Fence-mending needed before special session
Pignanelli & Webb
When the gavel banged, the House left some significant business undone, including income tax reform and interim study topics. Because House Speaker Greg Curtis is viewed as a determined, strong leader who tolerates little dissension and craves an efficient legislative process, the confusion at the end has generated interesting rumors and theories among legislators, lobbyists and others.
A number are suggesting that Curtis (and House Leadership) intentionally fostered pointless speeches, and manipulated the calendar, to prevent final passage of the "flatter" tax supported by the Senate and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. This conspiracy notion is gaining some traction among insiders.
Several days before the session concluded, the House, Senate and governor ended a six-week stalemate with a compromise allowing for partial reduction of the sales tax on food, $70 million decrease in income taxes and some business tax breaks. Curtis, Senate President John Valentine and Huntsman agreed to support the package.
Passage of the flatter tax was a high priority for the governor and Senate, although earlier in the session Huntsman had indicated a willingness to set aside income tax reform until the next session to focus on eliminating the food sales tax.
The governor had won support of a number of moderate Republicans on the flat tax, along with Democrats willing to exchange their backing for funding several human services priorities (relief on the Disability Waiting List, eye and dental services for Medicaid recipients).
Some insiders say Curtis apparently was upset with such deals, so he shrewdly placed the tax reform legislation prior to the budget bill. When the budget bill was eventually heard, few amendments were allowed because of the late hour and the importance of getting the bill passed. The tax reform legislation was never voted on and the governor and the Senate left empty-handed, while Curtis was able to obtain most of his goals.
House leaders laugh at the notion of a conspiracy, noting that the agreement was for $70 million in income tax relief, but not necessarily the flatter tax. They contend proponents of the flatter tax simply did not make a persuasive case to House members. While Curtis said he personally supported the flatter tax, his leadership and caucus were split. In such cases, there are limits on how much the speaker can personally push and cajole.
You can be the first to comment on this story.