Latest Updates RSS Feed or subscribe via email
The following op-ed, written by our president Connor Boyack, was published today in the Standard-Examiner.
Weber County Sheriff Terry Thompson continues to advocate for a costly, destructive and failed “war on drugs.” He claims, in a written policy, that legalizing cannabis for medicinal use would “create thousands of victims.”
Has he not paid attention to the victims created by the criminalization he supports?
Even more audaciously, the sheriff claims that medical cannabis would “further the destruction of the family unit” because of addiction and “family dysfunction.” (Because prescription drugs don’t contribute to any of that, of course.)
Is the sheriff not paying attention to Utah’s opiate crisis, which claimed the lives of nearly 400 Utahns last year? Perhaps he does not know that according to The Journal of the American Medical Association, based on studies from other states that have legalized medical cannabis, that rate could plummet by 25 percent.
That’s around eight Utahns whose lives could be saved each month.
With healthcare on the front of everyone’s minds as Congress continues to formulate a replacement to ObamaCare, here is an idea that could revolutionize the industry and drive costs down tremendously.
One of the largest factors driving up health care costs today is the lack of transparency of the true costs of health care services and the lack of incentives for consumers to pursue high quality, low-cost options. In short, a person doesn’t know how much a certain procedure or test costs and even if they did, they would have zero financial incentive to investigate where to find the best price for that health care service.
This is where having the “Right to Shop” comes into the picture.
The following op-ed, written by our vice president DJ Schanz, was published today in the Salt Lake Tribune.
The sounding call of religious freedom and the importance of protecting it have been fervently preached and advocated here in Utah — both in churches on Sunday and in the Capitol during recent legislative sessions. This important subset of individual rights is absolutely important.
Religious groups in our state have provided much in the way of valuable discourse designed to protect religious freedom. Many would argue that this insistence stems from the unique history of persecution and hostility faced by many of our pioneer ancestors.
The Mormon tradition of strong support for religious liberty began with the LDS Church’s founder. Joseph Smith once said, “It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul — civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race.”
Earlier this week, we released a short video about the need to alter the current state statute on domestic violence. As it stands, the statute is a prime example of how too often the law does not judge a person’s intent, but instead only looks to see if the person violated the strict letter of the law. Domestic violence laws are meant to be used to prohibit and punish those who injure or harm others they live with—spouses, partners, roommates, etc.
But as government inevitably does, the current statute goes too far and punishes innocent people. This comes about because in Utah if you “commit any offense against property,” specifically “the property of another,” you are also committing domestic violence. On its face that seems fine, until you think back to your recent joint tax return that you filed and you realize that all your property is jointly owned with your spouse. Therefore, that property you just smashed on the ground is considered to be “the property of another”.
All of a sudden, depending on the cost of the property, you might be looking at charges up to a 2nd degree felony.
The following op-ed, written by our president Connor Boyack, was published today in the Deseret News.
I once had a neighbor who called the police on the family living next to her. This family was not accused of a heinous crime; no children were at risk, no abuse was happening, and nobody was blasting Taylor Swift at 3 a.m.
The neighbor was reporting that the other family’s weeds were too tall.
While it’s true that the vexatious vegetation was longer than socially acceptable for a residential area, the reliance on law enforcement to address the perceived problem provides an anecdotal illustration of how government intervention erodes community.
While individual rights are important, community is as well. We are social creatures, and our interdependency necessitates that we work with, and live near, other people. Government exists essentially for this purpose — in theory, at least, to help keep the peace between each person.
Salt Lake City, UT (April 14, 2017) — In a hearing last month, the Utah State Records Committee unanimously agreed with our appeal seeking the release of the secret agreement between the Utah State Tax Commission and Amazon, following two denials by the Commission of our request.
The document was released today and can be accessed here.
Libertas Institute president Connor Boyack issued the following statement:
From the beginning of this effort we have contended that an agreement made by our government should be public to the Utahns that government serves. We are pleased to have successfully obtained and released this document for the public to review.
Organizations outside of Utah have similarly been seeking their state’s agreement without success. We hope that release of this document will encourage transparency among other state tax commissions.
While some have speculated that this agreement might contain something nefarious or “shady,” Libertas Institute’s only assertion has been that the document should be public as a matter of course. Upon review of the document, we find nothing problematic contained in what was released.
The following op-ed, written by our policy director Michael Melendez, was published today in the Deseret News.
Over 130 years ago, Thomas Edison invested in technology and infrastructure to build electric power distribution systems that would power communities and industries using direct current (DC). Initially his DC system was the standard in the United States, but other inventors, like Nikola Tesla, claimed that many of the inefficiencies and limitations of DC systems could be solved using alternating current (AC).
Edison and his investors engaged in a “War of Currents” in order to protect their investment and attempt to eliminate the threat of AC systems. Misplaced fear for public safety, attempts to ban AC system use of light bulbs, and frivolous lawsuits were just a few of the protectionist tactics used by DC advocates. Though AC did eventually triumph in the 1890s, it wasn’t until 2007 that the last commercial DC system was decommissioned.
Just this week, there was an important development in a current protectionist battle involving a popular vehicle company named after AC advocate Nikola Tesla. The Utah Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Utah’s franchise laws that prevent a “wholly owned subsidiary of a motor vehicle manufacturer from obtaining a license to sell the manufacturer’s new motor vehicles in stores in Utah.” In other words, Tesla Motors cannot legally sell cars directly to you, the consumer. Instead they must use an archaic dealership model that legally imposes middlemen between you and the vehicle manufacturer of your choice, Tesla or otherwise.
The following op-ed, written by our president Connor Boyack, was published this past weekend in the Salt Lake Tribune.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session,” quipped Gideon Tucker, a judge in New York, in 1866. Each year, the Utah Legislature offers abundant evidence of the truthfulness of this judicial observation.
As noted in Jonathan Johnson’s op-ed today, the Legislature passed several tax increases, reflecting an entitlement mentality that pervades the Capitol — the state must get what it’s due.
In what might be called conservative cognitive dissonance, the same elected officials who pick-pocketed Utahns also enacted laws that freed up the market. And while it’s easy to criticize those who incrementally siphon away our hard-earned income, we should also pause to praise the positive outcomes that will help thousands of Utahns.
This bill passed the Senate 25-2 but did not get a vote in the House.
Libertas Institute opposes this bill.
When Senate Bill 255 was originally published, it contained a long overdue process to put a freeze on the flow of dedicated public K-12 education funding to higher education institutions. Unfortunately the powerful higher education lobby quickly shut down that idea and instead this bill has been replaced with a much worse proposal: a property tax increase!
Senator Howard Stephenson is sponsoring SB 255 as a way to raise funds for public education. While his original intention was good (and we agree that higher education should no longer receive support through the income tax), this revised bill hits Utah taxpayers with another tax increase. Specifically, the bill freezes the rate of the basic property levy for 5 years, which will cause an effective property tax increase of $20 million.
Instead of fiddling with the tax code to try and please the Our Schools Now initiative (which seeks to raise $750 million for public education through new taxes on Utahns), the Utah Legislature should look at ways to apply disruptive innovation to the archaic learning model that continues to inhabit government schools. Utahns have suffered through too many tax increases (including a $75 million property tax increase) in the last few years and now is not the time to implement another.
This bill passed the House 55-14, but did not reach a vote in the Senate.
Libertas Institute supports this bill.
At a time when it seems like everyone is talking about raising every tax you can think of (income, food, internet sales, tourism, gas, property, etc.), very few are looking for ways to improve Utah’s economy by creating a more business friendly environment. As new businesses are created, existing businesses locate facilities in Utah, and new jobs are created, the amount of tax revenue for Utah increases without any need to raise taxes.
Using an elective single sales factor for corporate income taxes is one promising idea for creating a more business friendly climate in Utah. Since complete elimination of the state corporate income tax is a non-starter, this type of tax policy is a great step in the right direction.
Companies that choose to use the single sales factor would pay state corporate income taxes based on the amount of sales they make in Utah. This attracts new companies to locate in Utah if they rely mostly on exporting goods to other states or around the world. These exporting companies are typically high wage companies like manufacturers, IT, mining, and other basic industry.
Representative Dan McCay is sponsoring House Bill 377 this year to implement a single sales factor that companies could choose instead of using the evenly weighted three-factor formula to calculate state corporate income tax. This change in tax policy will help Utah remain competitive with other states that are also reconsidering their formulas for state corporate income taxes.