Lawmakers trying to end Huntsman’s key policies


Return To Article
  • Big 'D' San Mateo, CA
    March 10, 2011 1:50 p.m.

    Being a conservative myself, I'm a little confused...

    The moderate Republican saved $$ by shutting gov't doors one more day per week, and the uber-right low tax/small gov't crowd wants to spend more $$ (i.e. need more taxes!) for the convenience of having state employees sitting at their desks one more day per week, waiting to meet our every need?

    The moderate Republican lowered the food tax, and the uber-right low tax/small gov't crowd want to hike it back up? Huh?????

    Although I have to say, being in the bankrupt state of California where there is no food tax and the state relies on property taxes, income taxes, and corporate taxes for its revenue--all three of which are currently in the toilet with the bad economy--the argument about having a stable source of state revenue from year-to-year makes a lot of sense. The volatile nature of CA's revenue sources are exactly why we are broke right now (along with huge overspending, of course). People needing to eat is not so volatile. Wow, I think I just talked myself into supporting the food tax.

  • MCKat Murray, UT
    March 8, 2011 12:09 p.m.

    The poor pay their share of property taxes. You don't think a landlord factors in his operating costs (including property taxes) when he sets rents? Enter the real world.

    The better off should pay higher taxes b/c they get more benefit. You don't think a wealthy man with a million dollar estate doesn't get more benefit from government resources than the middle class family with a $150,000 estate or a struggling single parent's estate of $25,000? The same act--a cop patrolling the neighborhood for crime--provides $25,000 of protection to the poor family, but a million dollars worth of protection to the wealthy. The wealthy should pay more. And if you don't think providing free public education benefits the wealthy, childless as much as large, poorer families, imagine a world in ten years, where only half the poor got any education. What are those kids who didn't get any education going to be doing in the day?

    Get real: our legislature protects the well off, and would love it if the poor would just die off.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    March 8, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    re: Woodyff

    And you care why? It affects you how that state workers are in the office 11 hours 4 days a week, instead of 9 hours 5 days a week? I find it amusing that when Governor Huntsman initiated the 4 day work week, many local cities and private businesses adopted similar policies. They do save some money being open 4 days instead of 5, and it takes off a day of commute for workers, and those affects on the environment.

    Why the hate for state workers who take huge pay cuts to work for the state, as their benefits continue to be taken away?

  • carman Alpine, UT
    March 7, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    If we need more money for schools, figure out how to do it through property taxes rather than hiking the sales tax on food. At least property tax is deductible for Federal tax purposes. For everyone who itemizes in the state, 10-38% more money will stay right here in Utah for every dollar paid in property tax. I raised in the form of sales tax, we can flush the money and the deductions down the lu.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    March 7, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    "If the legislature can impose a sales tax upon the purchase of food products at a rate of 1.75% or 6.5% then is there anything in the law or state constitution to prevent them from taxing food products at 100% or more?


    The legislature cannot use one if its powers (which the people gave it) to destroy the rights of the citizens of this state to acquire food or other property. "

    Do you feel the same way about income tax?

    At least sales tax apply equally to EVERYONE. We don't presume to tax the first gallon of milk purchased at a different rate than the 10th gallon of milk purchased.

    Presuming to tax one man's income at a higher rate than another man's income should offend everyone. But the class warriors and others who feel entitled to have someone else pay for their programs have no problem trying to "soak the rich."

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    March 7, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    I don't understand what our elected officials are doing. Raising food and gas taxes in such trying economic times. That doesn't help anything, it just hurts people and takes money away from businesses. Every time the cost of necessities goes up people cut back frivolous spending on things like going out to eat, seeing movies and buying new clothes or electronics. If you want to tax something, tax that instead. Raise the sales tax on non-food goods.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    Dewey - Huntsman's a RHINO

  • fed-up Layton, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:37 p.m.

    "Most everybody uses the same infrastructure so everybody should take part in paying for it. The homeowners get slapped with more property tax every time the Gov. needs something. Food tax gives the poor an opportunity to help."

    Surely you must realize the poor have to live somewhere and pay rent if they don't own a house. While they don't pay the property tax directly, they do pay it by paying rent. A landlord doesn't absorb that cost, it is factored into what he charges for rent.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:30 p.m.

    No taxes on food, but the 4 day work week has to go! The only thing it does is give state works a 3 days weekend.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    "I don't think they have Jon Huntsman in their gun sights,"

    It's the people of Utah in their sights.

  • livininSandy Sandy, UT
    March 7, 2011 1:04 p.m.

    Now if we could only undo that soccer stadium, and get all those $$$ back to SL County. The legislature has ripped SL County for several years (one reason they had to institute that police fee). Yet no one seems to care.

    PS If you read in any bill. This bill applies only to counties of the first class, that means it applies only to Salt Lake County (as it is the only country in that class).

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    March 7, 2011 12:59 p.m.

    To say the rich don't benefit from the US system of government is completely false, "considering", especially with so much corporate welfare, massive bailouts and subsidies going on.

  • My_Comments Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    If the legislature can impose a sales tax upon the purchase of food products at a rate of 1.75% or 6.5% then is there anything in the law or state constitution to prevent them from taxing food products at 100% or more?

    The answer is no. Once a legislature has the power to tax a thing the rate at which it does so is purely subjective.

    This simple fact should be enough to get citizens to understand that when it comes to taxes, that the mal-application of tax law is the rule and not the exception.

    The legislature cannot use one if its powers (which the people gave it) to destroy the rights of the citizens of this state to acquire food or other property.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    March 7, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    Lowering the overall tax rate while expanding its base (by including food) is a perfectly conservative position.

    Relying wholly on luxury items for sales tax means that sales tax is highly volatile as the economy changes. A low rate, with a broad base provides government a more stable source of income for those functions government is legitimately providing.

    Even the poor use government services and they should therefore help fund those services.

    Indeed, one might well argue that the poor benefit even more than the rich from our system of government. It seems to me the rich can protect themselves, their assets, and their natural rights almost anywhere in the world. The US is among a small number of places where the poor's rights are ALSO protected.

    Anyone who gets to vote and thus influence how tax money is spent, should also expect to pay taxes. Too many pay little or nothing in income taxes. It is proper to expect these people to pay sales tax even if they are not buying "luxury" items.

  • Dewey Hewson Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 7, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    When legislators are saying they are on "opposite ends of the political spectrum from Hunstman", that should raise all sorts of red flags at how extreme and fanatical the Utah Legislature is.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    March 7, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    Too many people miss the point.

    If you have to be/act like a Democrat to get their approval, then your policies are just as lousy as theirs. Look where Democrat policies have put the country today.

    Obama has wracked up more debt than the previous 10 administrations combined!

    So we need someone closer to obama?

    The smart people in this country, who use their own brains, realize that we are on the road to bankruptcy. The sheep who listen to the lies told to them by politicians are deluded if they think more of the same failed policies will somehow get us solvent.

    Sheep are always sheep.

    Democrats have essentially heaped all of the burden for funding infrastructure and social programs on fewer and fewer who work. The purpose of this is to build a bigger base that has no "skin in the game" because they don't pay ANY taxes. Then we he stands up for the next election and tells those non-working sheep what he is going to give them (out of someone elses pocket) he is buying their vote.

    Huntsman has shown he is a political chameleon like obama. Liberal policies are failed policies.


  • Cato the Elder Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 7, 2011 10:30 a.m.

    There is one thing that I am absolutely certain of. This is definitely about the legislature rolling back Huntsman initiatives. They didn't like the policies either, but this is definitely personal.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    March 7, 2011 10:16 a.m.

    There should be no tax on food! What you tax, you discourage. Utah has many large families that require the purchase of more food than smaller families require. Larger families usually live nearer the poverty line than small families. By taxing food, the government is discouraging adequate nutrition.

    I'm a Republican, and I'm one who doubts that taxing food is a Republican issue. It is an issue of common sense. I say tax alcohol and tobacco to the max in order to discourage practices that are unreasonably burdensome to all of society, and stop taxing food. It is not only regressive; it is inhumane. Get this right!

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    March 7, 2011 8:31 a.m.

    I think as Utahns we should go back to our old ways.

    Perhaps because Huntsman was popular with the voters they liked being up to date with what was going on. Going back to the old guard may be what the current government thinks but the same voters who held Huntsman in esteem are still out there.

    I am betting Obama recognized a true foe and sent him to China instead where he has performed brillantly for the country. Huckaby and Mitt are still arguing over the basis of Obama's birth certificate which should give insight as to their great and wonderful leadership skills. Mamma Grizzly keeps finding new ways for humans to prove their ineptness and she tries each one.

    Huntsman can be the new face for the GOP and launch their current party woes to new wheights, or the party can go with the status quo with the above named which have proven they can't beat the current president let alone each other.

  • hatuletoh Sugarhood, UT
    March 7, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    An illustrative example of what's wrong with politics in general, and Utah politics in particular, is the quote at the end of this piece from state representative and two-stroke enthusiast Mike Noel, who said of Gov. Huntsman: "When he came up here, he completely turned tail on me. He wasn't up here two weeks before he started pushing an environmental agenda."

    One of Gov. Huntsman's oft-cited strengths was that he took independent positions, which were sometimes at odds with the strict Republican party line. To Rep. Noel, positions not in lock-step with the party (or his version of it, anyway) equate to "turning tail". As an aside, I don't think Rep Noel understands what that expression means. I think he meant "turn coat."

    He goes on to say he and Gov. Huntsman are on "opposite ends of the political spectrum." Let's reflect on that: to Rep. Noel, the political spectrum runs the gamut from "moderate Republican" to "ultra-conservative Republican". That's the whole spectrum, if his words are to be believed. And we wonder why every legislative session it seems the same old (bad) ideas are just rehashed again and again?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 7, 2011 7:37 a.m.

    Most everybody uses the same infrastructure so everybody should take part in paying for it. The homeowners get slapped with more property tax every time the Gov. needs something. Food tax gives the poor an opportunity to help.

  • Craig Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2011 6:56 a.m.

    How can they be considered more conservative now and raise the tax on food? Lowering the tax on food was one of the things Huntsman got right.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 7, 2011 6:28 a.m.

    The GOP should move into the future with guys like Huntsman rather than going to the past. There is a new generation and once the Republican recession is over, the younger generation will want change, not the tired old policies that favor just the wealthy. If the GOP won't go there, the Dems will.

  • kge Syracuse, UT
    March 7, 2011 2:08 a.m.

    Restoring the tax on food is wrong ... regressive tax is always a bad idea! Tax luxury items not food.