Two years ago during a time of surplus, we lowered the sales tax on food from some 6 percent to 3 percent. We now face the most serious state budget shortages that anyone can recall. They continue to increase, notwithstanding multiple legislative cuts in every area of state government.

There are some temporary fixes on the horizon: the federal bailout, increasing user fees, bonding, using the state's "rainy-day" funds and even accepting cash to store nuclear waste from foreign sources.

But these bring challenges of their own and should not derail examination of the soundness of our basic tax structure.

So why am I encouraging reinstatement of the uniform sales tax on food rather than its elimination? Here are some reasons:

» Stability. Even in this severe economic downturn, food sales and the tax receipts from them have remained stable. General sales tax receipts have plummeted. Income tax receipts are expected to follow suit. Fuel tax receipts are also down.

» Simplicity. The two-tiered sales-tax structure is more costly and less efficient. It includes complex rules and fine distinctions. The burden of sorting rests heaviest on small retail establishments.

» Stimulus/depressant. Food sales are inelastic. Restoration of the uniform tax would do less to dampen the economy than perhaps any other tax. On the positive side, vital state programs such as public and higher education, law enforcement and transportation would not be damaged so severely.

» Impact on lower-income families. There is great irony in what is happening. Lower-income families that were the targeted beneficiaries of the food tax reduction will be the hardest hit by reduced revenue and a sagging economy. The cuts in public and higher education, rehabilitation and retraining, and in social services programs hurt these families the most.

» Giving up too much. The net result of removing sales tax on food is to give up 80 percent of an extremely stable and substantial revenue source from those who can afford it in order to avoid collecting the other 20 percent from those who cannot. We can achieve this protective objective with a brush that paints less broadly.

» General participation has value. No tax is as universally shared as this tax. If the existence of government is moral, then it is not immoral for all to participate at some level in its support. The required support should reflect ability to pay. It may be extremely modest. It may be suspended at times and some taxes may be completely avoided. But somewhere along the way, every citizen should feel a part of supporting government for the common good.

» An opportune time. As bad as it is, Utah has prepared well and is better positioned to compete for economic growth and stability than almost any of its Western neighbors. But we can't allow a downward spiral. Restoring the uniform sales tax on food is estimated to produce $180 million the first year and grow each year with the state's population. At the same time, the state could create a rebate program for lower-income families, estimated to cost the state $20 million annually. The net infusion of the remaining $160 million would significantly help protect the state's infrastructure and economic engine. Failure to do so will prolong the down time, increase the ranks of the unemployed and potentially hurt our recovery and competitive position.

Rep. Kay McIff , R-Richfield, represents District 70 in the Utah Legislature.