Categories
politics State

Scott Howell for US Senate


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

When I wrote a better to the editor in support of Dan Liljenquist during the GOP primary earlier this year one of the comments that was made in response to my letter was that once Hatch won the primary all the Liljenquist supporters who were so opposed to Hatch would turn around and support Hatch in the general election. I knew then that was not true – some of those supporting Liljenquist were supporting him because they could not support Hatch and follow their conscience at the same time.

Once Hatch won the primary I found myself needing to examine the democratic candidate for Senate to see if I could cast my vote for him. I have been learning what I could about Scott Howell over the last few months and while there were some things that I liked in what I saw I was not certain that I could cast my vote for him.

After looking, listening, and learning what I could I reached out to Scott to ask a few final questions to determine if I could cast my vote for him or whether I would be forced to vote “none of the above.” The goal of my questions was to try getting a picture of his political view independent of party affiliation. To that end, I found my answer in his response to my question of who he would support for Senate Majority Leader. The first words out of his mouth were, “Harry Reid has to go.”

In and of itself that line would not earn my vote (although I completely agree with it) but as we talked, I saw in Scott a man who understands that we need to change the leadership in our government to make the changes that our nation needs. To put it the way Mitt Romney would, we need to fire the management that got us into this mess.

In contrast, I have no doubt that if I asked that question of Orrin Hatch he would look at me as if I had asked if water was wet and then tell me that Mitch McConnell would be his choice for Senate Majority Leader – how could Hatch possibly argue that seniority is critical and argue for new leadership? Hatch has been busy telling Utah that it is our time to lead. That is just a reference to his claims that he will be the next chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Today Nate Silver puts the odds of the GOP retaking the Senate at 13% which means that Hatch has about a 7% chance of chairing the finance committee.

Mr. Howell’s recognition of the need for new leadership coupled with the virtual guaranteed that Senator Hatch will be unable to deliver on the centerpiece of his campaign made this choice easier than I expected it to be. Right now the best choice Utah has for US Senate is Scott Howell. I still think the best candidate we had for the position this year was Dan Liljenquist but we still have an option to upgrade from our current senator with someone who knows that its time for a change.

As for the future, the fact is that I trust the promise Scott made to me that he will serve no more than two terms more than I trust Orrin’s promise that this is absolutely positively his last term (unless he still has a pulse in 2018) and I think the odds of getting a good candidate other than Scott are better with an incumbent Democrat than with an incumbent Republican (that’s true even if Orrin does keep his promise not to run again).

Join me in voting for Scott Howell for Senate because it is Utah’s time to lead and the best way to lead is still to send someone new who has not been a longtime part of the problem.

Categories
politics State

Endorsing Dan Liljenquist


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
Dan Liljenquist for U.S. Senate
Photo from Dan Liljenquist

There is a general agreement that our government needs a course correction but there are a variety of visions about what changes need to be made and who is best suited to make those changes. Our senate race in Utah is a race between a vision of changing direction or keeping our current seniority and its attendant benefits. This is where we need to consider what is truly best for the country. The value of seniority is that it lends increased status and bargaining power to dole out favors to other lawmakers in exchange for votes on key legislation or to dole out favors to constituents regardless of whether those favors are a good idea for more than those getting the handout. This is precisely what is wrong with Washington. The compromise that comes with votes traded for favors is what brings us $16 Trillion of debt. This comes because of omnibus bills where favors have been traded so that these massive bills contain pet clauses either funding projects or carving out exceptions in revenue streams for favored groups. There is a better approach to compromise.

Rather than doling out favors and producing massive bills stuffed with perks that curry specific votes but are not generally desirable it is possible to compromise by removing provisions that do not garner sufficient support and producing smaller, more limited bills that accomplish less, cost much less, and only encompasses those aims which have been agreed upon by the legislators.

Dan Liljenquist is running for US Senate in Utah. He likes to say that “reality is not negotiable” and yet, while tackling some of the most challenging problems our state faced, he was able to secure almost unanimous (and in many cases completely unanimous) support for his important bills. Dan knows how to work with people and secure support on both sides of the aisle without doling out favors to other legislators.

I have had the opportunity as a constituent of Dan’s to sit in town hall meetings as Dan has patiently addressed the concerns of citizens related to the reforms he was proposing to save the state from fiscal ruin. I have seen Dan patiently address the concerns expressed about his reforms without talking down to people or resorting to demagoguery on the issues.

This stands in stark contrast to Orrin Hatch who has a penchant for trying to fund pet projects as well as talking down to people.

Dan is the man we need in Washington, D.C right now. We would be better off as a state and as a nation if we sent Orrin out to focus on his music career.

Categories
National politics State

Perspective on Palin Endorsing Hatch


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

I was a little surprised at the news that Sarah Palin had endorsed Orrin Hatch. It’s not that I had expected her to endorse Dan Liljenquist, just that I would not have expected her to see an entrenched, entitled incumbent as the type of person who could fix what’s wrong in Washington. As I thought about it however I realized that there were a few things that might show her endorsement to be a very hollow one to begin with. First and foremost being that she probably knows absolutely nothing about Dan Liljenquist. In other words her endorsement of “Mr. Balanced Budget” is probably as meaningful as Mitt Romney’s endorsement which came back before Senator Hatch even had a challenger. Here are a few key things to consider about this endorsement and what it shows about this race.

Palin endorsed Hatch because he asked for her endorsement (see here). I strongly suspect that Dan Liljenquist never did. What is really happening with this race is that the reality behind it is quite different than the way it is being painted. Hatch and the GOP establishment players are painting this and every other challenge to an incumbent as a tea-party extremist challenge to the status quo. I will not make any attempt to argue how true that is for the various races around the country but let me illustrate the differences between how this race is framed versus what is actually happening.

Categories
National politics State

We Need a New Generation in Washington


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

Investors Business Daily has a pro-Hatch propaganda piece up that deserves a few tweaks.

First, the headline says that republicans must gain control of Congress for the economy to recover. Do we really need to remind everyone that Republicans had almost uninterrupted control of Congress from 1995 to 2007. Had Republicans retained control of Congress beyond 2007 does anyone really believe the economy would not still have gone into the great recession?

Second, IBD claims that re-electing Orrin Hatch is crucial if Republicans regain control because “Orrin Hatch will be the first genuine free-market conservative to {become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee}.” Yes, the same Orrin Hatch who cosponsored PIPA until it was politically untenable and wanted to blow up the computers of anyone with pirated software while his own website was powered by an unlicensed copy of software is now “a genuine free-market conservative.” The author, Ernest Christian, claims that all the prior chairmen of the committee whom he had worked with were either liberals or moderates. I’ll take him at his word on that but his description of moderates as “too often … unwilling to make a clear-cut choice between the free-market principles of conservatives and the big-government desires of liberals” is perfectly descriptive of Hatch. The fact that Mr. Christian has been working with every SFC chair since 1970 shows what is really going on here – it’s one old political dog going to bat for another.

For those who want to see the economy truly recover there is only one answer – we need a new generation of conservatives in Washington and we need enough of them there to change the way the rest of the Republicans act in office. As soon as we say “new generation” you know that Orrin Hatch will never fit that bill – he’s as entrenched an incumbent as you’ll ever find.

Categories
General

Orrin Hatch’s Insurmountable Obstacle


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

photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Two years into his bid for re-election (yes, he has already been in obvious campaign mode for two years), in a recent tweet Orrin Hatch invited people to let him know if he was on the right track. My tweet length response was that he could not get on the right track unless he were to publicly admit to the errors in his past voting record. Upon further reflection I have a very non-tweet-length reply as I realized that, at least for me personally, that may not be enough.

Anyone who has been in office for 34 years will have votes in that time which should have been different. Anyone who has been alive for 34 years will have grown and changed within the last 34 years of their life. In other words, I would not expect a pristine record from anyone in Hatch’s position. I don’t consider seniority to be an insurmountable obstacle any more than I consider it sufficient reason to grant him another six years. To mitigate such a long tenure, I will only consider Hatch’s last two terms and pretend that his first 24 years in office were impeccable.

Categories
General

2074 Pages of Loopholes


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

With Thanksgiving weekend behind us all politically interested people can look forward to the Senate opening work on the healthcare bill. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

. . . senators {will} work on weekends if necessary to hammer out compromises on thorny issues like a government-run insurance plan, abortion coverage and holding down costs.

“The next few weeks will tell us a lot about whether senators are more committed to solving problems or creating them,” Reid said.

I make no pretense that I have abandoned my day job and any semblance of a life to read through the entire 2074 pages of H.R. 3590 but I have read through the entire 13 page index of the bill and looked up a number of sections that either looked interesting or concerning to me. Of course my first question is how will this affect my health insurance situation (that may give some insight into the 12 sections I reviewed). The real question in this debate is whether there will be anyone who takes the time in the coming weeks (according to the story linked above we may expect up to 3 weeks of debate) to read the entire bill and break down what it actually means for consumers and the nation – going beyond the party-line soundbites that we will no doubt be subjected to constantly through the media for as long as the debate lasts.

After reading through my chosen sections I found seven that were interesting enough for me to write about them. (For anyone who is curious, there are approximately 350 sections to the bill – 50 times what I am doing today.) I will review them in the order they appear in the bill.

Categories
State technology

Constituent Communication Can Innoculate Against Insiderism


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

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.

Categories
National State

Fundraising Tells Us a Story


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

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.

Categories
General National

Senator Ted Kennedy


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

After a constant barrage of news coverage and a few questions from my own acquaintances asking about my views on Ted Kennedy I thought it appropriate to pay this tribute to The Lion of the Senate.

Few men have likely done more to earn the title of “Senator” in the history of our nation. I say this with all sincerity despite the fact that my own political views are very different from those espoused by Ted Kennedy. Of course I did not know him personally, but based on all the stories that are told of his work in the Senate (and I have seen no cause to doubt any of the accounts) he was a rare example of a Senator who truly understood the nature of the work that elected officials in the senate are called upon to do. Comparing him to others who hold or aspire to hold seats in the Senate consistently results in the others looking like pretenders.

He was well known for his ability to hold fast to his principles while still knowing how to work with people who did not agree with those principles. Our own Senator Hatch is a prime example. Despite any personal weaknesses he was willing and able to stand firm against any opposition to a position he held on principle. I believe it is because of his unwavering devotion to principle that I discovered that when he disagreed with Senator Hatch (who is ideologically closer to me than Kennedy is) at least half the time it was Kennedy that I agreed with – it was when the two of them agreed that I was more likely to disagree.

Perhaps the highest tribute I could give would be to share my belief that, in a nation where more people identify themselves as conservative than as liberal it was the sustained effort of this one principled liberal in the senate for the last few decades that has ensured that out government has moved inexorably toward more liberal positions. I hope that I can one day see a conservative Senator who works as hard and holds to his principles as well as Ted Kennedy did for so long.

Categories
General

Securing Liberty


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
Statue of Liberty
photo credit: Brian Wilson Photography

I got a complaint on facebook over a statement I made that later amendments take legal precedence over earlier ones where both conflictingly address the same point of law. Here was the complaint:

I have a problem with the rationalization . . . that a later amendment takes precedence over an earlier one- That takes away all security in the freedoms that our constitution grants.

I don’t know how it is possible to fight common sense. If the city code states that housing density may not exceed 2 houses per acre and then a later city council passes an ordinance stating that housing density may not exceed 5 houses per acre it would be absurd to try stopping a developer who wanted to build a subdivision filled with 1/4 acre lots (at least it would be absurd to do so using the original density code to back up your complaint). The same principle holds true at every level of legal authority – including at the Constitutional level. The guarantees of freedoms in the Constitution are only binding from one time to the next if they are not challenged at that level of law. If the people of succeeding generations challenge and remove the liberties currently in the Constitution through new amendments there is no way today to prevent them from doing so.