| OCR Text |
Show TheSalt LakeTribune OPINION M READER ADVOCATE, AA-2 @ THE PUBLIC FORUM, AA-2 olin FEBRUARY17, 2002 ME THE ROLLY REPORT, AA-3 OUR VIEW The Salt Lake Tribune’s Editorial Position Bioterror Bonanza President Bush has proposed spending an astonishing $11 billion over the next two years to strengthen U.S. defenses against bioterrorism. In whether the level of spending was adequate and whether funds were al- located to countermeasures that were worthwhile. the shadow ofthe anthrax mailings, this sounds like a no-brainer. But if The anthrax mailings showed that the federal government's public the past is any guide, the U.S. government will have to take great care that spending of this magnitude does health experts did not understand how the disease could be communi- not lead to worthless boondoggles. It also does not makesense to rob federal programs that combat other communicable diseases in order to funnel this extraordinary amount of money into a crash program on biot- errorism. While the anthrax havekilled five people and sickened 18, conventional outbreaks of other diseaseskill far more Americans. President Clinton understood the potential threats of bioterrorism, and he ramped up spending for programs to counter them. But independent analysts and governmentauditors con- cluded in the late 1990s that some of his administration's initiatives were poorly managed and extremely wasteful. The Bush administration must not make the same mistakes, especially when so much money will be in the federal pipeline. In particular, federal auditors foundthatofficials during the Clinton years failed to assess risks systematically. It was impossible, then,te judge cated by finely milled spores, and they were forced to improvise their recommendations for treatment and decontamination onthe fly. But will more money result in better treatmentprotocols? If any good camefrom the anthrax mailings, it is that they provided the governmenta real-life incident from which to learn. The other positive news is that money wisely spent to improve local public health laborato- ries so they are better able to diagnose disease and share information about outbreaks should strengthen the entire public health system. That would be money weil spent even if another newmoneycarefully, and if it does not rob one federal disease research program to pay for another. The Clinton experience already has proved that just firing moneyat biot- errorism will not improve the nation's defenses. Working the System Tax laws are not easy for the aver- age person to follow, and that's why there ‘are tax-related business deals made every day that sound strange. The Utah Transit Authority's plan for a complex lease-buyback deal is a case in point. However, the bottom lineofthis novel transactionis that it would bring substantial benefits to Utah's mass-transit system at no cost to taxpayers, and legislators should support it. The UTA plan would haveit sell its TRAX assets for $200 million, lease them from the new owner for $10 miliion a year and then buy them back 25 years later. In the process, UTA would collect $16 million in cash upfront. With that the UTA plan could qualify for another $24 million in Federal Transit Administration matching funds, giving the agency a total of $40 million without a nickel from Utah's various tax coffers.It isa puzzling deal to non-tax lawyers, but a good one for Utahns. The Utah Constitution would have to be changed to make the UTA plan legal. The Legislature should pass the necessaryresolution and let Utahns vote on the constitutional amendmentthis fall. Without the amendment, which would exempt from taxes all property leased to a public entity, the TRAX deal wouldn't work. An investor would only be interested if he could use the depreciation deduction on the TRAX assets to avoid taxes on profits from his other investments, but the deal would be pointless if he had to fork the money over to the state for property taxes. The $200 million that the investor would pay for TRAX would be held in an investment trust, and profits would be combined with the UTA lease payments to service the debt. Over the deal's 25-year life, the trust would generate an additional $20 million, which would be paid to the investor when UTA re TRAX. It sounds like some kind of Utah County investment scam, but it's all perfectly legal. Several other transit authorities have already struck similar deals — and all with the blessing of the IRS. The UTA should do the same, but first the Legislature and Utah voters mustget on board. Crossed the Line Abortionis a highly emotional and divisive issue across the nation. Adding tests of faith to the question is common,but state legislators should know betterthan to do soin anofficial debate. . The Utah House considered a resolution by Rep. Glenn Way, RSpanish Fork, urging a federal constitutional amendmentprotecting the unborn, During the public debate on the floor of the house, members of both parties raised specific LDS tenets, alienating any non-Mormon members of the house or in the gallery and sending the debate spiraling far from what a public lawmaking body should considerin official state business. Byraising the veachings of an LDS handbook, the underlying, though unspoken,issue was not what is best for the state but who is the more devout Mormon. ‘The result ofRound1 in the debate wasan to the in line with the LDS handbook. The amendment would permit abortions in cases of rape,incest, to save the life of the mother orif the child would be born with “grave defects,” Those are the same exceptions currently in state law, raising the question of whether the law was designed to mode! the handbook as weil, Even if NITT HAPPENS bioterrorismattack never occurs. But those benefits will only occur if the Bush i jon spends that was the intent of the lew, there was nodiscernible reasonfor legislators to refer to an LDS text in the resolution debate rather than simply citing the law. Andthere is really no reason for the Legislature to wadeinto this controversial debate at this time. The SupremeCourt has given the country a workable set of guidelines for use of this controversial procedure, which use only a woman and her God can truly reconcile. Some legislators must have recognized they crossed a line in the debate, however. The resolution was recalled and the ae was removed. The language of the original amendment, however, was not the problem. References to LDS teachings in a state legislative debate was the problem. Such a reference fosters the perception that non-Mormons are excluded in the state. At also raged the —_ undue influence to sway the ne Legislature should be far more careful about further opening existing divisions across the state. Besides, the effect of the debate on Utahns is not justified by the cause of sending a resolution to Congress that will have minimal impact. CampaignBill Is Full of Surprises WASHINGTON— It was a famous victory. The campaign finance bill PUBLISHER Dominic Welch EDITOR James E. Shelledy EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Randy C.Frisch ‘THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 143 8. MAIN ST. SALT LAKE CITY , S411 ‘ COPY 4 contributions, as long as they do not spend it on ads for federal candidates. Theoretically, one wealthy indi vidual could drop $1 million or more Thebill has one greatvirtue.It will end the ugly and indefensible practice of federal elected officials extorting into his favorite party, by writing separate checks to 50 state or local party headquarters. six-figure contributions to their political parties from corporations, You can call this a giant loophole or a wise provision to support grassroots activity, but it goes against the unions and wealthy individuals.It is and itivesigh doing that, andit will be Beyond that, teeconsequences of the bill the Senate approved last year and the House passed early Thursday morning are probably not what supporters have beenled to believe. The optimism of the backers is exceeded only bythe folly of the House Repub- in the business world. As an incumbent president, he can probably double or triple his take, while at the same time avoiding the spen No Democratic challengeris likely to be in a position to reject the tax- their congressional candidates, those lican leadership, who must be grate- payer subsidies, and in a serious con- ful today that the Clympics captured the TV audience from C-SPAN,..8o relatively few people saw the stringof fraudulent Republican amendments so nakedly intended to kill the bill. = tactics give hypocrisy a bad test, on the accelerated calendar Democrats recently adopted, all the Democrats may well hit their spending limit by mid-March.In the past, the winner could turn to the Democratic National Committee and ask it to finance waves of TV ads from its “soft money” accountat least until August, when the convention formally made him the nominee and a era for the autumn cam- It is perhapsnot a coincidence that all four of the sponsors — Sens. John tll, parts of the bill are probably unconstitutional, and other parts largely unworkable orunenforceable. As with previous campaign finance legislation, it is likely to have big unFor example, the Democrats who furnished the bulk of the votes for passage may be dismayed to learn that in the view of Michael Malbin, ad widely experienced head of the ice Institute, the bill hands President Bush an enormous advantage in his 2004 re-election campaign. money”from national parties to s\ and local parties. Contrary to the Here's why: In 2000, when Bush centralizing forces in our politics — which have strengthened not just recent presidents but congressional leaders ofboth parties. Whenthe national ‘parties do less for their presidential nominees and limits that go with public financing. azthis.bal becomes law, Malbin points out, the Democrats will have no federal soft moneyaccount; their nominee may well be off the air and invisible for five months while Bush dominatesthe political debate. Another unintended consequenc may well be to shift the flow of “soft intended consequences. pressionleft by many men and women become even more individual political entrepreneurs. McCain and Russ Feingold, Reps. Chris Shays and Marty Meehan —are notable for their maverick tendencies. It is likely this legislation will breed more oftheir kind. Finally, the issue the opponents of this bill tried without success to raise is its impact on the relative powerof interest groups andpolitical parties. The most dubious parts of the mea- sure are those regulating “issue ads” that non-party groups run during election campaigns. These provisions implicate basic First Amendment rights of expression, andif the courts find them unconstitutional, then the net effect maywell be to empowerin groups, while restricting the In es’ participation in campaigns. reas American as editorials, thi soft money rejected public financing of his race for the Republican nomination, he $1,000 per person) from family friends, Texas supporters and allies led Republicans It will not help our p the power of nar- and local parties to receive up to re yw interest $10,000 a year ($20,000 per election two-party system. the expense of the Looks Like We’re Backto InaneReality Oneofthe stranger subtexts of the KATHLEEN PARKER gent T'mnotsure,e but [think thismeans we're getting back to normal. When terrorist mass murder and precedent-setting corporate crime in- nurturing, wills? The consensus on “P.1.,” by the way, was that women are just as sus ceptible to avarice and deceit as men are, whereupon the entire state of Arkansas gasped, “Who didn't know?” Yet, Dowd wrote charmingly of women's superior evolution: “Only10 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES: ly, deserving some of that bad atMiddle Eastern contempt. What used to be mildly annoying “gender wars,” fought over such nonsense as whether men should UTAH'S INDEPENDENT VOICE SINCE 1871 PAST PUBLISHERS cycle) in individual “soft money” with President Bush’s signature. The Salt LakeTribune John F. Fitzpatrick (1924-1960) John W. Gallivan (1960-1983) Jerry O'Brien (1983-1994) David BRODER now has passed both the House and Senate and likely will become law but it's mostly true. More men than died. Noted. Suddenly I'm obsessed with that nap I've been meaning to take. ‘Then comes Enron,and who blows the whistle? Not those dastardly brutish men who willingly tackle armed hijackers, but the fairer (no. bler?) sex, women. Nobler, at least, is what weare to infer. Maureen Dowd of the The New York Times noted in a recent column that Hollywood's version of Enron is likely to follow the cinematic story line of the women against the men. while a recent discussion on “Politically Incorrect” (full disclo sure: on a night when I was a guest on “P.1.") turned to whether women are more ethical than men. Of course, the facts got in our way on this one Among those under piggrea at Enron are a few of the female persuasion. Are those women as culpable as the men, or were they hapless vic tims, duped by those tricky work place gender dynamics and forced by the corporate creed to “act” like men against their weaker, more years after Mattel put out Teen Talk Barbie whining ‘Math class is tough,” we have women unearthing the Rosetta stone of this indecipherable scandal.” Translation: Women smart now Menstill dumb and bad. Except in case of fire or hijackings, then men usa If expendable. rtainly the woman, Sherron Wekina who blew the whistle on Enron execs is more ethical than Kenneth Lay seems to be. But is she more ethical than millions of other men who would have done the same thing under the circumstances? Such silliness explains nothing except WhyJohn Gray is rich and I'm not. Grayis the author of the inexpli cably successful Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, in which Grayexplores the different ways men and women think and communicate Even as we bicker over who suffers more, who loves more, who nurtures more and, in my case, whocares less, Gray is on tour with his latest, Mars and Venus in the Workplace All of which explains why 1 work aloneand, just possibly, why hungry people everywhere hate our guts. |
