Tag: 2010

Strong National Defense for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 15, 2010
2 Comments on Strong National Defense for the American Dream

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

Regarding strong national defense in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz reminds us:

The men and women serving in our armed forces are the best in the world. They can accomplish anything they are asked to do, if they are given the proper resources and clear rules of engagement.

He believes that we should be working towards:

Imagine the best equipped strategic strike forces rapidly deployed at a moment's notice to respond to the national security interests of the United States of America. Also, imagine a well compensated military that cares for the military families, now, in the future, and especially when wounded.

He thinks this will take us there:

Dedicate at least 4% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for national defense spending.

Secure our borders, enforce our current immigration laws, and reject amnesty for those who are here illegally.

Adopt a “Go Big or Go Home” approach to our overseas military presence. We must have the best foreign intelligence, human and electronic.

Support an “all of the above” national energy policy that advocates rapid development of renewable energy, clean/green energy, and the use of our various natural resources and nuclear capabilities. Recognize that energy independence is vital to our national security.

Keep Guantanamo Bay open and continue with military tribunals.

Sustain the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Support Veterans by honoring all commitments made to them.

My reactions:

Having a flat rate dedicated to defense might be better than our current what-can-we-get-away-with approach. Whether 4% is the right rate is up for debate.
We need to secure our borders, but that will probably require a long discussion about what we believe about immigration and then a complete overhaul of our immigration laws. Then we would need to strictly enforce those immigration laws once they are in line with our immigration beliefs.
“Go Big or Go Home” might help us be more careful about when and where we “go.”
“All of the above” is definitely the right energy policy.
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open is not helping our national security in any measurable way.
We should sustain basic rights – obviously including the Second Amendment.
We should honor all our commitments and our veterans have done the most to warrant making those commitments to them than any other group – certainly they have done more than most of our members of Congress.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, Jason Chaffetz, military

National

Accountability for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 15, 2010
4 Comments on Accountability for the American Dream

As far as Accountability in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz lists our sitation as:

Americans have lost confidence in their elected leaders and the direction of the country as a whole. We are being governed by a “nanny state” mentality that is blanketing the country with the misconception that the government can and should solve all problems.

He envisions the goal as:

Imagine an atmosphere of personal responsibility where individuals took control of their future and worked hard to improve their lives. Restoration of confidence in the government is possible through true openness and transparency in all facets of government operations.

To achieve that goal he proposes:

Fire the Czars and adhere to the procedures under the Constitution requiring Senate confirmation for such leadership positions.

Apply all laws equally to Congress.

Require Committees to post all proceedings on the Internet within 24 hours. Allow 72 hours for Bills and Conference Reports to be publicly online prior to a vote on the House Floor.

Prohibit Members of Congress serving on Appropriations and Ways & Means from seeking earmarks.

Require that 100% of all campaign donations be filed with the Federal Election Commission for public review.

Attack the rampant waste, fraud, and abuses in Medicare and Medicaid.

Deny the passage of “card check” and participate in labor law reform.

Ensure that E-Verify is fully deployed and mandatory for hiring an employee.

My thoughts on his steps toward the goal:

Sounds more like a sound bite than an real effective step in the right direction.
What does this mean?
This couldn’t hurt.
This would make those committee assignments much less desirable but if the rest of our Representatives can still seek earmarks little will have been accomplished.
I like it.
Vague.
Vague.
I’m not sure that E-Verify is all that it is cracked up to be. I fear that it will be more expense than value.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, government, Jason Chaffetz

National

Limited Government for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 14, 2010
1 Comment on Limited Government for the American Dream

On Limited Government in his Contract for the American Dream Congressman Chaffetz lists our situation as:

The government is omnipresent in our lives, restricting our basic liberties. The proper role of government is a strictly limited one. We recognize that the States created the federal government. The federal government did not create the States. Further, it is not the government that will create jobs, wealth, or propel the United States of America to reach its fullest potential. It is the American people who will drive America forward.

He suggests that our goal should be:

Imagine a federal government that recognized it could not solve every problem. Imagine a government focused instead on the most important federal roles, such as national defense. Individuals should have the freedom to succeed or fail in this country. It is not the government’s role to stand in the way of either outcome or to choose winners and losers.

To achieve this goal he recommends:

Repeal TARP and commit to no more “stimulus” bills that are merely a ruse to grow government.

Appoint a bi-partisan “Sunset Commission” to identify at least 100 federal departments or programs recommended for elimination by December 31, 2011.

Reduce the corporate income tax to a flat 10%. This will eliminate the wide array of corporate loopholes, incentivize business in the U.S.A., and simplify the tax code.

Reject the “Cap & Trade” scheme and repeal all EPA funding related to carbon policy.

Sell back to private ownership the three million acres of federal land identified under the Clinton Administration as having no federal purpose.

My thoughts on those steps is as follows:

No more stimulus is a great idea.
A bipartisan commission would only identify 100 departments by having half the commission identify at least 49 departments or programs and then trade those with the 49 other “crucial” departments or programs identified by the other half of the commission as recommended for elimination. Added to the two departments or programs that the majority could honestly agree on they would scrape together the recommended 100 – none of which will actually get eliminated. Mmmm, sausage.
As I said before, a flat tax rate without loopholes allows the private portion of the economy to act with more confidence.
All of our government “green” legislation and policies are more political than scientific. It’s too bad that our government can’t stick to facts and let opinions sort themselves out instead of the other way around.
The government should sell off any federal land that has no federal purpose.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, government, Jason Chaffetz

National

Fiscal Discipline for the American Dream

Post author By David
Post date January 14, 2010
4 Comments on Fiscal Discipline for the American Dream

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) has proposed a Congressional Action Plan (CAP) called the Contract for the American Dream which he is inviting members of Congress and candidates for Congress to sign. While I agree with his CAP generally I thought I would take the time to break out the four sections of the plan and evaluating what I agree or disagree with more specifically. This post focuses on Fiscal Discipline. Later posts will focus on Limited Government, Accountability, and Strong National Defense.

Congressman Chaffetz describes our current fiscal discipline situation as:

Our national debt exceeds $12 trillion, with our annual deficit in excess of $1.4 trillion. Federal spending as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is roughly 25%, when historically it has been roughly 19-20%. We pay approximately $600 million per day in interest payments. In short, the current government spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much of the people's money. It is unacceptable and unsustainable. No longer can we run this government on a credit card. We are not going to borrow and spend our way out of these challenges.

He suggests a goal to work for as:

Imagine a federal government that treats the national treasure with respect and responsibility by living within its means-where every American pays a fair share.

Here are the steps he proposes to achieve that goal:

Reduce total federal payroll and workforce by 10%, except for military. This action will force all federal departments to identify and eliminate waste.

Support a balanced budget amendment.

Require 2/3 majority vote for any tax increase.

Cut non-defense discretionary spending by inflation minus 3% across the board.

Impose a moratorium on all appropriations earmarks until the process is reformed legislatively. Work to maximize openness and transparency with filters, to ensure only expenditures with a federal nexus, and prohibit allocations to for-profit companies.

Reduce the capital gains rate to 10%. This will lead to increased receipts to the federal treasury and will also increase investment in the USA.

Engage in entitlement reform.

Here are my thoughts in a point-by-point format:

The idea to reduce government spending and bureaucracy is right but he seems to be using a very blunt instrument to perform this surgical operation.
Sounds good to me but show me the proposed amendment.
I’m not sure what drawbacks this might have.
Why 3%? (Plus, show me the math so that I’m clear on the meaning here.)
Sounds like politician-speak for “earmarks are bad but we can’t really get rid of them – let me show you that I want to fix the system.”
I favor flat tax rates without loopholes – that provides predictability so that people know what to expect on tax day. That certainty allows businesses to more confidently make decisions.
Vague but promising.

Tags 2010, campaign promises, Jason Chaffetz, money

life Local

Mike Lee and the Constitution

Post author By David
Post date January 13, 2010
17 Comments on Mike Lee and the Constitution

I have been having a hard time getting the time to read and write here as much as I would like. Things are very busy at work, a bit crazy at home, and I am spending more time with offline political activities in preparation for the upcoming legislative session and this election cycle. The result is that I need to readjust my expectations here. I’ll try to put short posts up with some regularity, but not likely as much as has previously been the case. Hopefully this is only temporary.

Because of the recent discussion here about Mike Lee’s stance on the Constitution and his call for a couple of amendments I thought it would be appropriate to share Mike’s post – Why I Focus on the Constitution. I figure it’s always best to let people speak for themselves so here is what I see as the heart of what he wrote:

We must analyze the country’s current challenges and Congress’s proposed solutions through the lens of the Constitution. With such a view, we can accurately determine if the proposed solution incorporates and supports the proper role of government. We must also hold our elected officials accountable to the solemn oaths they have taken to support and defend this document. . . With truly committed constitutional leaders at the helm, we can shift away from a perpetually growing government and the corresponding loss of personal liberty, and instead preserve our freedoms and enjoy the prosperity our great nation affords.

I recommend that anyone who wants to understand Mike and his position in more detail should go read his whole post before trying to engage me in the topic because I don’t claim to know any more about Mike’s position than what he wrote.

Tags 2010, campaigns, civic participation, connections, Mike Lee

State

Bob Lonsberry Contradicts Himself on Term Limits

Post author By David
Post date January 8, 2010
8 Comments on Bob Lonsberry Contradicts Himself on Term Limits

It’s not really fair to expect everyone to have an up or down opinion on a candidate within a week of their campaign being announced. For that reason there should be nothing surprising about the fact that Bob Lonsberry is not sold on Mike Lee (yet). As he aired his minor reservations with our latest 2010 Senate candidate he got talking about term limits – because Mike Lee thinks we should have a term limits amendment (perhaps like this one) – and Bob’s position completely failed to add up. At first I was planning to just comment on Bob’s site, but I felt that this deserved a full post.

There is a disconnect between Bob’s position on term limits and what he says later in his article. Here’s what he thinks of term limits:

Yes, people serve way too long in Congress. Yes, we have a professional political class right now. But the insinuation that the era of the Founders was much different doesn’t stand up to the test of history. Several of the Founders themselves held elected office for years on end. Some for the majority of their lives, and our Republic was benefited by their service.

And any person with Mike Lee’s knowledge of the Constitution must understand that an amendment mandating term limits would go against both the letter and the spirit of what the Founders wanted. Term limits don’t limit the freedom of politicians, they limit the freedom of the voters. We don’t need term limits, we have elections. And if Mike Lee, or someone else, can pose a viable alternative to Bob Bennett, and convince voters of that fact, the Constitution’s existing system for replacing politicians will work perfectly.

Later he makes this statement which exposes the weakness of his position:

I’m also bothered by Mike Lee’s age. Not that a 38-year-old can’t serve well in the Senate, but that he’s got so much life left. True, he is saying that people shouldn’t make a career of Washington, but so too did the two current Utah senators, both of whom have since made a career of Washington. Everybody running against incumbents is against long tenure in office. And everybody running for re-election believes in experience and seniority.

My concern is that at 38, Utah could be biting off something it will take 30 or 40 years to chew. I’m nervous about that.

The one selling point for 76-year-old Bob Bennett is that, at his age, he’s got a built-in term limit. He’s also, as they say, the devil you know. (emphasis added)

In case you missed the disconnect, Bob says that the founders already established a way to limit terms through regular elections and then worries that we might be stuck with Mike Lee for 40 years because he’s relatively young.

Here’s the half-truth that opens up the heart of the problem:

Term limits don’t limit the freedom of politicians, they limit the freedom of the voters. We don’t need term limits, we have elections.

It’s true that term limits limit the freedom of voters by eliminating the option to elect a president they like to a third term (to use our existing term limit as an example) – that’s the only freedom of the voters that is being limited. The problem is that the freedom of voters is already severely limited by our lack of term limits because of our political environment where potential candidates often choose not to challenge an incumbent, especially within their own party. For proof of that just look at how many more candidates tend to run for open seats. With term limits we would lose the option to vote for an incumbent after a set time, but we would gain so many candidates who currently choose not to run against an incumbent.

Bob claims that the founders did not want term limits and he’s probably right (although I doubt they ever addressed the issue to prove that conclusively) but they didn’t want parties either (they did make that clear) and we have parties anyway. The party system without term limits makes the regular election cycle a very weak way to limit terms – especially in a place where one party is dominant. Bob says that if someone can pose a viable alternative to an incumbent and convince voters of that fact then the system works perfectly. The question is, how can that happen when the potential candidates remove themselves from consideration because of the system that tilts heavily in favor of incumbents? And what makes a viable candidate? If a viable candidate is one that has the capacity and interest necessary to tackle the issues and do the job of a senator then I am a viable candidate. If a viable candidate is one that voters are likely to believe in that I am nowhere near viable. The first one should be the criteria, and if it were we would have lots of viable candidates for any office.

In a nation that probably has 80 out of 100 senate seats safely in the hands of one party or another and only about 20 seats that actually have a reasonable chance of changing hands from one election to the next the method of limiting terms that the Founders established is virtually impotent. The era of the founders may not have been much different than our era but it was different in some important ways. In this environment the Founders might find term limits to be a very reasonable method to ensure that the voters had the maximum amount of choice in candidates.

Tags 2010, candidates, connections, media, Mike Lee, senate, term limits

Local

New Year’s Resolution

My New Year’s resolution for this election year is to be elected as a GOP state delegate in my neighborhood caucus meeting in March. It’s amazing to think that it’s only a few weeks away now. I can’t wait to see what all the candidates will have to send me as they try to win my vote at the state convention. I’ll happily try to be selected as a county GOP delegate as well, but if I had to choose one I would prefer to be a state delegate.

Tags 2010, caucuses, civic participation

culture National

Missing the Boat

In a comment over at KVNU’s For The People blog Craig concluded that if I was right in my position about health care it would mean that basically everyone had been missing the boat on this issue. My response to Craig was that I honestly believe that this current reform debate is missing the boat on what reforms we need.

Meanwhile, over at Fire Dog Lake (again) I find another insightful post from a staunch liberal, this time it’s from Jane Hamsher (yesterday it was Jon Walker) who is talking about what she calls the left/right populist wrap around.

There is an enormous, rising tide of populism that crosses party lines in objection to the Senate bill. We opposed the bank bailouts, the AIG bonuses, the lack of transparency about the Federal Reserve, “bailout” Ben Bernanke, and the way the Democrats have used their power to sell the country’s resources to secure their own personal advantage, just as the libertarians have. In fact, we’ve worked together with them to oppose these things. What we agree on: both parties are working against the interests of the public, the only difference is in the messaging. (emphasis added)

This is another example of the media missing the boat. They play everything as Left vs Right. They promote the notion that anything which angers both the radical right and the radical left must be pretty good policy – that’s their definition of centrist. In contrast, Ms. Hamsher pits the left/right populist wrap around against the beltway insiders – or as some of my commenters have called them, the corporatists.

Being able to unite the left wing and the right wing in opposition to a policy does not make that a good policy. After all, the German Fascists were able to unite the American Capitalists and the Soviet Communists in opposition against them, but you won’t here anyone (except neo-nazis) arguing that the German Fascists were good because of that.

We’ve had a perfect example of that here recently. I consider myself to be more conservative than the “conservatives” in Congress. Charles considers himself to be more liberal than the “liberals” in Congress. We disagree on many issues, but we’d both like to see a government that represented the people of the United States. I don’t see how it can be argued that Congress is getting it right when I want to see my Republican senator defeated and have him replaced with a real Conservative and Charles want to see his Democratic senator defeated and have her replaced with a real Liberal. (Excuse me for putting words into your mouth Charles.)

There is a disconnect between the roots of representative government and the tree of elected officers. Anyone who thinks that is a positive sign or healthy in any way is definitely missing the boat.

P.S. Having two hits in two days means I will now be following Fire Dog Lake rather than waiting for others to point out their latest articles.

Tags 2010, connections, discourse, power, thoughts

State technology

Constituent Communication Can Innoculate Against Insiderism

Post author By David
Post date November 6, 2009
4 Comments on Constituent Communication Can Innoculate Against Insiderism

When I wrote about a legislator’s role as an information analyst the comments initially centered on Sen. Bob Bennett because of a quote I had used despite my desire to not single anyone out. Later in the comments on that post I made this statement that deserves to be elevated to its own post here:

In my opinion, the best defense against staying too long and becoming part of the problem is to maintain communication with constituents that is open enough for the constituents to indicate when the officeholder is compromising too much (or not enough in some rare cases) and the integrity to step aside when the officeholder finds that they consistently cannot act in accordance with the feedback they are receiving from constituents in good conscience.

Now that Senator Bennett has demonstrated a refusal to maintain open communication with constituents I am singling him out and exposing his refusal to communicate openly.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, civic participation, connections, discourse, Orrin Hatch, reactions, senate, twitter

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