If there were any reason to believe, as Gov. Jon Huntsman clearly does, that an optional flat-rate income tax would stimulate the state's economy enough to eventually raise, rather than cut, money dedicated to education, then the loss of any or all of the various credits, deductions and loopholes found in most tax codes would be a small price to pay.

But with Utah's new flat tax for the wealthy resting only on such myth, dropping any useful tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers is even harder to justify.

As part of a move to make the normal tax code a little flatter and the flat-tax option a little less optional, the governor's new energy policy anticipates elimination of the state's tax credit of up to $2,000 for homeowners who fit their homes with solar, wind or other renewable energy systems. (A business tax break of up to $50,000 would remain in place.)

It's not that the homeowner credit is a bad thing, or an expensive one. At its peak, in 2005. it has cost the state $131,000 in annual revenues. It's just that, in the view of an administration determined to flatten taxes, the renewable energy break is a tall poppy ready to be cut down.

This despite the fact that various points on the state's official Web sites promote renewable energy as a good way to improve the environment, save money - and get a tax break.

Ending the renewable energy tax credit for those filing the old-fashioned way, while keeping the flat-tax option that mainly benefits the rich, would slant Utah's tax code even more in favor of the wealthy.

Some purists argue that tax policy ought not be used to encourage or discourage any particular sort of behavior, even the sort of behavior that, little by little, could clean our air and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

But such an argument for dropping the energy tax credit is hard to sustain when the whole idea behind the flat tax is to encourage a particular behavior by rich folks - move to Utah, breathe the dirty air and let other people bear your tax burden.