To the Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG)
Answers to your 3 questions:
1. I am supportive of the current ban for members of the legislature to be contract lobbyists. Is there a proposal I can read? It appears you are just targeting one republican member and some existing democrat members would be exempt. Unless drafted correctly, writing a law for one person is against the Utah Constitution.
2. The past proposals would do nothing to stop individuals from currently working as a paid lobbyist for a single company or leaving the legislature and immediately working as a paid lobbyist for a single company. One of the current teacher's union representatives appears to have done exactly that legally and stepped down and started working as a lobbyist.
Increasing the time from one year to two doesn't solve that. Why change the time from 1 year to 2 when someone can immediately lobby for their new employer whether in the legislature or not?
We have members of the State School Board that seem to be able to be lobbyists. Do we need to change that too?
3. You are describing only one exception (not two) to a very complicated law. I would love to have the law more simple, but again, you seem to be targeting a very narrow situation.
Generally lobbyists can only now pay $10 or less for a meal without disclosure, unless they invite a very specific general group, such as all the Utah Senators, where that invitation was very well known. Modifying what we have may make UVU fill out a bunch of paperwork for inviting the legislature to a ribbon cutting ceremony for their Center of Constitutional Studies. They already have provided a lot of transparency in their current invite.
I hope you find the answers helpful,
Thank you for discarding your past 20 page proposal. Many items were already solved in past years. These are three great questions, but they don't have simple yes or no answers.
Fred C. Cox
Representing House District 32 and running for the new House District 30
_______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Utah Legislative Candidates in the November 2012 Election
FROM: Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG)
RE: Brief survey
We respectfully request your response to the following 3 questions. We are interested in ascertaining which legislative candidates would support key elements of ethics reform that have not yet been adopted by the Utah Legislature. We plan to release the survey responses to thousands of our supporters across the state and to the media. Silence is usually construed by interested persons as a NO answer. We request your response by Friday, August 31st.
1. If you are elected, will you support legislation to prohibit a Utah legislator from simultaneously serving as a paid lobbyist?
YES _______ NO _______
2. If you are elected, will you support legislation to establish a 2-year waiting period before a legislator can become a paid lobbyist after leaving the Legislature?
YES _______ NO _______
3. If you are elected, will you support legislation closing two major loopholes in the 2010 lobbying reform act that (1) allow lobbyists to pay for meals for groups of legislators and (2) require no disclosure of that fact?
YES _______ NO _______
To respond, just hit the reply button, mark your response in the Yes or No blanks, and hit the send button. Thank you for your response.
Sincerely,
Kim Burningham and Dixie Huefner for the UEG Executive Committee
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Representative Fred Cox running for the Utah House District 30
Courtesy of Comcast. More of these videos for other candidates are
available at Comcast On Demand, Utah. Vote Utah 2012. This video is a
little rough, as they didn't allow edits or redos after we started
recording and I had not used a teleprompter before.
http://youtu.be/ZsmlM1Cag8w
http://youtu.be/ZsmlM1Cag8w
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Do we let the Wookie Win
I said I liked the Outdoor Retailer Industry Trade show coming to Utah for
their convention. When "pushed" that we should do everything and anything
they want, I obviously pushed back.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/54623703-82/utah-outdoor-state-public.html.csp
The group has the same chance as anyone else. Did they show up at the hearings or the discussion the last couple of years? The Sierra club, the ATV folks and many others did.
They have been threatening to either get their way or take their marbles and go somewhere else for many years. We have no assurance that if we continue to do what they want that they will continue to come here.
More convention space, even if it sits partially vacant most of the year, done, more hotels, done.
Now, they want a reserved seat at the table for Utah land policy with veto rights?
A new County Hotel is being looked at even though it could cause the Grand America and others to go under. I have read the reports sent to the Convention Center about the proposed County Hotel. It was pretty obvious that the connection between the existing county convention center and hotels doesn't work and that the hotels as a whole think the County is competing with them instead of working with them.
I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.
The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotel and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.
For yesterday's comments on Utah Lands, see:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/08/outdoor-rec-industry-lashes-out-again.html
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/54623703-82/utah-outdoor-state-public.html.csp
The group has the same chance as anyone else. Did they show up at the hearings or the discussion the last couple of years? The Sierra club, the ATV folks and many others did.
They have been threatening to either get their way or take their marbles and go somewhere else for many years. We have no assurance that if we continue to do what they want that they will continue to come here.
More convention space, even if it sits partially vacant most of the year, done, more hotels, done.
Now, they want a reserved seat at the table for Utah land policy with veto rights?
A new County Hotel is being looked at even though it could cause the Grand America and others to go under. I have read the reports sent to the Convention Center about the proposed County Hotel. It was pretty obvious that the connection between the existing county convention center and hotels doesn't work and that the hotels as a whole think the County is competing with them instead of working with them.
I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.
The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotel and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.
For yesterday's comments on Utah Lands, see:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/08/outdoor-rec-industry-lashes-out-again.html
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Outdoor Rec Industry Lashes Out Again or Still Against Utah
Do we need to back off on Utah Lands?
Under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature.
When Utah became a state, the Federal Government committed to selling the unappropriated public lands, extinguishing the title, and providing 5% of the proceeds of the sales to the State School Trust Fund.
I believe it would be better to have the land transferred to Utah as opposed to requiring the Federal Government sell the land to developers or other countries like China.
The Utah State Constitution is designed to protect the Public Land based on Article XVIII, Section 1, Forests to be preserved, and Article XX, Section 1, Land grants accepted on terms of trust. If the Federal Government sells or transfers any public land to Utah or others, 5% of the proceeds of the sales should got to the School Trust Fund. There is a gaping loophole in that process which should be fixed.
Utah Enabling Act:
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall [SHALL} be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
Under Sec. 2
"unappropriated public lands"
" and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States"
I believe the US was to sell the land and create a clear title. The US Supreme court in recent case involving Hawaii all agreed that was why the Feds had the land at statehood, to create a clear title, a transition.
The US didn't sell the land in Utah, not all of it. Whether greed or water, it didn't happen. When Kleppe v. New Mexico overturned any states rights for land in 1976, Congress figured they could get away with anything. 1976 was when FLIPMA was signed, which officially put the US in violation of the Enabling Act. That is the point when Utah had claim for the land. You can argue that the US didn't have the US Constitutional power to create the agreement in the enabling act, since the US can't be owning large chunks of a state, under the US constitution.
So you have 2 choices, force the US to sell to who knows, developers or China, or have the US recognize that they were only to hold the land in trust and transfer the land to Utah. I have fought against forcing the Feds to sell the land at this point for over a year. I won that fight. The bill that passed was not what was promoted by the sponsor last August.
Do we need a County Hotel to keep them?
A new County Hotel is being looked at even though it could cause the Grand America and others to go under. I have read the reports sent to the Convention Center about the proposed County Hotel. It was pretty obvious that this connection doesn't work and that the hotels as a whole think the County is competing with them instead of working with them.
I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.
The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotel and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.
For some interesting reading, see:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/193/
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html
5th of Sept. debate.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/11/land-rulings.html
Under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature.
When Utah became a state, the Federal Government committed to selling the unappropriated public lands, extinguishing the title, and providing 5% of the proceeds of the sales to the State School Trust Fund.
I believe it would be better to have the land transferred to Utah as opposed to requiring the Federal Government sell the land to developers or other countries like China.
The Utah State Constitution is designed to protect the Public Land based on Article XVIII, Section 1, Forests to be preserved, and Article XX, Section 1, Land grants accepted on terms of trust. If the Federal Government sells or transfers any public land to Utah or others, 5% of the proceeds of the sales should got to the School Trust Fund. There is a gaping loophole in that process which should be fixed.
Utah Enabling Act:
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall [SHALL} be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
Under Sec. 2
"unappropriated public lands"
" and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States"
I believe the US was to sell the land and create a clear title. The US Supreme court in recent case involving Hawaii all agreed that was why the Feds had the land at statehood, to create a clear title, a transition.
The US didn't sell the land in Utah, not all of it. Whether greed or water, it didn't happen. When Kleppe v. New Mexico overturned any states rights for land in 1976, Congress figured they could get away with anything. 1976 was when FLIPMA was signed, which officially put the US in violation of the Enabling Act. That is the point when Utah had claim for the land. You can argue that the US didn't have the US Constitutional power to create the agreement in the enabling act, since the US can't be owning large chunks of a state, under the US constitution.
So you have 2 choices, force the US to sell to who knows, developers or China, or have the US recognize that they were only to hold the land in trust and transfer the land to Utah. I have fought against forcing the Feds to sell the land at this point for over a year. I won that fight. The bill that passed was not what was promoted by the sponsor last August.
Do we need a County Hotel to keep them?
A new County Hotel is being looked at even though it could cause the Grand America and others to go under. I have read the reports sent to the Convention Center about the proposed County Hotel. It was pretty obvious that this connection doesn't work and that the hotels as a whole think the County is competing with them instead of working with them.
I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.
The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotel and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.
For some interesting reading, see:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/193/
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html
5th of Sept. debate.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/11/land-rulings.html
AARP's Non-Partisan Voters' Guide
Q: If Budget cuts or tax reforms are implemented in your
state, how will you ensure that any such changes avoid hurting low and moderate
income populations while also safeguarding the financial security of the 50+
population? Will you oppose tax and expenditure limit initiatives?
A: I favor lower taxes. The
Legislature is required to balance the budget. Lowering taxes hasn't been
proposed, but cuts in retirement and insurance benefits in the past have
followed a simple concept, keep the promises made, and don't promise something
you can't fulfill. That has decreased the benefits for new state employees
(including the Legislature).
Last year I fought raising the
tax on food to lower the overall sales tax rate. I felt that doing that now was
a mistake. I knew too many people that didn't have enough money for food and
shelter as it was. We were successful in stopping a food tax increase.
Q: What programs would you support to improve the quality
and lower the cost of health care in your state?
A: Anything Utah can do to encourage free market insurance competition
across state lines and to remove pre-existing conditions limitations would be
helpful.
Removing the requirement of
non-emergency care to be provided at emergency rooms and encouraging limitation
of liability clauses and non-binding mediation alternative dispute resolutions
will help lower the costs associated with medical care and will stop the
defensive care practices helping fuel the upward spiral of costs. 
Q: What steps would you take to assure quality, affordable
health insurance for individuals and small businesses in your state? Do you
support efforts to require rate reviews on unjustified health insurance premium
rate increases?
A: The Supreme Court could not
agree that Congress has the constitutional power to require individuals to
purchase their specified health care insurance, but that Congress can tax us. I
will work to continue to exclude Utah from this expansion of Federal intervention into our
lives.
I will continue to work to
promote free market competition. Health Savings Accounts should be encouraged
and not stopped.
As someone that purchased Health
Insurances as a small business owner for many years, I will continue to work to
promote fairness, without more government regulation. Competitive options are
needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Answer: The Utah Constitution and the Utah Enabling Act. I believe it is pretty clear. Obviously some others don't, but look at what the feds did with the same language in the enabling act for states further east. They sold the lands, and extinguished the title. Utah didn't have the water and they eventually stopped the homestead act and then FLIPMA violated the agreement from the feds side.
I would rather Utah keep the land, most as multi-use than the Feds sell the land to China. And yes, a year ago many were pushing to make the Feds sell the land. I actively pushed back. The bill that the Gov. signed doesn't make the Feds sell the land to anyone, but recognize the Enabling Act and the US Constitution.