Month: November 2009

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.

Tags Bob Bennett, Harry Reid, health care, issues, legislation, Orrin Hatch, reactions, senate

General

Of Big Tents and Purity

It’s a busy holiday time so I’ll spend more time quoting and less time expounding. Back in May, Jim DeMint expressed the very opinion I still hold about How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party by holding to one key principle:

There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?

. . . Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.

The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.

Despite notable successes at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., it seems to me that Republicans in Congress and in the Bush administration forgot a simple truth. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither.

No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom.

(emphasis mine)

We’ve been discussing the ideas of purity, conservatism, inclusiveness, and intra-party division a lot in the last few months. I believe, along with many of you, that holding to principle and being inclusive are not mutually exclusive goals. There must be strong poles to hold the tent up, or to put it another way, there must be something in the tent that makes people want to enter. I agree with Senator DeMint that freedom would be a very enticing offering – but we have to find a way to articulate the vision of freedom and not allow the message to by framed in negative terms by those who disagree with our vision.

Tags ideals, Jim DeMint, parties, reactions, Republican, Wall Street Journal

Thanks for Great Comments

Post author By David
Post date November 25, 2009
No Comments on Thanks for Great Comments

One of my favorite parts of blogging is getting comments and discussion. I really like the tone of discussion that we have here, and sometimes I get comments that really make an impression on me. I finally decided to find a way to show those “best of the best” comments so that people who may have missed a particular conversation can see the great contributions made by others to our various discussions.

I’m using a plugin called Best-Of Comments to display those comments I select in the sidebar with a link back to the original comment. Feel free if you see a great comment to go add to the discussion, even if it seems to have ended.

Think of it as a way for me to say “thanks” for everything that all of you add to this site.

Tags comments, plugin, site

National

A Short-Term Vision of “Purity”

Post author By David
Post date November 24, 2009
8 Comments on A Short-Term Vision of “Purity”

photo credit: David Reeves

It’s never safe to focus so much on the present that we lose sight of the future. This seems to be what is happening with the push by some to codify a purity test within the GOP. If you have not heard about this I would sum it up like so – there is a resolution before the Republican National Committee which would prevent them from giving financial backing to a candidate that did not support at least 7 of the following ten principles:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I am amazed that the people backing this proposal do not see how short-sighted this effort is. I believe that their efforts are sincere, but sorely misguided, as they seek to define the GOP in a way that is more concrete than “not the democrats.”

Without going into specifics I am basically in favor of principles such as those outlined above, and the fact that the resolution only requires 70% support for those principles to receive party support is proof that they are not trying to weed all but the staunchest conservatives from the party (especially since they do not specify any subset of the principles which demands 100% conformity).

The shortsightedness is evident in the specific references such as “Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill,”, “Obama-style government run health care, ” and “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan” (or maybe they are just admitting that this is a perpetual project).

I believe that there is value in talking about what defined ideological purity within the party – we certainly need to have some idea about who we are in order to be able to identify what the party has to offer voters but this particular proposal is significantly too blunt an instrument to benefit the party. Without any extended study of exactly the best way forward for the party I have a few suggestions, based on the existing proposal, for an approach that would be more likely to make things better rather than worse.

Tags Elevated, parties, Republican

General

Stretching Our TARP

photo credit: wolfheadfilms

When the TARP bill was first being discussed I made a statement that I would like to repeat about the TARP money:

[T]his should not be used as a windfall by Congress to fund some pet projects.

We have come to the point now where Congress is faced with the question of whether to extend the program past the initial time of authorization. From the earliest versions of the bill (not including the 3 page version written by Sec. Paulson) to the final version the program was authorized only until 2009 with the option for Congress to extend it as far as two years from the day it was enacted (October 10, 2010 being that two year mark). Faced with the reality of this first deadline there are people who are absolutely opposed to those members of Congress who have indicated a desire to not extend the program.

I stand by my response to what I called “my favorite section” of that first version of the bill:

Of course I won’t hold my breath that it will die in two years or less.

Indeed, Sec. Geithner testified before Congress yesterday that:

he would not support a permanent extension of the program, but . . .

(emphasis added)

Tags bailout, Bob Bennett, Elevated, money

State

Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

Post author By David
Post date November 19, 2009
No Comments on Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

I agree with the sentiment in this Deseret News article that the environmental impacts of proposed Utah Lake bridge should be discussed.

{Sam} Rushforth has been studying at {Utah Lake} for 35 years and said there needs to be an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conducted while the bridge over the lake is being considered.

Those who have read here long enough know that I am in favor of building a bridge over the lake and even if I weren’t I think it is inevitable in the long run. The argument that a bridge over the lake will bring more growth to Utah county is laughable – the growth is coming either way. One comment on the article says that a bridge is not necessary with the arrival of the new roads under construction through Lehi on the north end of the lake. Having lived in Lehi and worked on Main Street there I am absolutely convinced that no matter how much road they build there it will be congested very quickly with the ever increasing demand of the growing populations in the area – a bridge will make a significant impact on commute time.

Having said all of that, my support of building a bridge does not interfere with my belief that doing an EIS is absolutely imperative in order to do it right. I would consider such a study to be the very least in the way of due diligence on the part of those who want to build a bridge.

Since I no longer live in Utah County, I no longer have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate like I once did. I consider myself to be a relatively informed and now more objective observer and long term I am certain that the bridge, if it is done right, will be a benefit to Utah County residents and possibly to the lake itself. I urge all those who are actively discussing this issue to not rush their decisions – simply throwing up some steel girders and a wide slab of concrete would be a travesty but doing nothing or putting off bridge planning until it becomes truly critical would be foolhardy.

Start now.Take your time. Do it right.

Tags Deseret News, issues, thoughts, Utah County, Utah Lake

General

Phony Federalism

photo credit: estherase

Gene Healy wrote about what he called Obama’s phony federalism but what he was really talking about was a relatively universal perspective on federalism:

Not yet a year into his administration, Obama’s record on 10th Amendment issues is already clear: He’ll let the states have their way when their policies please blue team sensibilities and he’ll call in the feds when they don’t. Thus, he’ll grant California a waiver to allow it to raise auto emissions standards, but he’ll bring the hammer down when the state tries to cut payments to unionized health care workers.

. . .

Just a few years back, the Republicans — nominally the party of federalism — were busily wielding federal power to enforce red state values . . . In that odd political climate, you often heard liberals lamenting the decline of states’ rights.

That strange new respect for the 10th Amendment lasted roughly as long as the blue team’s exile from power.

Federalism then, as understood by both major political parties is simply a tool to bash your opponents into conformity and then deflect their power from affecting you when you are on the defensive.

Tags connections, Elevated, federalism, liberty, parties

General

Legislator as Advocate

Many times during campaigns for legislative offices voters and candidates alike portray officeholders as leaders. I think this is a mistake. A more accurate portrayal would be of officeholders as advocates. Their job is one where they speak out for positions and principles, but it is not possible for a legislature to be made up entirely of leaders. Obviously some legislators will be leaders, those who are able to rally other legislators to support the ideas and positions they are advocating but all legislators should be advocates while only some of them will be leaders – that is one of the primary differences between the legislative and the executive branch.

Voters may prefer that their legislator be a leader, but they must insist that their legislator be an advocate. If they choose a leader who cannot be an advocate they will be frustrated and disappointed. If they choose someone who is an effective advocate for them and their positions they will be satisfied. If they are able to have a legislator who is effective both as an advocate and as a leader then they should feel very fortunate.

Tags discourse, ideal, leadership, legislature

General

Legislator as Negotiator

Politics is the art of the possible.

So said Otto Von Bismarck in 1867 and he was surely right. One of the challenges for an idealist is that compromise is a necessary and appropriate component of the political process. It happens within parties and it happens within legislative bodies. In both cases compromise is necessary because all decisions in those settings affect a number of people who are in a variety of life situations and hold varying goals for themselves and their communities and good decisions cannot be made without addressing the concerns and perspectives of those various parties. Some dislike this reality – and certainly some use it as an excuse to abandon all principle, but the ability to recognize when and how compromise is appropriate is an important skill for any good legislator.

Obviously the ability to analyze and communicate with colleagues and constituents is a critical prerequisite for a legislator to be an effective negotiator. The real challenge once the analysis and communication abilities are in place is knowing how to balance the ability to negotiate with the understanding of what values or positions are non-negotiable. A legislator should be a good negotiator, but they should not be a chameleon or even a contortionist.

Part of their negotiation must be that there is a core which is immutable – one that they have communicated to constituents. The constituents should be able to depend upon this core of principle to predict how their legislator will represent them and the legislator should be able to articulate how their actions during negotiations conform to those core principles. Once the core of principles has evaporated in the face of their legislative record constituents should be quick to replace their legislator – and a legislator should expect no less from their constituents.

Tags campaign promises, civic participation, communication, ideal, legislature

General

Frying a Red Herring

I wonder if our country would be in better shape if we spent more energy in a war on bad arguments rather than a war on terror (or poverty, or drugs, . . . or prosperity). Just a thought.

As an example, we see the often repeated argument by abortion advocates that it is hypocritical to claim to be pro-life and simultaneously support capital punishment. This is a very nice red herring for them because there is a lot of overlap between those who oppose abortion and those who support capital punishment. The problem is that holding those positions simultaneously does not amount to hypocrisy. For those who care, here is a long, well-written explanation of how the two are perfectly compatible. For those who are in a hurry or in the middle of a debate where this argument is trotted out, here’s my short proof.

The founders recognized life, liberty, and (private) property, as human rights to be protected. It’s not really necessary, but for the sake of clarity let’s view these as a hierarchy of primary individual rights – life being the most important of the three and property as the least important of these inalienable rights. “Inalienable” means that they are “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred .”

Now, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to property I would ask if property can ever be legitimately taken from our control? The answer is clearly “yes.” Taxes, fines, and restitution for wrongs committed by a person are all examples. If we cannot surrender or transfer our right to liberty, can liberty ever be legitimately taken from us? Once again, the answer is “yes.” Saunter on down to the nearest jail or prison and see that it has been taken from some. Note also that even in cases where a person is later proven innocent the state at times has a legitimate right to suspend liberty while determining the question of guilt. Finally, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to life, can life ever be legitimately forfeit based on our actions (according to the best evidence available at the time)? I will stop short of answering in the affirmative because I recognize a lack of complete consensus on the question but I submit that the affirmative answers on both preceding questions is ample evidence of what I set out to prove – that simultaneously being pro-life and supporting capital punishment is insufficient evidence to convict someone of the sin of hypocrisy.

Case closed – pass the fish.

Tags death penalty, issues, pro-life, rights