoline at the same time Republican members on the Public Utilities Interim Committee passed a bill that removes the sales tax from oil and gas extraction operations, electrical generation and transmission facilities and pipelines with a loss of $48 million in state sales tax revenue per year when fully implemented?

11. Why are you only adding the sales tax to shipping and handling on taxable sales? Is this because big businesses purchase items sales tax free and won’t pay this tax?

12. If the state needs sales tax revenue so badly, why don’t the governor and legislators set the example and pay sales taxes on their campaign contributions?

13. Why wasn’t any consideration given to controlling state spending which has increased by 146% during the past 20 years while median household income only increased by 67%? Is there anything in this bill that will even slightly slow the growth of state spending?

14. Why are you adding a sales tax to identity theft protection? This protection is required because the state facilitates identity theft by selling, sharing and allowing data breaches that compromise its citizens’ personal identifying information.

15. Why were $150,000 of taxpayer funds used to create a propaganda campaign designed to gain support for tax reform in apparent violation of state procurement laws and without a specific appropriation of funds?

16. Do you agree with the member of the task force who said, in effect, that citizens are a “reservoir of funds” for government to tap?

17. Do you agree with the task force member who said that higher property taxes increase property values?

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D.
Co-Founder CitizensForTaxFairness.org
12-9-19

 Late in the evening on December 9, 2019, the Utah Tax Restructuring and Equalization Task Force approved a bill that imposes a sales tax on gasoline, reimposes the sales tax on food and doesn’t give anyone a penny in savings on their 2019 income taxes. Governor Herbert will now call a special session to enact it into law.

 When the time for public comment came, the subservient nobles joined by a serf or two lined up to pay homage to their legislative masters. The AARP, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Bankers Association Utah [big business] Taxpayers Association, Utah Association of Charter Schools, Utah Cultural Alliance, Utah Tourism Industry, Sutherland Institute, Utah Association of Counties, New Car Dealers of Utah, Utah Association of Realtors, Utah Apartment Association, Construction Industry, Salt Lake Chamber, Utah Association of Homebuilders, Utah Optometrists and others all heaped praise on the legislators on the committee.

 Just like those in the inner circle of the North Korean dictator, they bowed down and paid tribute their masters—both in writing and verbally during public comment. They rained down accolades on legislators for their wisdom, their compassion and their inclusiveness—and especially for crafting a bill that benefits Utah’s nobles and privileged serfs who feed at the public trough at the expense of the rest of the peasants. And they each individually pledged their unwavering support for the bill and unanimously called for a special session—We want a special session! We want a special Session!

 The choreographed show of support was so pathetic that Representative Tim Quinn noted that the “table had been set with so many businesses talking in favor of the bill.” He then voted against the bill because it fails to achieve the mission assigned to the task force—create a long term solution to the state’s revenue needs.

So, after months of work and $150,000 of taxpayer money spent on a propaganda show to convince the citizens that their governor and legislative masters know best, the only thing the committee was able to do was to pass a bill that rearranges the chairs on the Titanic—in other words, to do something pointless or insignificant that will soon be overtaken by events, or that contributes nothing to the solution of a current problem.

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D.,
Co-Founder, CitizensForTaxFairness.org
November 22, 2019

Key Points

• On November 12, 2019, Mayor Randy Lewis, Councilwoman Kendalyn Harris and Councilwoman Kate Bradshaw took a major step towards socializing private property rights when they voted to approve a Trails Master Plan.
• City officials drew the Bountiful Police Chief and the South Davis Metro Fire Agency Chief into the fray in an attempt to refute points brought up in an earlier public hearing by private property owners.
• Property owners strongly opposed including the proposed Creekside Trail in the Plan since it would require them to give up their property.
• Responding to property owners’ opposition to the taking of their private property, Bountiful City Manager, Gary Hill told them: “That’s what cities do.”
• The City Council divided on protecting property rights—Harris and Bradshaw against; Simonsen and, to a lesser extent, Higginson for protecting property rights.
• Mayor Randy Lewis cast the deciding vote to adopt the Trails Master Plan that includes the eventual taking of private property.
• Elected officials and city staff support legal plunder. Democratic socialism appears to be alive and well in Bountiful.

On November 12, 2019, Bountiful, Utah Mayor Randy Lewis, Councilwoman Kendalyn Harris and Councilwoman Kate Bradshaw took a major step towards socializing private property rights when they voted to approve a Trails Master Plan. The Plan contains a proposed “Creekside” trail which runs along a creek and wooded area. This property currently belongs to many individual homeowners some of whom have been there for generations. The only way the proposed trail can be built is by taking the property of these homeowners and depriving them of the right to enjoy their property.

Mayor Lewis, Councilwomen Harris and Bradshaw along with City Manager Gary Hill and the city’s Planning Director put all property owners in Bountiful on notice that they must to be ready to give up their property rights when the city determines that it needs their property in order to benefit others.

Bountiful Police and Metro Fire Chiefs drawn into the fray

Bountiful officials drew the Bountiful Police Chief and the South Davis Metro Fire Agency Chief into the fray in an attempt to refute points brought up in an earlier public hearing by private property owners. These civil servants had no choice but to do as they were told since the Police Chief is a Bountiful city employee and the city has a seat on the board of the Metro Fire Agency. The Police Chief was forced to rely on a twenty year old study on crime statistics for trails along former railroad right of ways even though it was outdated and was not at all applicable to the proposed Creekside trail. The Fire Chief said that he was neutral but that if the trail were wide enough and easily accessible to fire fighters it could be of help in case of a fire.

Property owners strongly oppose placing a trail across their property

During two public hearings, property owners strongly opposed including the proposed Creekside Trail in the Plan since it would require them to give up their property. They referenced the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Frederic Bastiat and Ezra Taft Benson in defense of their property rights. They provided emotional testimony about what their property means to them and how it has helped them get through difficult times. They informed city officials that their property would be put in perpetual trusts in order to protect it and to ensure that a trail never goes through it. They proudly reminded the Mayor and Council that family members had served in the military in order to protect every American’s right to property. They proposed that a bike lane be established on 1800 South which would alleviate the need for the Creekside trail and the taking of private property.

City Manager asserts city’s right to take private property

Responding to property owners’ opposition to the taking of their private property for a trail, Bountiful City Manager, Gary Hill told them “that’s what cities do.” He said that city owned sidewalks are essentially trails on private property and that cities are always planning for roads and establishing easements for sewer lines so property owners shouldn’t be alarmed. He concluded by asserting that the city has to plan for future generations not just for current property owners. (Note: An unofficial transcript of Hill’s comments can be found at the end of this piece. The City recorder can provide copies of the audio recording.)

What was clear from Hill’s comments was that he was extending the taking of private property from things that are used by and benefit the entire citizenry to a limited use trail. For example, unlike a trail, an easement for a sewer line that benefits everyone has a limited impact on the property owners who continue to use their property and the easement is only accessible to authorized personnel. A city sidewalk parallels a public street. However, the proposed trail is much more invasive than a sewer line easement or a sidewalk since (1) it requires government to take the property from the owners in order to benefit those who could not legally confiscate or access the property themselves and (2) gives unfettered access to and through the back yards of home owners to anyone from anywhere at any time for their private purposes.

Council divided on property rights

Councilwoman Kendalyn Harris made the motion to adopt the Master Trails Plan as drafted, including the Creekside trail that requires taking private property. Harris said she understands why some property owners say they will never give up their property rights but that it is necessary to keep the Creekside trail in the Plan even though it could require these same property owners to give up some of the most desirable areas of their property—the creek and wooded areas immediately adjacent to it. She argued that if the Creekside trail were removed from the Plan that it would take away government’s options. In addition, keeping the proposed trail does not [immediately] take away property but it will start the conversation [about taking property] that could eventually result in the Creekside trail being built.

Councilwoman Kate Bradshaw, who also supported and voted for the Plan, argued that a trails plan should have been developed years ago in order to keep the land open, thereby implying that the property owners should never have been allowed to buy the property that has been in some families for generations. However, since that wasn’t done, the city needs to move now. Once the Plan is adopted with the Creekside trail in it, input from property owners will be required before their property is taken. Adopting the plan with the trail shown running across private property does not preclude being responsive to property owners’ concerns according to Bradshaw.

In an earlier e-mail exchange, Bradshaw dismissed concerns that property owners who refused to give up their property for the Creekside trail would be subject to doxxing that could result in vandalism, increased trespassing and harassment. She also denied that inclusion of the Creekside trail in the Plan would divide people along age and property ownership lines although during an earlier hearing the age of the property owners had been highlighted by a member of the Trails Committee. In fact, should these property owners be victimized in the future that could well be considered a “hate crime” under Utah statute because of references made to their age. Finally, Councilwoman Bradshaw downplayed the seriousness of an attempt being made to change a state law that currently denies governmental entities the ability to use eminent domain to take private property for trails. Note: In a separate e-mail, Councilman Higginson also rejected any doxxing concerns calling them “poppycock.”

Councilman Richard Higginson thanked city staff and the trails committee for the Plan. He said that this was not being done to steal property but recognized that government could hurt private property owners. He acknowledged that the proposed trail would cross the best protected property in Bountiful. He suggested removing the Creekside trail for now and working with the property owners in the future. Thirty or forty years from now, he said, it will be nice to have a trail under the trees. He voted against the motion.

Councilman Chris Simonsen stated that people’s property rights had to be respected and that the Creekside trail had to be removed from the Trails Master Plan—leaving the trail on the Plan would cause too much division and heartache. He voted against the motion.

It should be noted that neither Councilman Higginson nor Simonsen made a substitute motion to remove the Creekside trail from the Plan which they could easily have done to further reinforce their positions. In addition, after property owners had left following the adoption of the Trails Master Plan and just before the Council adjourned, Higginson pointed out that the Council had not adopted the resolution approving the Trails Master Plan with the Creekside trail. The Council quickly voted to adopt it.

Mayor casts deciding vote against property rights

Due to the absence of City Councilman John Marc Knight who was ill, Mayor Randy Lewis cast the deciding vote to adopt the Trails Master Plan that includes the eventual taking of private property by government. According to Lewis, young people want trails and the Master Plan is the ideal. He explained that he had been educated about active transportation and disruptive technology and noted that everything is changeable. He argued that the future will be different and that we need the vision for that. According to Lewis, Bountiful is going to have active transportation including running, hiking and biking but that this will not be done unless individuals who are getting a little older see it as a benefit for the future. Lewis said that we don’t buy anything unless we see the benefit. I’m telling you, “I’m buying it not to hurt you but for our future.”

Lewis had signaled his vote for the trail earlier when he told KSL-TV that “When you are going to do an urban trail like we’re doing here in Bountiful, it’s going to affect some lives” though he admitted, “If I lived on this ravine, with these homes, I don’t know that I would feel a lot differently than they’re feeling.”

Lewis and Harris have history of supporting highly unpopular proposals

Several years ago, Lewis and Harris both supported the construction of an ostentatious, terribly expensive new city hall despite widespread citizen opposition. Growing citizen outrage eventually forced the Mayor, Harris and other city council members to cancel the new city hall.

Elected officials and city staff support legal plunder

The debate on the Trails Master Plan clearly shows that the Mayor and two Bountiful City Councilwomen will not protect existing property rights. It is also clear that the City Manager and the City Planning Director both believe that the city has the right to take private property for whatever purpose they deem to be for the benefit of the city or for certain privileged individuals or groups. When government does something that the average citizen cannot legally do such as taking property from one group of citizens in order to benefit another group of citizens that is legal plunder according to Bastiat.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system….All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism

It will be interesting to see if the disdain elected officials and their staff have shown for private property will result in a backlash or if they will be able to get away with it because they are only attacking the property rights of a small group of residents. In the meantime, democratic socialism appears to be alive and well in Bountiful.

Unofficial Transcript
Bountiful City Manager Comments
11-12-2019

From Partial Recording Provided by the City of Bountiful, 1:08:40 to 1:11:05. Note: recording is difficult to hear and in some cases words cannot be made out.

Gary Hill: I only heard a couple of questions that I thought would be worth addressing.  One was about trails on private property and that is not constitutional or appropriate but I thought it was worth pointing out that is what cities do….Almost everyone has a trail on their private property already and that is a sidewalk and that’s on your property….My point is simply this, cities always plan for 30, 40 50 years in the future.  Those plans don’t always come to fruition but sewer easements, roads and streets and even trail easements all those things start with plans and they all cross property at some point or other so I don’t think anyone should be alarmed with that because before of those things actually happen the detailed engineering discussion has to take place as do discussions on parking, topography, costs all those things have to take place.

The Trails Master Plan is very similar to this, it is simply a policy process question, is there interest by the Council in continuing those discussions [difficult to understand previous] but it is a falsehood to say there are no public plans on private property.

The other question raised was why is the city still considering when so many are opposed to it? The short answer is that cities have to plan for future generations not just current property owners. Those of you on the City Council have been extremely considerate of property owners needs but if the City is not planning for the properties, … the residents after that then the City Council is not doing its job by exploring all options. That doesn’t mean that the City Council isn’t ….and if City Council doesn’t do that it is not doing their job.

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D.
Co-Founder for CitizensForTaxFairness.org
July 15, 2019

Editor’s note: This was originally written during the summer of 2019.  It is being posted here at this time since automatic annual school district property tax increases are now reportedly being considered as an element of state tax reform.

A powerful lobbyist for the Utah Association of Realtors told listeners of Utah’s Red Meat Radio (March 11, 2019 podcast at 15:30 in the discussion) that a new state property tax was the solution to Utah’s tax modernization efforts.  According to the lobbyist, a small state property tax that automatically brings in more revenue as home values increase would raise between $300 million and $700 million in new, stable, broad-based, discretionary revenue (that’s right, “discretionary” revenue) for the state.

On July 8, 2019, a staff member of the Realtor Association told me that the idea was dead and that realtors were not supporting a new, statewide property tax.

So why the change in position since the Realtors have apparently have drunk the Salt Lake Chamber and Kem C. Gardner Public Policy Institute Kool-Aid and believe that the state needs a new source of constantly increasing discretionary revenue to maintain the exploding growth of its budget which has gone up a whopping 146% during the past 20 years. This is roughly three times more than the 55% increase in median household income and the 44% social security benefit increase realized by senior citizens during the past 20 years.  When population growth (45%) and social security benefit increases are combined, the state budget has still increased by 57% more than the combination of the two—46% more than combined population and median income growth.

But, why were the Realtors so willing to sacrifice grandma, who is just trying to get by on her meager fixed income? Why did they propose giving the state an ownership interest in her home?  Could the answer be that the Realtors were afraid that the sales tax on services, which is largely the brainchild of the Enemy of the Taxpayer, Salt Lake Chamber, will impact their bottom line?  Was it because they actually support big government?  Was  it because they want to socialize Realtor costs and privatize Realtor profits?  Or is it because of all of these?

What the Realtors and other powerful business groups have in common is (1) they all support tax policies that will ensure continued exploding government growth; (2) they all support the creation of more taxes that primarily impact low and middle income Utahns while holding businesses with political power and influence largely harmless; and (3) most importantly they all want a tax structure that allows them to socialize their business costs while privatizing their profits.

Given the power of the Realtors in Utah and Utah’s Realtor friendly governor Gary Herbert, aka Available Jones, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a statewide property tax could still be implemented.  So what can you do to ensure that a stake is driven into the heart of the Realtor proposal?

Start by telling your local real estate agents that a new statewide property tax is a terrible idea and that it is definitely not tax modernization since it is just doing more of the same. Then tell your legislators to demand that the state cut its spending.  After all, the state should not do better than the citizens.

Finally, while you have the Realtors and your elected officials’ attention, let them know that they are contributing to the increased interest in socialism in the United States. After all, if socialism is good enough for the Realtors and other big business interests when they socialize their costs, then why isn’t it good enough for everyone else?