Richard Ellis

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks on the campaign trail. That has made it difficult to keep the blog up. Today I would like to let you know my position on certain issues that have come to me in the form of questions from delegates.

The first issue concerns the assertion that I was instrumental in rejecting a $50 million settlement offer by the Workers’ Compensation Fund to the state that would have allowed WCF to privatize. The settlement offer was first presented to Governor Leavitt in 2003, and to Governor Walker in 2004. Both rejected the offer and the efforts to privatize, along with the attorney general, lieutenant governor, auditor, treasurer, and ultimately the legislature, who refused to pass a privatization bill sponsored by Senator Bramble because ALL determined it was not in the best interests of the state to allow WCF to privatize. The reasons are involved, but the bottom line is that it is at best an oversimplification, and at worst a political manipulation of the facts, to assert that I had a leading role in the rejection of the $50 million.

The second issue concerns the assertion that I am opposed to spending limits and revenue earmarks. While it is true, it is again a political manipulation of the facts to assert that, as a result, I am not a fiscal conservative. I am a fiscal conservative. Spending limits and earmarks restrict the ability of the state to adjust to its always-changing needs. What those touting the virtue of spending limits and earmarks do not understand, because they do not have the experience I have with bond-rating agencies, is that bond-rating agencies closely monitor the constitutional and statutory limits placed on the financial flexibility of the state. States like Washington and Oregon, for example, that are otherwise well-managed, will never receive the AAA bond rating like the state of Utah (one of only seven states to enjoy such rating) because they have adopted spending limits and revenue earmarks that limit their flexibility. We elect our legislative representatives to make the tough decisions EACH YEAR on how to allocate resources. Each year the legislature should have the courage and the flexibility to respond to current situations and employ its majority preference for fiscal conservatism.

Finally, let me state outright that I am not opposed to tax cuts as is being represented. What is more important, however, is the lack of understanding of the treasurer’s role that is obvious by my opposition’s focus on this, and the other issues. The legislature and the governor determine tax policy, NOT the state treasurer. While the state treasurer should (and does) provide input, and help educate lawmakers concerning the effects of their policies on the state’s bond rating, the state treasurer ultimately is NOT a lawmaker. It is lamentable that my opposition is attempting to turn this race with misrepresentations on issues that the state treasurer’s office does not, and indeed, cannot, decide.

As your State Treasurer, I will continue to use my expertise in investing public funds and my established relationships with the bond-rating agencies to ensure that the State of Utah maintains its rare AAA bond rating and its position as one of the best financially-managed states in the country. As Deputy State Treasurer, I was an integral part of the team that achieved those accomplishments; I will appreciate your support in allowing me to help maintain them.