As Sundance leaves, Utah Gov. Cox allows first-in-the-nation flag ban to become law without his pen
A pride flag flies at the Salt Lake City & County Building on Thursday, March 13, 2025. (McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)
Saying Utahns are 'tired of culture war bills that don't solve the problems they intend to fix,' Utah Gov. Spencer Cox will allow a bill aimed at banning many flags — including pride or LGBTQ+ flags — from schools and all government buildings to become law without his signature.
Cox explained his reasoning in a letter to legislative leaders issued with just over an hour to spare before his midnight deadline Thursday to sign or veto bills passed by the 2025 Utah Legislature.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'HB77 has been one of the most divisive bills of the session, and I am deeply disappointed that it did not land in a better place,' wrote Cox, who also explained he agreed with the intent behind the legislation. 'My understanding is that there was a deal on a compromise that would have removed problematic portions of the bill while retaining others that would support political neutrality in the classroom. Sadly the sponsors did not move that deal forward.'
Supporters of HB77, sponsored by Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, argued it was meant to promote 'political neutrality' in government spaces. But critics argued a broad ban that extended to all government properties would invite free speech litigation while also leaving some Utahns, especially the LGBTQ+ community, feeling unwelcome and erased.
Now slated to take effect on May 7, HB77 will ban almost all flags from being displayed on or in public buildings, except for flags explicitly allowed in a prescriptive list included in the bill, such as the U.S. flag, the state flag, military flags, Olympic flags, college or university flags, or others. Pride flags or other LGBTQ+ flags — which Utah lawmakers in recent years have repeatedly tried to bar from schools in various ways — would be prohibited.
It's slated to make Utah the first state in the nation to enact such sweeping flag restrictions in government-owned buildings. The Idaho Legislature recently passed a similar bill, HB41, which Gov. Brad Little signed last week, but that legislation won't take effect until July 1 and it only applies to schools. Idaho lawmakers are also advancing a separate bill to restrict government entities from displaying certain types of flags.
Utah Legislature bans pride flags from schools, public buildings
Utah's largest LGBTQ+ rights group, Equality Utah, had negotiated with lawmakers on the bill, which originally focused the flag ban on school classrooms. However, in a House committee last month, Lee changed the legislation to broaden the flag ban to all government property, leading Equality Utah to oppose the bill even though it was prepared to take a 'neutral' position on its earlier version.
Cox faced numerous calls to veto HB77 from advocacy groups including Equality Utah and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, as well as from Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall, whose city hosts the annual Utah Pride Festival. He could have vetoed the bill — but he indicated in his letter that it would likely just be overridden by the GOP-supermajority Utah Legislature. Instead, he's urging lawmakers to work to fix it.
'I continue to have serious concerns with this bill,' Cox said. 'However, because a veto would be overridden, I have decided to allow the bill to go into law without my signature, and urge lawmakers to consider commonsense solutions that address the bill's numerous flaws.'
Cox encouraged lawmakers to consider allowing the Utah State Board of Education to 'go further in ensuring the political neutrality of our classrooms, while also considering repealing the local government piece of this legislation and allowing elected representatives to answer to their own constituents.'
'If you are willing to pursue this kind of solution, you will have an open door in the executive branch,' Cox wrote.
Cox's comments on the flag ban came after the bill cast final-hour drama over Utah's multimillion-dollar bid to entice the Sundance Film Festival to stay, with some saying it could impact Utah's chances.
Earlier Thursday, festival organizers announced they'd opted to move the event to Colorado to help the festival grow. By the time they'd reached their decision, Cox had not yet acted on HB77, but a veto was looking unlikely.
Sundance is leaving Utah, moving to Colorado
While Cox told reporters last week Sundance organizers had told state leaders 'very clearly that political issues have nothing to do with the decision,' others, including Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall, worried that HB77 could indeed be 'harmful to our effort to retain Sundance.'
In the end, Utah lost its bid. Cox — who earlier Thursday called Sundance's decision a 'mistake' — also included a note in his letter that he'll be calling a special session to address, among other issues, what the Legislature should instead do with the $3.5 million it had set aside as part of Utah's bid to keep Sundance.
'Let's reappropriate that money to efforts in Utah to create a new festival and a world-class film economy right here in our state,' he said.
Cox, in his letter, dove deeper into why he had misgivings with HB77 but said he agreed with the 'underlying intent' of the bill.
'I deeply believe that our classrooms need to be a place where everyone feels welcome — free from the politics that are fracturing our country,' Cox wrote. 'Parents are rightly upset when they bring their kids to publicly funded schools and see culture-war symbols in a place that should be apolitical. In an attempt to make some kids feel more welcome, other kids feel less welcome.'
Cox also said he appreciated that the bill is 'neutral on the types of flags in question,' while adding that 'I find it strange that no headline reads 'MAGA flags banned from classrooms.''
Drama over Utah's bid to keep Sundance heats up over LGBTQ+ flag ban bill
'I agree with the underlying intent of those legislators who supported this bill in an attempt to bring political neutrality to the classroom,' he said, though he added, 'Unfortunately, this bill does not do that.'
He said because it's aimed at only flags, 'there is little preventing countless other displays — posters, signs, drawings, furniture — from entering the classroom.'
'To those legislators who supported this bill, I'm sure it will not fix what you are trying to fix,' Cox said.
He noted that many schools have already enacted their own 'political neutrality' policies in classrooms, and he argued 'we have a better place' to make regulations: the Utah State Board of Education. While he said the board has already set expectations for political neutrality in teacher code of conduct, 'I believe more needs to be done by USBE to provide direction in this regard.'
'I have asked the Board of Education to continue their work to find ways to make our classrooms both more politically neutral and more welcoming to every student to exercise their own individual freedom of expression,' Cox said. 'The idea that kids can only feel welcome in a school if a teacher puts up a rainbow flag is just wrong. Let's do everything possible to make our classrooms one of the last remaining politically neutral places in our state.'
The governor added that the flag ban 'goes too far' by extending the ban to local governments.
'While I think it's wrong for city and county officials to fly divisive flags, I believe that election have consequences and the best way to stop that behavior is to elect people who believe differently,' Cox said. 'All this bill does is add more fuel to the fire, and I suspect it will only ratchet up the creative use of political symbolism.'
Ultimately, Cox urged legislators to focus on solutions rather than legislation that deepens divides.
'As tired as Utahns are of politically divisive symbols, I think they are also tired of culture war bills that don't solve the problems they intend to fix,' he said.
The governor urged lawmakers to work with the LGBTQ+ community, as they have in the past, to find common ground.
'Utah has always had a reputation of trying to find a way to work together and solve issues between sides that have strongly-held, opposing points of view,' Cox said. 'There are so many examples of the LGBTQ community and the conservative community coming together to find helpful and hopeful compromise. I hope we can retain this as our model and North Star.'
The governor also shared a message directly to LGBTQ+ Utahns, acknowledging that 'recent legislation has been difficult.'
'Politics can be a bit of a blood sport at times and I know we have had our disagreements,' he said. 'I want you to know that I love and appreciate you and I am grateful that you are part of our state. I know these words may ring hollow to many of you, but please know that I mean them sincerely.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' [Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity] The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes—We could have guessed you're a man, Steve—while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews have found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. [Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there] Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. [Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research] One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect. Under Biden, the left went too far into bad and unpopular gender-identity policies. Under Trump, the same is true of the right. Article originally published at The Atlantic


Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes— We could have guessed you're a man, Steve —while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews h ave found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Punxsutawney Phil could deliver Michigan GOP tax cut proposals
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PENNSYLVANIA - FEBRUARY 2: Groundhog handler AJ Dereume holds Punxsutawney Phil after he saw his shadow predicting 6 more weeks of winter during the 139th annual Groundhog Day festivities on Friday February 2, 2025 in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Groundhog Day is a popular tradition in the United States and Canada. If Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow he regards it as an omen of six more weeks of bad weather and returns to his den. Early spring arrives if he does not see his shadow, causing Phil to remain above ground. (Photo by) As Republicans attempt to regain control of state government next year, I'm reminded of the movie, 'Groundhog Day.' In this 1993 film, Bill Murray plays a cynical weatherman who goes to Punxsutawney, Pa. to film the town's annual Groundhog Day celebration and finds himself reliving the same day over and over again. Likewise, Michigan Republican office holders and those seeking statewide and legislative seats have for decades repeatedly called for tax cuts they say will make us richer and transform the state's economy. They won't, but I'll get to that in a bit. Republicans running for office this year are turbocharging their tax-cut message. Not content to just slash tax rates, some are calling for the elimination of the personal income tax. (Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is term limited and cannot run for reelection.) Former state Attorney General Mike Cox, who is seeking the GOP nomination for governor, is among those attempting to rebrand the income tax as a 'tax on work' and calling for its demise. Cox doesn't say on his campaign website how or if he would replace the approximate $12 billion the personal income tax annually generates. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Our paychecks should go toward our families, not Lansing's pet projects,' Cox said. Republicans say killing or at least cutting the income tax would put Michigan on a more competitive footing with Florida, Tennessee, Texas and a handful of other states that don't levy income taxes. A bill to trim the personal income tax rate from 4.25% to 4.05% passed the House in March but hasn't been taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate. 'If we cut taxes now and scale back regulations, we could become one of the nation's strongest economies,' Rep. Bryan Posthumus (R-Rockford) wrote on X this week. The wealthy West Michigan DeVos family is bankrolling a multimillion-dollar effort to return Michigan to GOP control. Former Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has been named CEO of the newly formed Michigan Forward Network. 'We need to make Michigan reliably red,' McDaniel told the Wall Street Journal. 'We need to become a state like Ohio.' Fun fact: Michigan adopted the income tax in 1967 during the administration of Republican Gov. George Romney, McDaniel's grandfather. But taxes aren't the root of Michigan's long-term economic slide. A recent in-depth study of state tax policies by the conservative Tax Foundation shows that Michigan's tax structure stacks up pretty well with other states. The Foundation's 2025 State Tax Competitive Index ranks Michigan 14th best overall, ahead of every Great Lakes state except Indiana, which ranks 10th. The index is a compilation of personal, corporate, sales, property and unemployment insurance taxes. Notably, Michigan ranks ninth best in corporate taxes, ahead of fast-growing states such as Florida, South Carolina and Texas. The study also describes Michigan's 4.25% personal income tax as 'relatively low.' Ohio, McDaniel's model state, ranks 35th in the Tax Foundation's tax competitiveness index. Michigan has the 33rd lowest state tax burden in the country, an April study by Wallet Hub found. State taxes as a percentage of personal income are lower now than they were 25 years ago, according to the Michigan House Fiscal Agency. Yet as business taxes were slashed and the tax burden on residents fell, Michigan became alarmingly poorer compared to the rest of the country. From at least as far back at 1970 until the mid-1990s, Michigan's per capita income was above or about the same as U.S. per capita income. But it has since fallen to about 88 percent of national per capita income, a revealing state Senate Fiscal Agency chart shows. The stunning decline occurred throughout Democratic and Republican administrations, largely caused by the significant loss of high-paying blue-collar auto and other manufacturing jobs. Most of those jobs aren't coming back, despite the focus on restoring manufacturing by both parties. And there's another problem: most Americans don't want to work in factories. Automaking will continue to be a critical part of the state's economy—unless President Donald Trump destroys it with his foolish trade war. But Michigan won't get wealthier unless it shifts from a business-focused to a talent-and-place-centered economic strategy. Boosting educational attainment, making our cities more attractive to young talent, and developing transit are requirements. Detroit 'would be a different city' with transit, billionaire businessman Dan Gilbert once said. 'And again, it would give us the ability to attract more talent here.' The Tax Foundation and Wallet Hub studies show that low taxes don't automatically translate to high incomes. States such as Illinois, Massachusetts and Minnesota have some of the worst tax climates and burdens in the country, the studies show. But they're also among the wealthiest states in the country. Those states feature a high percentage of college graduates, good public transit, and attractive cities and metro areas. Illinois and Minnesota, both blue states, have the highest per capita incomes among Great Lakes states. They should serve as economic models for Michigan, not Ohio. Otherwise, it will continue to be Groundhog Day in the Wolverine State.