Month: April 2008

Have Your Say

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

At the blogger briefing this morning with Mark Shurtleff I was reminded of why I believe that every public official ought to have a blog of some sort. Mark started by talking about how important he things that transparency in government is and how he has used his time in office to try to make more information available to citizens and help citizens work with their government – specifically with law enforcement (he is the AG after all).

Later, the discussion began to focus on blogs and media and I realized that running a blog as an elected official amounts to a certain degree of personal transparency. It indicates a willingness to put yourself out there on record where others can challenge you through comments and other responses. It also provides original source information about your positions where you can explain yourself without a media filter. This can prove very beneficial to any honest public official because anyone who is taking the time to look will be able to see how well you do at sticking to principles or how thoughtful you are in correcting a mistaken opinion as you gain more information.

For those who would say anything to get elected, that inconsistency would become apparent quickly when they blatantly ignore the positions they espoused on the campaign trail or else offer up lame excuses for changing their positions.

Of course blogging politicians will not solve all our problems, and those who do blog are not all perfect, but that willingness to leave a lasting trail and be held accountable is definitely suggestive of a good candidate and a good public servant.

Tags blogger briefing, candidates, media

General

Federalist No. 3

Federalist No. 3 continues the discussion as to why a unified national government would be better than thirteen sovereign states or any number of weaker confederacies of the states. Once again the logic is sound, but it exposes how we have strayed from the government envisioned by the founders.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us. (emphasis mine)

Is there any person in this nation today that would argue that our federal government is efficient in any sense?

Nations and individuals around the world who would fight against us are unlikely to fear a bloated national government that would take the time to bail out a financial investment firm like Bear Stearns when they have not managed to secure our own borders (and I’m not talking about immigration as an economic and social issue here, I’m talking smuggling as a national security issue).

A federal government as confused and confusing as ours has become does not invite the most capable to manage it – instead it invites those most comfortable with the vagaries of the bloated system regardless of their capability to lead and/or manage it.

Such a daunting system does not encourage a society of people who dare to risk and dream, rather it encourages people to seek any kind of personal security that another person is willing to offer them, making them reliant upon and susceptible to those who would take advantage of insecurity.

The federal government has grown large enough that the individual states are no longer cooperating within the federal government, but competing to influence it. It’s time that we worked to return to a more efficient government and remind our citizens that:

. . . a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised . . .

Tags documents, federalist

Local

Making Logical Rules

I’m sure that Leaders of the Utah County Republican Party hoped that their policy reversal would put this stupid move on delegate email distribution behind them. They have done the right thing now and released the delegate email lists to all Republican candidates but their excuse for the original action lies somewhere between lame and pathetic.

Monnahan had promised delegates she would keep their e-mail addresses private. At the caucus meetings, leaders declared the e-mail lists would be used only for internal party business.

That was a new policy. The party had provided delegate e-mail addresses to candidates in the past. Two longtime legislative district chairmen forgot the new rule when they got the delegate e-mail lists and handed them over to the Republican candidates in their district.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept it as lame, but the cynic in me still holds out the possibility that it was a pathetic excuse for an underhanded attempt to swamp the challengers in the Republican primary.

Next time they want to try to save the delegates from unwanted solicitations they should write a policy that goes something like this:

If you are a delegate to the county convention your email address will only be given to candidates you will be choosing among at the county convention, and it will not be passed to the state party by us. If you are elected as a state delegate we will pass your email address to the state party, but not to the RNC.
We trust our candidates not to engage in shady practices against faithful party members whose votes they are trying to win, and we trust our delegates to be smart enough to recognize when a candidate is not fit to represent our party.

Tags parties, primaries

General

Federalist No. 2

Federalist No. 2 has been a really interesting read, and I look forward to Nos. 3-5 which continue discussion of this issue of union vs separation. One of the things I find so fascinating is that I agree with the argument, that union is preferable to a looser confederation of the states such as regionalism, some of the premises are not as true in our nation today as they were in the 1780’s

. . . notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . .

Rather than a people that are united in the ways described above, more and more of our nation descends from ancestors that were not common to the Americans of the 18th century, there is a growing schizm in our language as immigrants – especially latino immigrants – cling to their native tongue rather than join in the conformance to a common language, while the majority of our citizens profess some Christian belief system that majority continues to shrink and we have expanding proportions of many belief systems even outside the Abrahamic traditions that are dominant in nearly all the world.

The lack of unity in these things is not nearly as worrisome as the recitation of what naturally happened after the First Continental Congress convened and made recommendations to the various states:

. . .the memorable Congress of 1774 . . . recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress.

This degradation of officers of government from being servants of the people to beginning to serve their own interests was noticed within a few years. How ready are we for a cleansing when there has been over two centuries for such attitudes and actions to become ingrained in the psyche of our officers of government.

Before our nation was founded, the American people were confronted with politicians advocating division:

. . . politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous (that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united), and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.

Today we have no such politicians professing that division is preferable to unity, but we have two very powerful parties that encourage us to take sides in a war against our fellow Americans. They have in common the trait of offering an us-against-them mentality to all who would enter their respective parties.

Is unity preferable to division among the people? Yes, but it need not be a union of universally held beliefs and perspectives. What we really need is a union of universally applied civility and a common striving for the good of the nation and the defense of the constitution upon which our nation is based rather than slipping to the baser instinct to pursue personal gain in the public arena and victory at all costs through the politics of division.

Tags documents, federalist, parties

General

Defining “Rights”

I liked this very succinct argument about why health care is not a right.

With one exception, the right to representation in court and a trial by jury, {the rights safeguarded in our Constitution} require nothing of any other citizen but that they recognize your rights and not interfere with them.

Your “right to health care” would require some other person to give up a portion of their life or their property to either treat you or to provide you with drugs or medical implements. The Constitution does not provide for another individual to be indentured to you in this manner.

Therefore, you have no “right” to health care.

What I really like is that this argument provides a plausible framework for distinguishing between fundamental rights and the manufactured “rights” that make for such good campaign promises. Does anyone else have any perspective on this argument (in general or specific to health care)?

Tags Constitution, health care, rights

General

Federalist No. 1

Starting on my goal to read the federalist papers and glean a greater understanding of the logic of the founders, today I tackled Federalist No. 1 – the introduction. I like the way that the topic is opened with the admission that noble intent may lead to the wrong side of a great question just as base intent may lead to the right side of the same question and we must therefore look to the truth, and not merely the intent of those who make the argument.

I also enjoyed the predictions of how the public discussion would play out – it sounded very familiar:

. . . we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

I also really liked that despite the goal to lead people to the truth so that they could make up their own mind the bias of the author is freely given:

Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it (the constitution). I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. (emphasis added)

It seems to me a mark of a strong character (and probably a strong position as well) that an author would openly admit their bias on the subject of their writing so that it can be openly challenged. It reminds me of one of my favorite quips if someone says I’m biased about my wife being pretty or my children being smart:

Just because I’m biased does not mean I’m wrong.

Tags documents, federalist, ideal

National

The “Ohio” Plan

With many people arguing that the primary election system needs to change there have been a variety of suggestions made. The “Ohio” plan, being considered by the Republican Party, is that first one officially being considered by either of the major parties (first so far as I am aware). The plan incorporates some of the basic ideas of the Rotating Regionals idea that was being promoted by the National Association of Secretaries of State. Essentially the plan would preserve the first 4 states position in the front of the calendar (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina). Then, at three week intervals there would be a group of small states (total of 50 electoral votes between them) and then three vaguely regional clusters of states would rotate in the next three primary dates. The three “regional” groups are

- Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah, and Washington
- Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
- Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
- Leaving the small states group as -Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and non states like D.C. and Guam

The process would take 3 months.

Now I am looking for answers to two questions:

Is this a good way to organize the primary process (should the Democratic Party consider a similar approach when they finally conclude their primary this year)?
Is it better to proceed with this plan that seems politically feasible rather than continue the search for a more perfect approach?

Tags primaries

State

Rigging Universal Health Coverage

Post author By David
Post date April 2, 2008
5 Comments on Rigging Universal Health Coverage

Devising a system of universal health coverage in Utah is a high priority for our governor (I’d say it’s second to expanding our state economy). As usual, Scott is pointing out the glaring flaws in the approach the governor is taking.

I find it more than a little disconcerting that a task force made up of people who make their money on health care are being put in charge of coming up with ideas. It should not be surprising that such a group would encourage a mandate on individuals. If we should have a mandate at all, shouldn’t it be a mandate on those who make their money on health care, perhaps a mandate that insurance companies must offer a broad array of plans, or that health care providers publish their prices (these are very preliminary ideas, just suggesting that a mandate on individuals is misguided).

I also think that the task force should include some people who are not already insured – at the very least they should spend a lot of time talking to people (insured and uninsured) to find out what kind of plans would attract more people to purchase insurance. That should be the basis of any policy decisions and, if necessary, mandates for the insurance companies.

In my experience, one of the reasons that doctors and clinics don’t want to publish their prices, is that they charge different prices depending on your insurance. They accept that when they want to charge someone $100 for a visit the insurance company will return the bill saying that they will only allow them to charge $88 for that visit and that they will pay $73 of that (leaving a $15 copay).

It seems to me that the pricing system is upside-down. Doctors should publish their prices and insurance companies that will accept that doctor will agree to pay that published price (of course allowing for the copay structure). Doctors who charge higher prices would not be accepted by as many insurance companies and insurance companies who would not pay enough to cover the costs to doctors would not be able to offer access to as many doctors. People without insurance would also be able to make informed choices on the services they use. If my experience is any guide, the option of health savings accounts combined with a high deductible policy (sometimes called catastrophic coverage) would look much more desirable to more people.

Tags health care

Local meta State

Party Shenanigans

I would think that people who are politically involved enough to be elected as delegates and precinct chairs for the Republican party would want to be contacted by candidates so that they could choose who they would support. That is at odds with the assertion that the Utah County Republican Party promised not to give the emails of their delegates to the candidates. The water becomes extra murkey in light of the fact that there is evidence that some candidates do appear to have those email addresses. Kip Meacham has links about this as it develops plus his own experience as a precinct chair. The story is also being followed at Out of Context. This is definitely a case where people need to keep the issue in the public eye and put pressure on the party to not interfere with a fair political process – if some candidates have the email addresses then they should be released to all Republican candidates.

If delegates do not want to hear from candidates then they should not accept the position of being delegates – but I don’t think that’s what is happening here. If candidates want to try spamming the delegates to win the primary then I think the delegates are smart enough to vote against those candidates at the convention – but I don’t think that’s what’s really happening here either. Maybe it’s my own personal bias here, but this seems like exactly the type of thing I would expect from a party that has no significant opposition (meaning another solid party to counter them) which has grown accustomed to simply dictating who will come before the citizens on the ballot for their perfunctory approval.

I sure hope to see the Utah County Democrats grow to the point that they can regularly get their candidates elected – forcing the county Republican party to stop talking and start listening. We also need to see more active Republicans like Kip who will stand up to their party and say publicly that this is unacceptable.

Tags connections, parties, Utah County