The Utah Legislative session is about to begin. We know this because the credit union-bank fight is going public again. Already, it's hard to get past more than three songs or one newscast on the radio without hearing the credit unions crusade their cause.

In a nutshell, the fight is about this: The banks think that big credit unions that look like banks, act like banks, talk like banks and do business like banks should be treated and taxed like banks.

The big credit unions disagree. Just because they're big and look like banks, they contend they should be treated like credit unions that look, act and talk like, well, like credit unions.

For a person like me, who has always paid more interest than I collect, I get a perverse sort of detached amusement in observing this high-stake battle. It's like watching a Donald Trump divorce — Who gets the Rolls? — or the latest Microsoft lawsuit. Or professional athletes threatening a lockout if they don't get a higher percentage from the owners.

It's easy to find yourself rooting for both sides . . . to lose.

---

But greed, let's face it, is a big part of capitalism, and it isn't hard to understand why bankers are upset if they have to pay for things that the big credit unions do not have to pay for.

There are a lot of things banks do that annoy me to no end, such as charge for ATMs and bounced checks — and then there's the fact that they are always right when I think they've made a mistake.

But I can't help but think that they're also right in going to the Legislature and pushing for bills that will make credit unions pay similar fees for similar services.

In 2003, the Utah bankers thought they'd scored a victory when the Legislature passed legislation that created a nonexempt class of credit union, paving the way for Utah's bank-like credit unions to be taxed like banks. But the credit unions that were declared nonexempt responded by changing from a state to a federal charter, thus avoiding state jurisdiction and effectively taking all the teeth out of the legislation.

In the soon-to-open 2005 legislative session, all eyes are on recommendations from a state Financial Institutions Task Force that has studied the issue for the past two years.

The task force has submitted a resolution — House Joint Resolution 1 — to the Utah Legislature that, If passed, will be forwarded to the U.S. Congress, asking that federal legislators step in and resolve the perceived credit union loopholes once and for all.

Hence, the barrage of credit union ads urging the defeat of HJR1.

---

I have accounts at both a bank and a credit union that acts like a bank. To me, they are as alike as a pair of dollar bills. I cannot tell any difference. Ostensibly, I'm a co-owner of the credit union — along with every other member — but I don't feel like an owner any more than I feel like I'm an owner at my bank. So far, no one at the credit union has given me a key to the front door, or the vault.

Both the credit union and the bank charge me for their services. Both collect interest from me. Both have tellers who are friendly and tellers who could guard a junkyard. Both offer me prizes if I get friends to sign up. Both dock me if I miss payments. Both seem to be doing well because they keep opening new branches.

It only makes sense that they should be treated and taxed the same.

The bottom line: I'm with the banks on this one. Please put that in my file.

---

Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.