OCR Text |
Show 44th Legislature looks at taxes 4 By Rep. GaylcF. McKeachnie 'Editors Note: At the suggestion of several residents of the Uintah Basin and in cooperation with the Vernal Express, Rep. Gayle F. McKeachnie will supply information on a continuing basis concerning the Utah State Legislature and government issues from the perspective of a state legislator. The 44th Utah State Legislature, presently in session, is faced with the decision to either raise taxes to continue con-tinue funding existing state programs or in the alternative, to stop funding programs which have existed for some time but which cannot be maintained under present economic conditions without increasing taxes. The legislature has made the decision not to raise taxes to balance the state budget for fiscal year 1981. The consequence con-sequence of that decision is that certain existing programs will not be continued at the same funding level as in the past . The task the legislature is presently undertaking is determining which programs should be continued at present funding levels and which programs will be deleted or required to operate with less money than in the past. Without exception, each government govern-ment program has its constituents who feel that particular program should be continued with full funding and that cuts should take place in someone else's area. The fact is that if we are to avoid tremendous tax increases and require government to live within current revenues, all of us will see some of our favorite government services or programs either deleted from the funding program or severely restricted. restric-ted. One of the main jobs facing Utah Legislators this session is to determine which expenditures are essential to the continuing welfare of the state and which are not absolutely necessary The input of citizens in this process is essential. The Utah House of Representatives has passed legislation which, if enacted into law, would provide a form of expenditure ex-penditure limitation. Substitute House Bill 60 provides that the state may net expand its expenditures at a rate faster than the growth of the Utah economy This expenditure limitations could also be imposed upon local governments, including school districts, upon a vote of the people residing within those local governmental entities. The theory behind this legislation is that if the citizens in a particular locality feel local government is taking too large a share of personal income by. way of taxes, they may, by majority vote, require government to limit its expenditures and its rate of growth to the rate of growth of the local economy in general. Substitute House Bill 60 is presently pending in the State Senate. Another important piece of legislation which has been passed by the House of Representatives and forwarded to the Senate is House Bill 1, repeal of the Prevailing Wage Law. House Bill 1, sponsored by Representative C. McClain Haddow from Sandy, would repeal the existing Utah Statute requiring that on public construction projects construction workers be paid the wage prevailing in the state as determined by the Utah State Industrial Commission. House BUI 1 came before the House Committee Com-mittee on Labor, Manpower and Industrial In-dustrial Development, of which I am chairman, and was subjected to three days of hearings before it was reported from committee to the House, voted upon by the House then went to the Senate. The bill is based on the premise that construction workers should be paid the wage exisiting in each locality and that the free market should determine what that wage is. Under existing law, the wage is set by the Industrial Commission Com-mission and for all practical purposes has bec ome the union wage in Salt Lake City. It is estimated the state could build up to one billion dollars in new school buildings during the next ten to fifteen years and that continued existence of the prevailing wage law could cost Utah taxpayers an additional one hundred million dollars on those projects. Repeal of the prevailing wage law should result in a tax saving to the people of the state. Another fairly controversial bill acted upon the the House of Pa pi csi ntatives is repeal of the annual automobile inspection requirement. This l'-gir iation, also now pending in the Sr,-...v, would simply require owners of vehM les to maintain them in a safe c ir!-I:'"iii. Tn place of the annual safety irr" !i',n, law enforcement officers couid make random checks in connection con-nection with enforcement of the law. Utah and Colorado, which is also considering repeal of its law, are the oniy tAO states in the mountain-west s'lll requiring annual vehicle in-t-p'Tti 'us Statistics indicate there is no corr -lation U-tween obtaining an in-s; in-s; Inn and the automibile accident rate resulting from mechanical r ;'ei ,t'.. Several states have recently ;j;i'-aled their automobile inspection lav s ;,ri.j if this legislation passes the S:m.i- and is .signed by the Governor, I t..h Aiii join that group of states. As a h'g.slator, I'm often asked why v e continually add new laws to the liooks insiiad of taking some off. Both lhe prevailing wage law and the automobile inspection law are examples of attempts by the legislature in the current session to remove some of the rules and regulations imposed by government upon our lives. |