Utah Priorities - A Project of the Utah Foundation

Public Education
Jobs & Economic Development
Water Supply & Quality
Health Care
Crime & Security
Higher Education
Taxes
Dealing with Growth
Environment, Air Quality &
Hazardous Waste
Parental Rights
Issues 11-15

Trusted Research

Research Briefs on the Issues

Jon Huntsman, Jr. - Republican
Scott Matheson - Democrat
All the 2004 candidates

Jim Hansen's Response to April 2004 Questionnaire on Utah's Top Issues

Registered voters identify Public Education as their number one issue of concern.

1) What role does public education play in shaping the future of Utah?

Teaching our children is our most important stewardship. The future of our state is in their hands. The quality of their education is in ours. We can and we must do better for Utah’s children and our state’s future.

Education is the key to our children’s life prospects. Education is the engine that drives our economy. Our goal is excellence. We will achieve it with quality teachers, parental involvement, innovation and choice in public schools, accountability, and realistic reforms. We will achieve it with sensible, long-range planning that makes education an even higher priority. We will achieve it together through a pledge to education. This challenge requires a total commitment from all of us, a commitment I will bring to the Governor’s office.

2) Public policy debate has centered around ideas of school choice in the form of charter schools, tuition tax credits for private schooling and the creation of magnet programs focused on specific subject areas. What advantages or disadvantages do you see in implementing school choice?

The Utah public school system should offer alternatives to parents that best suit their students’ education interests and needs. I propose a Public School Choice Initiative that features accountable choice. Charter schools offer exciting opportunities for flexibility and choice in the public school system. They also encourage parent involvement and experimentation. Utah has taken an appropriately prudent approach to establishing charter schools. As we continue to explore more charter options, we need to ensure that charter schools are accessible to students and meet the same accountability standards as our traditional public schools, including teacher certification. We also need to be assured that each charter school is financially sound and does not deplete funding from the school district in which it is located. Finally, the new Charter School Board charged with oversight of charter schools should be asked to monitor and evaluate progress in our charter school programs and to share information that would improve all public schools. We also should be open to the magnet school concept. We need to protect and enhance educational opportunities in art and music, and schools should be encouraged to include academic service learning as part of the educational experience.

Where population levels allow, many students already take advantage of school choice within and between school districts. For example, one out of five students in the Salt Lake City District and one out of eight in the Granite District have chosen to attend a school outside of their neighborhoods. We should encourage a broader range of classroom experiences within schools and among schools, making school choice even more meaningful. We should support efforts to provide parents and students with flexibility and the information to make good school choice decisions.

A program providing tuition tax credits or vouchers for parents who send their children to non-public schools would take Utah in the wrong direction. Over 95 percent of Utah children attend public schools. Our public education system is open to exciting new reforms, the flexibility and new ideas of charter schools, and furthering the state’s tradition of quality. It also is under financial stress and in need of a statewide reaffirmation of commitment to public education. I am concerned that tuition tax credits will be ineffective in improving education in general, will take resources from the public system, and will send the wrong message to the vast majority of parents who are counting on the public schools to serve their children.

a. How much choice should Utahns have - are charter schools and inter-district transfers enough or should the state adopt a tuition tax credit or some other solution?

Please see the previous answer.

b. How do you address concerns of parents in rural areas that they will not have access to education alternatives?

We must ensure that students in all Utah communities receive high-quality educational opportunities. Schools in rural areas should receive fair treatment and support. They also should be free from unnecessary and unwarranted state and federal mandates. My plan to recruit and retain quality teachers, to foster parental involvement, to encourage flexible public school choice, to assist in bridging education gaps, and to support children with disabilities should include rural schools to the same extent as schools located in urban areas. See my detailed education plan at mathesonforgovernor.com.

Teacher recruitment can be a challenge for some communities. We should give such schools the ability to compete better by providing meaningful financial incentives to recruit effective teachers. We also should explore partnership arrangements with programs like Teach for America, which have been successful in other parts of the country and that recruit some of our strongest and most determined college students to teach for two years in low-income rural and urban communities.

The concerns addressed above about tuition tax credits and vouchers apply in particular to rural areas where there are very few private schools. We need to respect geographical equity and local decision-making in formulating education policy.

3) Utah dedicates all of the state's income tax revenue to fund public education, yet because of the large percentage of children in the state, per-pupil funding is the lowest in the nation. Utah is also anticipating a large influx of new students over the next ten years.

a. In your view, is the low per-pupil funding a concern? Why or why not?

Low per-pupil funding is a significant concern. Our teachers and students have performed well with far fewer resources than are devoted to education in other states. For years, Utah has invested less per student than any other state and has among the largest class sizes in the country. The future holds even more challenges, including a projected influx of 145,000 more students in the next ten years and the need for 1,175 additional teachers every year for the next twenty years. More funding is not the sole answer to our education challenges. But the student growth we face and the quality improvements we need will require resources. Improving our relative position on per-pupil investment will require a long-term effort. Such an effort will help us enhance education in Utah and send an important message to parents, teachers, and students and to those thinking of coming to Utah to start a business or start a job that we have a strong commitment to education as the key to the state’s future.

b. If so, what solutions would you offer for public education funding?

Funding for education in Utah has been a priority and a challenge. We devote all of our state income tax revenue to the Uniform School Fund, and school districts also rely on property tax revenues to fund their schools. More funding is not the sole answer to our education challenges. But the student growth we face and the quality improvements we need will require resources. It is critical for Utah to have a long-term funding plan for education. That plan must be the product of collaboration as outlined above. The following are some of the initial steps I would propose in developing this plan.

Education First – Education is a high priority in Utah. It must be an even higher priority if we are going to meet the challenges of student growth and improving our schools. The percentage of the state’s budget devoted to education over the years has declined slightly. As Governor, my budget plan would fund education first and give it a higher percentage of the budget. I would urge the Legislature to do the same. For example, if our current commitment of 47.6 percent of state general revenues to education could be raised to 50 percent in the next four years, the yield would be an additional $89 million, based on current revenues. We must try to do this without raising taxes, which will require careful balancing of other legitimate public interests. The task will be hard, but the Education First budget commitment should help set the course to improving education in Utah.

Economic Development - The most critical factor affecting our ability to finance education and other important public responsibilities is a healthy and growing state economy. Economic growth, and especially growth that brings high-quality, high-paying jobs, is essential to improving education in Utah. Economic growth and education are inextricably linked as top priorities, and I am fully committed to do all I can for the state to succeed in both. Our economy will not reach its full potential without a strong education program. Indeed, a robust economy starts with education, and that is what my Pledge to Education paper is about. Conversely, our education system will not reach its full potential without a strong economy. My plans for economic development will be addressed in a separate paper.

Government Efficiency - A vital part of planning for education is to conduct an aggressive, wholesale review of state government and state finances. On my first day as Governor, I will:

Appoint an Efficiency in Government Commission whose charge will be to conduct a wholesale review of state government, identify waste and duplication, and recommend budget cuts and cost-saving reforms. I will ask representatives from state and local government, business, and community organizations to participate. I will ask them to put state government on the Matheson CARB Diet – Cut All Redundant Bureaucracy. The Commission will have a two-year term, and it will issue reports and recommendations every six months.

Ask public education to conduct the same wholesale review of the school system, and involve a diverse spectrum of expertise in the process. Although the education budget is stretched, we owe it to the taxpayer citizens of Utah to search aggressively for savings. The Matheson CARB Diet applies especially here, because savings in administrative overhead costs and elimination of redundant testing and reporting requirements can be well-invested in the classroom. The Utah school system has less administrative overhead than counterparts in other states, but we should continue to find appropriate cost-saving measures that will put more money into our classrooms. I will also support incentives for each school district that is able to shift funds from non-instructional functions and into classroom teaching.

School LAND Trust Program – At statehood, Utah received millions of acres of land to be held in trust for the benefit of public schools. Revenue produced from these parcels goes into the Permanent School Fund, and interest income from the fund goes directly to our schools for their greatest needs. Much progress has been made to manage these lands and the revenues they produce to increase resources available to education. We need to continue with best efforts to build up the Permanent School Fund as a larger source of support for our schools. Part of those efforts should include a reinvigorated effort to trade isolated trust land parcels for more economically productive lands.

Federal Dollars, No Strings – Education should remain a local responsibility. Utah’s Governor must lead the fight against the federal government to keep it that way. The state also must take full advantage of federal resources available for education, including Title I, Head Start, School Lunch, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and other program funding. The task is to maximize federal resources because we need all we can get, and to preserve local control because parents and teachers know what we need.

Payments for Federal Lands – Almost two-thirds of Utah is federal land that is not subject to property taxes. Our tax base to support education would be much larger if this were not the case. As a matter of fairness, counties receive from the federal government payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to compensate them for the federal land not subject to tax. But the current payments do not nearly make up the difference in lost tax base. In the name of education and equity, the Governor and all leaders from the public land states in the West should mount an aggressive campaign for federal legislation to increase the PILT payments, with some of the increase going to support local classroom instruction.

Close Tax Loopholes – Over the past several decades, numerous state tax exemptions have been added, amounting to over $500 million in foregone revenue. Exemptions that made sense and were justified at the time they were enacted may not make sense many years later. When budgets are so stretched and many individuals and businesses do not have the benefit of tax exemptions, it seems fair that the case be made for each exemption every five years. The Legislature should be asked to re-enact the exemptions that can be justified and allow those to expire that are no longer needed. By closing those loopholes, more revenue will be available for pressing budget needs.

Collect Taxes Owed – I support stronger efforts to collect all taxes that are owed. The vast majority of individuals and business pay their fair share. The state currently is not adequately staffed to achieve greater compliance. More resources for tax audit and collection will generate more revenues for the state without raising taxes.

Tax Review – I do not believe our citizens would or should support new taxes for education without exhausting all of the foregoing strategies. I do think we need a comprehensive review of our tax system to make sure it is fair and efficient. Governor Walker initiated such a review, and we need to build on the work that has been done. Just as the Commission on Government Efficiency should produce cost savings that can be used for education, a thorough review of our tax system should indicate areas of reform and efficiency that will produce more revenue without raising taxes. Income tax brackets, which have not been indexed for inflation and have not received material change for over 30 years, should be adjusted to meet today’s circumstances.

4) Survey respondents listed "teacher quality" as the education issue about which they are most concerned.

a. What solutions or programs would you offer to improve the quality of Utah's teachers?

I believe we have a lot of great teachers in this state. I think being able to offer higher salaries would certainly help keep qualified teachers in the system. More importantly, however, would be to untie the hands of our existing teachers, so that they could use their full skills to educate our children. Right now, state and federal regulations, as well as union contracts, restrict innovation in teaching. With as good as our teachers are now, I believe their potential is much greater, if we would just set them free to do what they are trained to do. Finally, I believe that we need to open the door to more individuals who have unique experiences to offer education. Right now, it can be difficult to become certified to teach, which keeps individuals out of teaching. These are individuals who have contributed to our society in some other area for many years, and now wish to serve by using their experiences to help students. I believe we need to make it easier for them to do so.

b. Finding qualified teachers is a particular challenge in rural areas. What would you do to address rural residents' concerns?

I believe that we can increase the supply of qualified teachers in rural areas by recruiting from rural areas to our schools of education. In addition, I believe that creating alternative methods of certification will allow many who would like to retire from some other profession and teach to do so. Our rural areas have a great deal to offer, and easing the heavy burden of certification will allow the benefits of our rural communities to entice more teachers.

5) Do you feel Utah's curriculum taught to students has weaknesses? If so, what are they and how would you address them?

I believe that the primary test of our curriculum is whether or not students leave our public education system and are able to succeed in higher education and in life. I believe that our system does a great job at general education. I believe that any weakness lies in the lack of specialized education for those students who know early what they wish to do with their lives. Charter schools have begun to address this problem, and further advances in school choice will continue this progress. One of the primary benefits of school choice is that it takes curriculum decisions away from politicians like myself, and puts the discussion where it should be, between parents and teachers.

6) Through the No Child Left Behind Act, future federal funding will be tied to improvements in Utah students' test scores. Please briefly share your thoughts on the debate surrounding No Child Left Behind.

I believe the No Child Left Behind Act was an honest attempt to correct problems in this country's public education system. Many of these problems are widespread in other areas of the country, yet are absent in Utah's educational system. Parents are taxed to support public schools, and most cannot afford to pay double to send their children to private schools. In areas where public schools are adequate, this might not be a problem, but where public schools are failing, for whatever reason, many students are literally trapped in a substandard education. The education establishment has been unable to correct this problem, even though public education funding has increased dramatically over the last three decades. It is not hard to see that extra funding is not the cure-all that some would have us believe it to be. Instead, accountability was demanded. I believe in accountability, as well, but I believe the NCLB Act was misguided in requiring accountability to federal bureaucrats. The real accountability should be to parents, which is why I believe in school choice. With school choice, NCLB would be unnecessary.

7) Finally, please share briefly your own experiences with the public schools and how those experiences have shaped your policy positions on education.

I imagine my experiences with public education were fairly standard, with a mix of good and bad. I can remember some amazing teachers from First Grade through my senior year at the University of Utah. I can also remember some extremely difficult times. For instance, I wasn't sure at the time if I would survive nine months of fourth grade. Adding to that the fact that my dear wife was an educator, as well as my mother and daughters, I have a great respect for anyone who is willing to become a teacher. I know it can be a thankless job, and I think our teachers deserve our respect. I also know, and any honest person would agree, I think, that there are also some extremely bad teachers out there. Trying to fix the problems that a bad teacher can cause in a child is very difficult, and getting rid of a bad teacher can be even harder. Parents have essentially no way of making any lasting changes in their children's school. What is even more frustrating is that good teachers have almost no way of getting rid of their lousy colleagues. I can't imagine anything more discouraging to a good teacher than finding out that the student you have spent all year getting up to grade level is going to be taught by a teacher who stopped really teaching years ago. Knowing that all your hard work is for nothing has to be frustrating, but there's nothing a good teacher can really do to save that child. I believe that public education needs to find ways to allow good teachers to flourish without providing hiding places for lousy teachers.

Job Creation and Economic Development ranks second on the list of issues Utahns are most concerned about.

1) Please outline how you would bring more jobs to the state and on which industry sectors economic development should focus.

The first area where we must focus, in terms of economic development, is not unnecessarily losing existing jobs. Hill Air Force Base provides the jobs of 50 other companies, and bringing in jobs in other industries will have a much smaller impact if the governor of this state allows the federal government to close Hill. The loss of those jobs would be devastating to the Utah economy, and it must be a primary focus of Utah's governor. I am the only candidate with the experience necessary to use the position of governor to save Hill.

Other areas that Utah has an advantage are the high-tech, service, and manufacturing industries. Because Utah's workforce is highly educated, we can compete in productivity with almost any other area of the country. These jobs are high-wage jobs which would help us increase average incomes in the state. I disagree that the governor should be out looking for specific businesses to bring to the state. When that happens, advantages are usually given to those businesses at the expense of existing businesses. A better way, in my opinion, is to make the general business atmosphere more attractive, by lowering taxes and getting rid of unnecessary regulations. When we do that, we can attract new businesses, while allowing existing businesses to compete on a level playing field.

2) Utahns are also concerned about wages. Past economic development strategy for the state has focused on selling the state as a "low-cost" place to do business and low wage rates were part of that strategy.

a. Should that change?

I think it should. Low cost need not mean low wages, because wages are only a portion of what companies must pay to stay in business. I think a productive workforce is just as attractive as a low-wage workforce when it comes to many of the jobs that I would like to see come to Utah. Companies will be willing to pay high wages when they see the qualified, educated, and productive populace that exists here.

b. If so, how would you market the state to companies interested in relocating or expanding?

The first step would be to revise Utah's tax code to make it more business friendly, in general. The second step is to market the productivity and education of our workers. Another advantage is the high level of health here in the state. A healthier workforce means less sick days, another indication of a productive workforce. I must state here, again, that I believe it is wrong for any governor to start playing at picking winners and losers by offering specific deals to businesses. When that is done, existing businesses are often the losers. If they lose in the free market, that is one thing, but when they are driven out of business because government interfered in the market, through no fault of their own, that is wrong.

3) What measures would you take to foster home-grown businesses?

I would reduce the tax burden on all businesses, reducing the cost of success. When that is done, there is a greater incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship. I would also discourage the current procedure of enticing new businesses into the state with tax incentives. We have a tremendous work-ethic in this state, and when any Utahan has an idea for a new business, I want them to know that the governor cares as much about their idea and their business as he/she does about a large high-tech firm from some other state. I would let them know that if they produce a product that people want, I would not punish them by taxing their success.

4) Innovation and technological advantage are key areas of future economic growth. Much of that takes place on college campuses. How would you assist universities in "spinning-off" new businesses?

I believe we have to lessen the current restrictions on "spin-off" businesses. Brigham Young University benefits Utah tremendously through such businesses, and that success could easily be duplicated at our public institutions. I would encourage a change in current law to allow those who come up with the ideas to better profit from them. As businesses are begun, I would also encourage a lessening of restrictions on business and college functions for a short period of time.

5) Rural economic development is very different from what can be done along the Wasatch Front. What would you do to bring jobs into rural areas of the state?

I would push for increased local control over public lands. Federal lands were originally intended to be controlled more at a local level. The shift to authoritarian federal control has happened slowly, until currently localities exert almost no control over the lands they rely on for their living. I would push for changes in federal law, including to the Wilderness Act, NEPA, and others, to allow localities to take greater advantages of natural resources and tourist opportunities. These opportunities would be the beginning of a greater expansion of local economies, with increases in service industry jobs following soon after.

6) What has been your greatest success in fostering business growth and economic development?

I have spent a lot of time in various public offices, and I have worked to help small businesses in every way I can. I have been a part of efforts to lower taxes on small businesses, increase health insurance options for small business, and ease burdensome regulations. My greatest successes would have to be in the area of tax cuts. Many can claim they are for lower taxes, but I have a solid record of supporting lower taxes for individuals and businesses, from the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980's to the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Both Reagan and Bush tax cuts lifted this country out of recessions, leading to tremendous business growth in Utah and across the country.

Water availability and quality ranks third on the list. The latest drought as well as growth in areas with limited water supply has really brought this to voters' attention.

1) What are your ideas for creating an adequate water supply for now and into the future?

First of all, we must protect the water rights we currently enjoy. The drought would be much worse if radical environmentalists got their way, and drained Lake Powell. We must also make sure that our neighboring states, and specifically California, take only the water they are entitled to. Of course, protecting existing sources of water can only get us so far. We must look for future supplies. Because we live in a desert, part of that must include building more reservoirs. As we do so, we should do so in a way that limits the negative effects on ecosystems.

2) What role, if any, should conservation measures play in water development?

a. Which aspects of conservation should be voluntary and which mandatory?

I am generally opposed to coercion of any form, and that includes in the case of water conservation. I believe that if conservation is necessary, it is because the price of water is kept artificially low, and by allowing the price of water to more adequately reflect the situation we are currently in, individuals would conserve on their own, without being forced to do so. As we attempt to better determine the "correct" price for water, it is important to not allow politics to enter into the process. For example, there are those in the environmental movement who would like to set the price of water so high that no development would ever take place. In that case, the price is used to achieve a completely separate goal. This has two advantages, as I see it. The first is that the government does not need to spend a lot of time and money enforcing mandatory conservation. The second is that the concepts of individual freedom and accountability are respected.

b. Should the state offer incentives to conserve water? What types of incentives would you promote?

I believe the idea of offering incentives is certainly better than threatening punishment for non-conservation. However, as I stated before, I believe that the best way to accomplish conservation is to simply determine a more realistic price for water, and then let individuals determine for themselves how much water to use. When we are able to use the market, we are using the ultimate incentive.

3) Should the 1/16 cent sales tax allocation to fund water projects continue? If so, what changes would you make to the current way monies are allocated?

I believe that the need for future water supplies for our growing population means that we must be developing our water resources. The current sales tax allocation is a necessary part of this process. I support it because it is one of the few instances where everyone benefits and everyone pays for government action. Along with the changes to the way we manage our water resources which have been discussed previously, I would work to balance the need for local control over resources with the fact that water development is often a regional, rather than local, issue.

Cost of health care is the issue of greatest concern for Utahns within the health category.

1) What would you do to address the rising cost of health care?

It is a mistake to assume that any politician can directly affect the rising cost of health care. Prices of health care are the unfortunate result of all of us using a lot of health care in our attempts to stay healthy and enjoy everything this life, and especially this great nation of ours, offers. So long as people wish to remain healthy, we will experience an increasing strain on what services we have, and a resulting increase in prices. Another cause behind rising prices is that we are developing new high tech medical procedures. These procedures are usually very expensive, not because doctors are trying to gouge consumers, but rather because of the nature of the procedures. Once they become more commonplace, the price tends to drop.

Unfortunately, many politicians try to control prices through implementing price controls on services and pharmaceuticals. However, such price controls have historically harmed those who need health care, because they reduce the number of doctors who are willing to practice in a given area.

There are some possible remedies that can come from government, most related to increasing the supply of medical services, and therefore competition in health care. One barrier that doctors face is the high cost of malpractice insurance. There are tort reforms on the table which I believe would greatly reduce the cost to doctors, and therefore the cost to consumers.

2) What experience or insights do you have that would guide your policies on public health programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare and health care in general?

As someone who has worked in the insurance industry, I understand the difficulties that any insurance program faces, trying to control costs and maintain solvency. Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare are, at heart, insurance programs. Yes, they are run by the government, but they face the same challenges that a private insurer would face. I have also seen how government can help and hurt businesses, and our health care providers are running businesses. I bring an understanding of when government should simply get out of the way.

3) Children's health issues ranks high on the list of issues. What are specific policies you would adopt to assist parents with healthcare for their children?

Creating a more business-friendly atmosphere in the State of Utah, by lowering tax rates and encouraging development of high-paying industries, would raise average incomes across the state, allowing more parents to be able to afford health insurance for their children. In rural areas, where health insurance may sometimes be difficult to find or afford, economic development is especially important, so that parents can afford the care their children require.

4) How can the state encourage better health insurance coverage for workers that do not have health insurance through their employer?

While in Congress, I supported efforts to improve the availability of Health Savings Accounts and Medical Savings Accounts, which gives more control over health care decisions back to individuals and their family. In addition, I also supported the establishment of Association Health Plans, which would allow individuals in civic, cultural, and religious groups to band together across regions to gain better rates on insurance than they could get individually. I believe these sorts of efforts must be encouraged here in Utah, and as governor, I would do exactly that.

Crime and safety ranks fifth overall on the list of issues. Within the category of crime, respondents were most concerned about child safety and being a victim of identity theft.

1) Beyond the recently installed Amber Alert system, what would you as a state policy leader do to help Utahns feel more secure about their children's safety?

2) In your opinion, how can state policy makers protect citizens from becoming victims of ID theft?

I believe the best thing that government can do to protect citizens from ID theft is to vigorously pursue and prosecute those who perpetrate these crimes. Penalties must be increased, and restitution must be required. Many scoff at the deterrent effect of penalties on future crimes, but I still believe that harsh punishment is the best way to make sure crimes are not committed. Additionally, I believe that the government must do everything possible to safeguard sensitive personal information, especially Social Security numbers, so that potential ID thieves have absolutely no access.

Higher Education is the sixth issue. Respondents were most concerned about graduates finding jobs in Utah and about tuition costs for students.

1) How do you keep recent graduates from leaving the state and taking their knowledge and expertise with them?

The only way to accomplish this is to make the state more business friendly, so that there will be jobs ready for our graduates. Lowering taxes and other obstacles to businesses is essential for keeping our graduates here.

2) What is the best way to address concerns about rising tuition costs?

Someone must bear the cost of education. As the cost of education goes up, we can either burden students with higher tuition, burden Utah taxpayers with higher taxes to support our colleges and universities, or help our colleges and universities to generate more outside funding. Revising how we handle research activities, and especially how "spin-offs" from that research, could allow us to obtain more money for higher education without burdening students or taxpayers.

3) What role does higher education play in Utah?

A well-educated workforce is essential to economic growth in an increasingly high-tech world. If we want Utah to progress economically, we must be sure that our workforce obtains a high-quality education. By ensuring the quality of our colleges and universities, we are encouraging economic development.

4) In your opinion, what does a "quality" post-secondary education mean?

In my opinion, it means an education that allows the student to achieve his or her goals. I think it is essential to realize that not every individual needs a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree to be happy and achieve what they want out of life. Increasingly, some sort of post-secondary education is required for many jobs, but not for all jobs, and because of that, I am excited about the development of our Applied Technical College campuses. I believe they allow for a "quality" education for those who do not need or want a formal college education.

Taxes are seventh on the list. Government spending ranks number one in the list of sub-issues under taxes.

1) Is government spending at the state level growing too quickly? If so, how would you curb spending?

I believe that government spending is growing too quickly. There are a lot of attempts by our government, both state and federal, to alleviate the suffering of individuals. These attempts are driven by very noble intentions, but I find that they often take away from the ability of private citizens and organizations to serve their fellow citizens. When private organizations, including the free market, have the capacity to fill a need that is currently filled by government, I would eliminate the government influence in that area of our state.

2) Compared to other states, Utahns pay a relatively high income tax and relatively low property taxes.

a. Should local governments including school districts raise more revenue locally, rather than relying on state funds?

There are certain advantages to spreading the tax burden for public education across the entire state, so that the disparities between school districts is reduced. I believe the correct solution is to look at more local control over spending of revenues, rather than pushing localities to be responsible for funding local education.

b. If so, how would you encourage this?

3) Is the tax burden in Utah spread fairly?

Utahans have one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and it is because of the way our tax code is currently set up. Most Utahans fall into the highest tax bracket, because the income necessary to qualify for the highest bracket is so low. That means that Utah comes close to having what is known as a "flat tax," where every individual who pays taxes pays the same tax rate. In that case, the tax burden is essentially equal, yet it may not be fair in many eyes.

a. If not where are the imbalances?

The imbalance exists in that those that are considered the wealthiest Utahans pay essentially the same income tax rate as the poorest Utahans. However, the poor in society tend to pay a higher percentage of their income in sales tax. The wealthy would tend to pay more property tax, but as previously mentioned, Utah has lower relative property taxes, and so many contend that the combination of essentially flat income tax rates, low property taxes, and sales tax, that the poorest Utahans pay more taxes than they should. In general, I support lowering the tax burden on all Utahans, wealthy and poor, because I believe that all Utahans know better how to spend their money than the government.

b. What would you do to change the tax structure?

4) Related to tax burden, Utah Foundation asked respondents if there were any other tax issues that were not addressed in the standard questions on taxes. Of those that responded, 14% said "get rid of the tax on food." Would you as a candidate support this? Why or why not?

The idea of getting rid of the sales tax is certainly not new. When I was Speaker of the Utah House over twenty-four years ago, we discussed the possibility of doing so. It is an appealing thought, because those who can least afford taxes end up paying a higher percentage of their income on food than those in society who are better off. However, when we discussed the idea two decades ago, it was determined that it simply was not feasible to do so because it would have severely complicated the tax collection of individual cities. Since they rely heavily on sales tax, including the tax on food, elimination of this tax would have hurt their ability to fund local services.

Growth ranks eighth on the list. 66% of those polled said the issue was about how to accommodate growth through infrastructure rather than trying to control growth.

1) Do you have specific plans on how to fund building projects for things like roads, water and sewer, and assisting with school building projects?

Wherever possible, funding for such projects should come from those who benefit. When it comes to heavily used roads, water projects, and schools, the benefits are often more widespread than a single community, and therefore the financial burden should not be concentrated in the community where the project will be placed. I believe tax revenues, especially from gasoline taxes, are an appropriate funding mechanism for roads, because those that benefit from roads pay for roads, to a great extent. I do believe, however, that we must demand high quality for the funds expended on these projects. The roads, water and sewer projects, and schools we build should last, and that is often not the case currently. As we consider such building projects, steps must be taken to increase the quality of materials and workmanship.

2) What is the role of state government in building new infrastructure?

When infrastructure benefits spread beyond a specific community, it may be difficult to organize the resources necessary for such a project. When that is the case, the State may be in the best position to do the organizing. In addition, there are often benefits that the State receives directly. When that is the case, it may be best for the state government to take an active role in building new infrastructure.

3) What role do local governments play in these projects?

To the extent that local governments gain direct benefits from infrastructure projects, they should be included in all stages, including paying for the projects. If they do not bear part of the financial burden directly, but gain direct benefits, what is happening is a transfer from one area of the state to another. That sort of transfer is inherently unfair, and often breeds animosity between regions. An example of such animosity is the current distrust between rural and urban areas, because of perceived transfers.

Environment is issue number nine. It has two sub-topics, air quality and hazardous waste.

1) What is the state's role in addressing issues around air quality?

Air quality is very important, as anyone knows who has had to be outside during a red-burn day this winter. Our location makes annual inversions an almost guaranteed event, and all Utahans know the effects of bad air. While I am usually opposed to governmental involvement in our lives, I do believe that the government has to play a role in the maintenance of air quality. Unfortunately, the federal government has effectively tied the hands of our state government, due to the stringent requirements of the Clean Air Act. When government must be involved, as I believe they must in this case, I believe they should use market incentives as much as possible, encouraging individuals and businesses to change their actions without mandates and strict restrictions. Incentives for using public transportation and carpools on red and yellow-burn days, or possibly incentives to industry to curb emissions on such days, would be a possible start. As with everything else I believe, I am committed to individual freedom and individual responsibility, so I believe that government interference should be a limited as possible.

2) What is your plan for addressing concerns about the safety of the proposed hazardous waste storage sites?

I am opposed to storing hazardous waste in Utah, and while in Congress took steps to prohibit such storage. I believe that the Yucca Mountain project, which has cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, needs to be utilized, rather than developing temporary storage sites across this country. Environmental organizations are opposing utilization of Yucca Mountain facilities, and are therefore increasing the pressure to build temporary storage sites. I would work to prohibit storage in the short term, while pushing the federal government to finalize Yucca Mountain, so that waste can be transported directly there.

3) Should Utah be in the business of storing hazardous waste? Why or why not?

If the question is whether Utah should store highly radioactive waste, the answer is obviously no. Utahans refuse to be the dumping ground for the rest of the nation, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, there are some who have used Utahans justified anxiety over high-level waste to spread fear about some waste that has some radioactivity, but is essentially benign. Waste of this type would include gloves that an x-ray technician has used in a hospital. It is classified as radioactive by the government, but poses no threat to human life. This latter type of storage provides jobs to Utahans and poses no threat to life and health, and so I believe it should be allowed to continue. Any storage that poses serious health risks to Utahans would be strenuously opposed by my administration.

Parental Rights ranks as number ten.

1) What would you do to balance the rights of parents and the rights of the state to intervene in cases where a child may be in danger?

I don't believe that anyone disputes that there are times when the government must intervene in families, in order to protect the life and health of children. The line, obviously, is where to draw the line. I believe that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt, and only when they show casual disregard for the life and health of a child should the state be allowed to intervene. In the recent Parker Jensen case, I believe we have an example of how the system could have worked better. The parents of Parker Jensen were not ignorant of the dangers faced by their son, nor were they avoiding any treatment for his condition. Rather, they were actively searching for alternatives to the treatment which the state wanted to impose upon them. This searching was actually impeded by the government. While there were good intentions on every side of this issue, I believe that a parent who is actively seeking the well-being of their child must be given the freedom to choose. If a parent is dismissive of legitimate danger faced by a child, however, then the State may have justification for intervening.

2) What are your concerns surrounding this issue?

My concern is the view of some that the government has the right to override decisions made by concerned parents. I believe that children have the right to be free from abuse, and that there are times when the state needs to protect children from their parents. However, I believe these occasions are the exception, rather than the rule. I am concerned that some believe that when an active, caring parent and the government disagree about a specific course of action that the government has the right to impose their course of action upon the parent.

3) Do you have concerns about the Division of Child and Family Services? If so, what would you do to make the agency better?

I believe that individuals in the Division of Child and Family Services act out of noble intentions. I know that some of them differ in opinion with many in this state about what the proper role of government in the family is, but I believe that the actions they take are taken out of noble intentions. As governor, I would avoid major changes to the Division, because I think that in most instances they serve the public well. I would, however, make very clear to the Division my view about the sovereignty of parental choice, and that parental choice is only to superceded in extreme circumstances.