Deseret News | Revenues $150 million in red?

Reader comments
Revenues $150 million in red?

Curious | 8:05 p.m. Sept. 15, 2009

I might be mistaken, but I could swear that the state used stimulus money to make up for a budget shortfall last year.

I could also swear I read recently, in this very electronic paper, that Utah was to receive some $4 billion in additional stimulus dollars?

Toss in the surplus taxes already collected(but spend the Education Fund surplus where it belongs) and it quickly becomes not such a tall order.

Also | 8:38 p.m. Sept. 15, 2009

MANY HIGHWAY projects were greatly accelerated by the stimulus SOOOOOO put them on hold for a year so as to maintain education and other critical programs.

john | 5:02 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

Why not eliminate the tax breaks they give to businesses who move here,why not eliminate the tax deduction for families that have more than two kids,why not eliminate the pay of our legislature and their health benefits(since it is a part time job and should be considered as a civic duty and honor),why not heavily fine companies that use illegal aliens(which use tax payer paid resources), and the many other superflous things which Utah could cut back on.

Comments continue below

Trouble | 6:35 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

The Stimulus highway projects were funded federally and would require federal actoin to "hold" them. Although if I recall correctly, Transportation folks said they'd have those projects all done this fall, so that money is probably spent anyway.

It is raining already | 6:41 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

The legislature is out again preaching doom and gloom, so they can go into the session and tell us how they rescued us from another disaster.

If it is not raining yet, when will they use the rainy day fund. Stimulus money is still available (it was a two year plan) and the economy is recovering already. Come on legislature, it is time to quit cutting education and other social programs you do not like and start finding a way to invest in our future.

State Employee | 7:19 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

I know people will hate this but frankly the rates I pay for Health Insurance benefits are significantly lower than the private or federal sector for the excellent benefits we receive. I would be willing to pay higher rates to help others keep their jobs.

Curiosity question | 7:25 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

A couple of years ago, the Legislature was pushing vouchers for private education - swearing up and down that the money was in the general budget and that is where is would come from.

Voters did not want vouchers and voted against them. (Thank goodness.)

Now, out of curiosity, if vouchers had passed, would they be getting cut in the current budget crisis, or would education cuts be limited to public education?

My guess is that vouchers would be protected. This current budget crisis illustrates exactly why vouchers were a bad idea and why they were voted down.

Waste of Money | 7:26 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

It's time to defund the Utah Foster Care Foundation. They are not doing the job for which the taxpayer is forking over millions. They have been unable to recruit the quality and quantity of foster parents, particularly to meet the needs of teens, sibling groups and other high risk youth. They have no problem recruiting those who are interested in infants and toddlers and who are ultimately interested in adopting those children. The salaries paid to employees, most former DCFS workers, are considerably higher than those paid to State employees. Bring the recruitment process back into the State and save the wasted money and admin overhead of the FCF. The FCF has been a sacred cow for too long and cost far too much taxpayer money.

State Employee | 9:38 a.m. Sept. 16, 2009

I am also a State Employee. We typically work for a much smaller salary than the private sector because we have very good benefits. If you start to hack away at those benefits and they begin to cost me more, I won't be able to afford to work in State government. I will have to give up some of these benefits and find a job that can pay me a higher salary where I can afford to pay a greater share of my benefits.

Anonymous | 1:44 p.m. Sept. 16, 2009

Yesterday I said Ben Bernanke was wrong. More proof!

Out of Work | 7:26 p.m. Sept. 16, 2009

To the State employee who thinks they will quit and find a higher paying job where they can afford higher benefit costs - I'd be happy to work for a State salary AND pay higher benefit costs. I worked in the non-profit community and beleive me State employee salaries, in many, many cases are comparable to private and federal salaries, especially in the human services area, not so great in technology/IT but in today's world, any job is worth keeping.

Face the facts | 8:52 p.m. Sept. 16, 2009

The great flat tax, is the reason less income is being realized this year. In 2007 we had a dual tax system, the old indexed and the 5.35% flat tax, in 2008 that went down to a flat 5.00%. One taxpayer who's return I prepared saved an additional $175,000.00 in 2008 over 2007 and in 2007 they had already saved $421,000.00 over the traditional tax calculation. Why is the budget coming up shorter this year? Face the facts, you blew it with the flat tax.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.