Category: State

Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

Post author By David
Post date October 19, 2009
No Comments on Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

It’s back – the bill that just won’t die. Let’s first explain why this is such a bad bill that I never pass up an opportunity to oppose it. First, it’s unconstitutional and both sides are compromising the integrity of their ideals in order to produce this bad bill. Second, this is an example of governing by exception which is a long-term recipe for disaster. Having only states be represented in Congress is good, except that we want to treat D.C. more like a state. The current census apportionment process is good, except that Utah felt bad about not getting an extra seat on a technical sliver. Long-term the only people who come out ahead when governing by exception are the exploiters who prefer to live in loopholes rather than being ensnared by the system that they are taking advantage of. These are the same people who rarely if ever actually contribute anything to the society in return for playing the leeches role.

There are two very good ideas in this bill which should be pursued without compromise. The first is giving D.C. a voting representative in the House. Any citizen who is subject to the same federal tax laws as the citizens of the states should have a voting representative in Congress – as far as I know that is only D.C. but that rule would apply to any citizen who did not live in a state whether we started taxing American Samoa or Puerto Rico the same as we do for the 50 states. The privilege of representation in the House should be based on the responsibility to pay taxes because taxation is the primary responsibility of the House. Representation in the Senate should be a privilege limited to full statehood.

The second good idea in the bill is the expansion of the House. This should be much more than two seats. In fact what we need is a bill (probably an amendment) that defines the size of the House as a function of population by setting the maximum number of citizens that a Representative in the House may represent. While I would argue that the size of the house should be multiples of its current size even setting such a ration to such an unmanageable number as 500,000 citizens per representative would be an improvement over this static “435 seats in the House” that we have currently. (That would add somewhere near 100 new representatives – as opposed to the paltry 2 being proposed in this bill.)

While I am not a fan of legislative manipulation tactics (such as the NRA killing the bill previously by attaching an amendment that would curtail the gun laws in D.C.) I have to say that it is better to prevent a law from passing using such tactics than it is to enact a law using such tactics (such as slipping the bill into a “must pass” defense appropriations bill as they are talking about trying now).

The fact that the people pushing this bill have not even proposed an amendment to give D.C. the voting representative they deserve demonstrates that they are more interested int he power grab than they are in actually helping the people of D.C. If they were serious about the issue they would at least be making that kind of proposal even if they also pursued this unconstitutional path.

Tags Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, legislation, unconstitutional, voting

National State

Fundraising Tells Us a Story

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2009
No Comments on Fundraising Tells Us a Story

The third quarter just ended which means its time that the public can start learning how candidates have done on fundraising for the last quarter. The fundraising reports are pretty dry and generally boring. They always result in reports about which opponents in any given race are getting the most cash such as Bennett outpaces Shurtleff in fundraising, but the fundraising reports also tell us stories about the state of politics in general and specific races in particular.

The big race in Utah right now is the 2010 race for the senate seat currently held by Bennett. The story on that particular race is that Bennett is raising more money than Shurtleff or any of his other challengers. This should hardly surprise anyone because of his incumbency. Money spent on a challenger is a sign of support and hopes for what that challenger will do in the future if they win. It might also be a bit of a statement against the incumbent, but disappointment with the incumbent does not tend to appear as a large campaign donation to a challenger this early in the race. Money spent on an incumbent is support for the future and an opportunity in the present to weigh in on the issues between now and election day next year – that extra year of getting an actual legislator to listen to you is bound to attract more cash.

Bennett’s only Democratic challenger raised “about $19,600 in the third quarter” demonstrating that Utah is still solidly Republican and few people are even looking to the Democrats for serious consideration.

Another story in that particular rage is this:

A shotgun shooting event raised $88,600 for the Shurtleff Joint Fund. That total includes $25,000 from Provo-based company Success Multimedia, $20,000 from Nu Skin, and $10,000 each from EnergySolutions and USANA Health Sciences.

The fact that Shurtleff raises large chunks of cash from a few organizations for individual events tells us that Shurtleff is almost guaranteed to be the same type of politician as Bennett no matter how different he claims to be on the campaign trail. Some people will like that, others will not, but that’s the story told by the money. Hopefully nobody expects more than cosmetic change if Shurtleff succeeds in replacing Bennett.

It was a later portion of the article that tells the story of the state of politics generally:

The Hatch campaign traded in an old Cadillac for a newer, but still used, Cadillac, spending $36,900 at Young Chevrolet. The senator will use the car when he is in the state.

I doubt that there is anything unusual about this for a sitting member of Congress – which is what irks me. Do I have any reason to complain about how Hatch spends money that is not taken from taxpayers by force? No, but the story this tells is instructive.

I have no problem with Hatch buying a Cadillac. I have no problem with him spending more on a used car that I have spent on cars in the whole of my life. (I’ve purchased 3 cars myself and if you added those prices together plus all my repairs and gas purchased for the last 10 years it still probably comes out to less than $36K.) The thing I have a problem with is that we pay this man $180,000 a year – which should be enough to afford a car for D.C. and a car for Utah – and on top of that salary he still gets to use his campaign fundraising money as a permanent expense account. If he’s getting a $600,000 per year expense account (notice that his election is 3 years away right now and he’s still taking in over half a million per year) why are we paying him another $180,000? Is it any wonder that sitting members of Congress can so easily get completely out of touch with reality when we pay them that much and still allow them to take many of their basic expenses out of a completely separate fund?

If I believed that was an honest way to make a living I would start permanently campaigning for high profile offices as soon as I believed that I could attract even a fraction of the donations that Hatch receives in perpetuity.

The moral of the story about politics generally is that freeloading is alive and well at all levels of society – we give our leaders precisely what many people in society wish they had.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Mark Shurtleff, money, Orrin Hatch, Salt Lake Tribune, senate

culture State

Civility in Politics

Last Night Sutherland hosted a blogger briefing discussing the topic of civility in politics and where we draw the line between being passionate and being civil. Dave Hansen and Rob Miller spoke – representing republicans and democrats in the discussion – and then they opened up for questions. It was a pretty good discussion in which they agreed on almost everything.

The main thing that I took away from the questions about how to foster civility in political discussion is that first and foremost we must each govern ourselves. Rob emphasized that multiple times – that it starts with an individual decision to keep our heads about us and be honest in our interactions whether we agree or disagree. Being honest requires that we not pretend to agree, that we not disagree in order to play devil’s advocate, and that we admit when we make mistakes or get some of our facts wrong. If we each keep our emotions in check we will be able to treat others in a dignified way, as all people deserve to be treated, and we can keep ourselves from escalating tensions when our feelings inevitably get bruised in the tussle between competing opinions.

Tags blogger briefing, civic participation

National State

We Must Be Clear About This

Post author By David
Post date September 25, 2009
7 Comments on We Must Be Clear About This

photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.

The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, Elevated, federalism

National State

What is the Job of a Representative?

Post author By David
Post date September 22, 2009
3 Comments on What is the Job of a Representative?

One of my favorite questions to ask candidates in the past has been “in your own words, what is the job description for the office you are seeking?” That continues to be one of my candidate questions because observing the representatives I have had (as well as members of Congress in general) convinces me that most of them do not understand what their job is. I have described many of them as representing the party or the government to their constituents rather than the other way around.

How would I answer that question? First let me say that my answer is generalized to apply to either Representatives or Senators. For one thing I would say that once elected they will be required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As keeping their oath is a mark of the integrity that is central to any position of trust, I would say that keeping their oath of office should be first and foremost in any description of the job of their office. I would also say that the exact opposite of what so many seem to do (representing party and government to constituents) is another primary task of the office that they are seeking. In other words they should be representing the interests of their constituents (that’s different than representing the interests of their campaign donors) to the legislative body they are elected to be a part of. I do admit however that representing the government and the wider perspective on the issues of the day to their constituents does have a place in their role. One of the advantages of a representative form of government is that those chosen to represent each group of people have the opportunity to help the people they represent to gain a greater understanding of issues than their local perspective would otherwise afford them.

A more complete description of what a legislator should do would take much more than one post. I hope to expound upon what a legislator is and should be in a series of posts in order to demonstrate how our current system has gone astray from the system that was designed and bequeathed to us by the founders of our nation.

Tags candidate questions, change congress, Oath of Office, thoughts

Local National State

Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

Post author By David
Post date September 18, 2009
1 Comment on Questions for Those Who Would Represent Me

I like to ask questions to all candidates who would like to represent me in any capacity in order to determine where they stand politically both on specific issues and in their political philosophy in general. I have decided to maintain a list of the basic questions that I will ask the candidates who wish to represent me at the federal level. I plan to ask variations on some of these questions to those who would represent me at other levels of government (city, county, state) and hope that others will feel free to use these questions either directly or as inspiration to ask the candidates who wish to represent them.

I am open to suggestions of what questions need to be asked for candidates at the federal level. One of the things that I will do with each of the questions I post will be to answer the question myself so that my positions on these issues are not hidden and those who are or would be candidates can know where I stand on the issues I will ask them about.

I will also post the answers that I receive from candidates on every election. My intention is that this will be a consistent feature for every election cycle.

Tags candidate questions

National State

How and Why to Expand the House

Post author By David
Post date September 17, 2009
21 Comments on How and Why to Expand the House

I find it appropriate that on Constitution Day (“happy” 222nd) there is a story about a lawsuit seeking to expand the House in the name of fairness for voters across the nation. Of course, I am in favor of expanding the House but let’s look at this lawsuit summed up in two paragraphs:

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761.

Tags change congress, Delaware, Elevated, fourth seat, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

National State

Constitutional Amendment 20

Post author By David
Post date August 14, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment 20

The 20th Amendment is essentially a technical correction to the Constitution specifying a new ending time for terms of office and also a standard procedure for filling the presidency in case of unforeseen circumstances (such as the death of a president-elect).

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

A similar technical amendment was adopted in the state constitution of Utah just last year (which came in handy just this week).

Tags amendments, connections, documents, history, Utah

State

The Trick to Choosing Elected Officials

Post author By David
Post date August 6, 2009
8 Comments on The Trick to Choosing Elected Officials

In a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune Jeff Hammond offered this profound bit of insight:

As some politicians age, they grow into statesmen, like Barry Goldwater; others shrivel into petty party hacks. Sens. Hatch and Bob Bennett aren’t growing.

He’s right about Hatch and Bennett which is why it’s time to replace them. He’s also right about politicians who grow and shrink which is why we have to be very careful about who we replace them with. So far I am not confident that any one of the challengers for Bennett’s seat (Bridgewater, Eagar, Granato, Shurtleff, or Williams so far) will grow into a statesman. Some I have ruled out already as potential senators, others I am still considering. It’s an important decision that we must not make lightly. (I’ll bet that nobody can guess which ones I have ruled out even if I were to include Bennett in the mix and even if I said how many were already out.)

I hope that I will yet discover, either among the current challengers or among some as-yet-unannounced challenger, a real diamond in the making who will live up to the promise of every aspiring politician – to be a true statesman.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Cherilyn Eagar, Mark Shurtleff, Orrin Hatch, Salt Lake Tribune, Sam Granato, senate, Tim Bridgewater, Utah

State

Political Football

At a time when we have two senators and one senate candidate from our one party state all trying to insert politics into college football (and all three claim to be conservatives – go figure) it seems appropriate to use a football analogy to describe the dangers of having one-party domination within the state or the nation.[quote]

Think of the worst NCAA Division 1A (FBS) football team in the country. Now imagine that team playing the best team in the NFL. It should be a no-brainer to figure out which team will win the game (or every game if they were to play multiple times). Now imagine that we make one minor rule change – the NFL team can only play defense – the only way they can score is a safety or an interception returned for a touchdown. Anytime they get the ball and don’t score they would be required to let the NCAA team play offense and keep trying to score. In that scenario it would be very rare for the NFL team to win the game.

The point that this should illustrate is that with such a rule change the football games would never give any indication about which was the better team or even how good each team was. So long as those rules were applied between teams more fairly matched than a middle school team vs professional athletes the outcome would be almost completely determined by which team was allowed to play offense.

[quote1]Living in a one-party state has the same effect on our political system. So long as one party has no opportunity to play offense the outcome of every political scrimmage is practically predetermined. Sadly the Democratic party in Utah seems resigned to a permanent minority status where all they can do is play defense and hope for some spectacular interceptions. (I don’t mean to imply that there are no democrats trying to play offense, but the party as a whole seems to have accepted the idea that they can’t win.) The result is that the values espoused by the Republican party as well as the values espoused by the Democratic party are never really explored or tested in our political arena. People who would otherwise be Democrats participate in the Republican party in order to influence the politics of the state and moderate members of the Republican party can be ignored by party insiders as they pander to more vocal and extreme elements of the party which are not representative of the core values of the party as a whole.

This sounds like a recipie for political decay.

Tags football, parties, sports, thoughts, Utah