Welcome to The Senate Site

By Greg Bell
Utah State Senator, District 22

At a recent legislative committee hearing I heard an example of the classic dilemma elected officials face.

Both sides had compelling arguments. The county health departments told the interim Political Subdivisions Committee about their crisis in funding. County health departments are the first line of community health. They address communicable diseases, food-handling safety in restaurants and stores, swimming pools, and children’s health in public schools. They do a very good job and are thus invisible to the public . . . until cryptosporidium flares up and makes swimmers sick or there is an outbreak of food poisoning at a restaurant.

County health departments are funded by each County Commission/Council. Most county governments have been hit recently by the political whiplash from property tax increases, and consequently have held the line on budget increases. Health departments have no other source of revenue. With increasing populations to serve, the expanding mission to address bioterrorism and homeland security issues, they claim they need some more funding.

One idea was to create a public health district like a water or mosquito abatement district with a board of trustees which could levy a modest property tax.

A Representative responded that he would do nothing to implement any tax increase on his constituents because they are hurting badly with sharp increases in gas, bread, milk, cereal and other staples. No argument there!

So there you have it: A high-priority public program, which delivers proven societal benefits that differentiate us from a third-world country, seeking funding that is, apparently, highly necessary to complete its mission . . . versus the evil of a new tax. In the abstract, almost everyone agrees that there should be “no new taxes.” But we are also quick to criticize a preventable outbreak of a contagious disease or a TV expose’ of the cut in the number of restaurant inspections carried out.

These are the dilemmas lawmakers face every day. Would love to have your thoughts.

7 Comments:

 Anonymous said...

Wow, there are only two options? How about a revolutionary third option... like cutting funding to a non-essential program or department?

I know, I know, there's no such thing as a "non-essential program". Why, who am I to judge what's essential or not?

Well, when gas and food prices go up, I don't agonize over the 'tough decision' of trying to fund both essential programs. I cut back my entertainment budget to make up the difference. Government (city, county, state and federal) could learn a lesson from this.

6/10/2008 9:29 AM  

 Matthew Piccolo said...

Very tough dilemma. People definitely expect maximum performance out of government with minimum funding. One possible answer is that the overall scope of government, especially taxation, is more important to people than a particular tax or government service. Perhaps you can prioritize government services from most important to least, and if something like county health departments falls near the top, then it may be worth levying a new tax. But even better, you might retain the current tax level by eliminating a service that is less important than county health and using funds saved from that to fund more community health programs. You could communicate this tradeoff to the people with clarity so that they understand that the overall level of taxation has not increased but that you believe that their dollars are better spent on this higher priority service.

6/10/2008 9:32 AM  

 Anonymous said...

Sen. Bell does voters a disservice by presenting them with this false choice.

He calls county health departments -- and by extension the state-run swimming pools they oversee -- "a high priority public program, which delivers proven societal benefits (read: votes for re-electing incumbents) that differentiate us from a third-world country."

So when those state-run and taxpayer-funded agencies fail in their mission -- like the crypto outbreak in the government-run swimming pools or the latest salmonella outbreak in tomatoes (Americans are told that the food they eat is safe because the Food and Drug Administration is watching over things) -- what happens?

Do these agencies suffer a market loss? Does their stock go down? Perhaps they have to let some employees go. Does their certification to provide this oversight suffer? Will insurance companies still utilize their services? Maybe they will be subject to lawsuits for negligence.

Oh wait. This is a government monopoly we're talking about. With immunity from such accountability. Nothing to see here. Move along....

Republicans and Democrats will surprise us all when they stop meddling with the market mechanisms that provide true accountability instead of proposing new vote-buying schemes.

6/10/2008 10:06 AM  

 dhmonson said...

Sen. Bell,

I appreciate the fact that your situation is a difficult one. The job of being a lawmaker is often a thankless job, and often it seems there are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.

While taxes may be considered an "evil," without them good governance cannot exist. An important consideration before raising taxes, however, is to first look at current spending.

Are we spending taxpayer dollars in areas that aren't as important as community health? Or even further, are we spending taxpayer dollars in areas that the government shouldn't be involved in at all?

For instance, which is more important: community health or playing golf? This question may seem ludicrous (which it is), but evidently it is a question that needs to be asked in Salt Lake county. Between 2006 and 2008, Salt Lake County has either spent, planned on spending, or allocated $4.6 million from their general fund to pay for Salt Lake County golf courses.

This while their community health divisions are found wanting in their budgets?

As another example, perhaps from the other end of the political spectrum. Which is more important: community health, or having a new Cabela's around? Again, this is a ludicrous question, but evidently it should be asked in Utah County, where they budgeted $1,000,000 to be spent on Cabela's in 2007.

One point of this is to illustrate that there may be extra budget room for community health already available if county governments are willing to make some tough, but necessary, decisions.

Secondly, these examples illustrate the need to be constantly asking the questiton of whether or government is over-extending itself in its activities. Even if government can do something, should it? A conservative response to this question is more than just deciding based on principle. It is one way for lawmakers to plan for the future when resources may be less than they are today. I hope this is helpful.

6/10/2008 10:15 AM  

 The Lady Logician said...

dhmonson and anonmyous1 both hit on the most important (to taxpayers) thing. When one part of our budget goes up we are FORCED to cut other parts. Government never seems to want to cut. I think that they voters would be more willing to entertain tax increases if they were certain that the tax monies that we are sending you are being spent wisely. When we see spending on niceties as opposed to necessities we are less inclined to accept new taxes.

It is something that all levels of government need to start looking at.

LL

6/10/2008 12:54 PM  

 Jeremy said...

Sen. Bell,

I'm wondering when it became the job of our legislature to shield county politicians from the consequences of their budget priorities.

County leaders who are unwilling to adequately fund local health departments should take the heat if citizens are poorly served.

"One idea was to create a public health district like a water or mosquito abatement district with a board of trustees which could levy a modest property tax."

The last thing we need is a new group of unelected officials who can levy more property taxes on homeowners.

6/10/2008 4:19 PM  

 Tom said...

In addition to several fine comments above (especially those re cutting other areas), may I also suggest another solution to the false choice: fee revenue. Without knowing the intricacies of how the health dept is structured, may I suggest their income could, perhaps, be supplemented by fees from food handler permits, a public pool usage surcharge ($.10 per visit), restaurant inspection fees, etc. If a service they provide adds value (rather than just friction), they should feel justified in charging for it.

I know some counties in Utah are moving the food handlers permit training online through an outsourced provider, at a lower cost than previously delivered solutions. Hasn't that helped free up some space in their budgets too?

6/11/2008 12:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home