Tag: 2008

State

Supporting Amendment D

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 the insertion of only 12 words Constitutional Amendment D would close a technicality which could be used by some enterprising politicians to wreak havoc on the necessary and often too-political process of redistricting. Now is a good time to do it too because, while redistricting is usually little more than adjusting existing district boundaries, our next redistricting will include the creation of a new district (barring some major surprises). Without this amendment, redistricting could be declared invalid if a special session became necessary on a different subject between the time of the census and the next general session. Also, it could be challenged in the event of the U.S. Census Bureau taking longer than expected to process the census results.

This amendment helps to protect the state from adding any more political maneuvering in this important and often partisan process.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Rejecting Amendment C

My position on Constitutional Amendment C is much like my position on Amendment A – it is unnecessary tinkering with the constitution. I don’t see any advantage to starting the session a week later than we do currently.

I don’t buy his argument that citizens would "more appropriately honor the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President George Washington, and President Abraham Lincoln" if the legislature were not in session on those two holidays.

I also expect that budget negotiations function just like any other project – they will fill every bit of time available no matter how much time we allow. Giving them an extra 8 days after the final tax revenue amounts are available will only mean that the Legislators will feel rushed in considering the budget adjustments for 22 days instead of feeling rushed about the final numbers for 14 days.

Finally, if the session were set for the first week of January I might see an advantage to moving the session back a week, but starting the third week does not seem any worse than starting the fourth week. I understand the arguments given by Sen. Valentine in favor of the time change but, like the budget adjustments, the draft legislation, budget analysis, and other technical work will fill whatever time is allotted. If our legislature needs more time they could try not considering 5 minor Constitutional amendments in a single session. (How much time was spent crafting, holding hearings, debating, and voting on those?)

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Supporting Amendment B

I was pleased to find that Constitutional Amendment B was absolutely as straightforward in its proposed wording as the description suggested. It simply inserts one line into the Constitution allowing for more flexibility in adding funds to the existing state trust fund without making it easier for the Legislature to remove money from the fund. Believing that the fund is a positive tool funding our government services I am happy to support a no-nonsense change that can make it easier to augment the trust fund when resources are avaiable to do so.

At first I worried that making it easier to add to the trust fund would encourage the Legislature to keep surpluses of revenue, but then I realized that 1) they already do keep portions of any surplus fund one-time contributions to pet projects, and 2) they still have the same incentive to give tax-refunds when possible to fuel their re-election popularity. The difference now is that they have the option when there are surplusses to put some of the surplus in the trust fund so that it can increase funding for services in perpetuity rather than being limited to large, one-time gifts to specific projects.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, State Constitution, Utah

meta State

Rejecting Amendment A

Let me start off by saying that Constitutional Amendment A does not have anything sinister or devious in it. In fact, there is very little in it to raise objections about. My primary objection is rooted in my position on constitutionally based governments in which I prefer to reject any amendment to the established law unless I see good reason for the change – in other words, I default to opposition where constitutional amendments are concerned.

This amendment would clarify the specifics of succession in the office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The specifics themselves are fairly mundane, but the situation being addressed is one that hopefully and probably will never occur. (Davis Didjeridu reminds me that a vacancy can happen for less than tragic reasons – such as federal appointment – making this situation more common than I had been thinking.) In the event that one of those vacancies did occur, common sense should allow the succession to happen seamlessly even without these specified specifics being added to the State Constitution.

There is one place where I have a specific objection to the amendment. In the section dealing with the succession of the Lieutenant Governor, it specifies that the Governor must receive the consent of the Senate for the person they would appoint to fill the vacancy. This appears to violate the separation of powers considering that the Governor, when running for office, needs no consent from the Senate when picking a running mate. I see no reason that selecting a replacement should have tighter safeguards than the original selection.

In summary, there is little to recommend this change, and more to discourage it. I won’t be overly concerned if it does pass, but I believe that not making such a change is the better choice.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

life National

Write In “No Confidence”

Somewhere in the news yesterday I heard that voters are beginning to like Sarah Palin less as they get to know more about her. I thought that was interesting since I heard basically the same thing said about Barack Obama back in June or July. My own experience is that I am liking both Obama and McCain less and less the more I hear or see from them. On the other hand, if I had the option to mix-and-match from the two tickets I would be most supportive of (read "least opposed to") a Biden-Palin ticket (not quote sure who I’d put at the top).

Perhaps Hillary Clinton was onto something since she had maxed out her negatives before she even started campaigning. I had long ago concluded that I was not voting for one of the major tickets this year, but this morning I decided that unless I am able to get behind one of the third party tickets (which I have not been able to do so far) I will be writing in "No Confidence" on November 4th.

Tags 2008, elections, McCain, Obama, parties

State

Third District Debate

I enjoyed going to the debate at the Sutherland Institute between Jason Chaffetz and Bennion Spencer. A one-on-one debate between the candidates is much different to attend than a “meet the candidates” kind of affair for city council when six candidates are seeking three seats without any specific match-ups. Until now those were the only kind of political “debates” I had ever attended in person.

In his opening remarks, Chaffetz said, “If I can’t build a grassroots network then I shouldn’t be your congressman.” I thought that was an interesting assertion but upon reflection it is true. A congressman should be firmly connected to the people he is representing. With senators we have double representation (in theory) and yet Senators should still be connecting with people but a congressman has no business trying to represent people if he cannot connect with them and be supported by them.

I was slightly surprised at how many things both candidates agreed on. They both support real immigration reform (verbally) – in fact they both listed it as the most important domestic policy issue facing the nation. They both want to see No Child Left Behind repealed. Chaffetz made the comment:

We don’t have a revenue problem (in the Federal government) – we have a spending problem.

Moments later Spencer repeated the same statement – verbatim.

Of course they differed in how they would approach many issues, but they seem to have comparable views on the basic issues that we need to confront for Utah and the nation.

When asked about what they saw as the most important improvement for our political system Spencer suggested term limits (without specifying any idea of how many terms he might have in mind) while Chaffetz listed transparency (he lists the names of all his donors no matter the size of their donations – as an example).

When they were asked whether they thought there was a Constitutional right to healthcare they both unequivocally stated that there was no such right in the Constitution. I was disappointed as Spencer went on to argue that although there was no “right” we should do it anyway because it was the right thing to do. That kind of attitude is detrimental to the rule of law. Just because it is the right thing to do does not mean that government is the right tool to do it. If it is the right thing, but not the province of government then the correct approach is to encourage people to do it – not force them.

Tags 2008, Utah

National

McCain’s Words

As I said about Obama last week, I will measure a McCain presidency against his own words. Rather than trying to analyze what McCain said last night I will simply quote those portions which I would hope he is held accountable for while adding only those clarifications of how I interpret those words.

. . . after we’ve won, we’re going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again, and get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace.

This had better not be the Rovian definition of "patriot" (anyone who agrees with us). And there had better be as much emphasis on "peace" as there is on "prosperity."

I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.

I hope McCain understands what that means. Americans must take the responsibilities of liberty along with the rights. I may work for my children, but that does not mean that I spoon feed my five-year-old.

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people . . . when we valued our power over our principles.

We’re going to change that. We’re going to recover the people’s trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire.

We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don’t legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.

I hope for an emphasis on "spending discipline" and I hope that open markets is broadly interpreted so that it includes more than financial markets. I hope that there is an emphasis on personal responsibility and I hope they recognize that "the values of families, neighborhoods and communities" are going to vary between families, neighborhoods and communities. The values of San Francisco should not shape, or be shaped by, the values of Tipton, MO (for example).

We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Any education reform that runs through the NEA is guaranteed to fail as far as I can see. The monopoly must be broken. I like the line about helping poor teachers find another line of work.

I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military and the power of our ideals – to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace.

We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War.

One of my biggest beefs with McCain is that he honestly believes that these things shouldbe functions of government. Many of them should not be functions of government (fueling transportation, training workers).

I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability.

I’d love to see that, but I won’t be holding my breath.

Tags 2008, government, McCain, parties, Salt Lake Tribune

National

Obama’s Words

If Obama becomes president I will measure his presidency against his own words – starting with his acceptance speech. (I will measure a McCain presidency against his own words as well.) I caught parts of the speech while I was driving a moving truck last night and though I did not hear every word, there were a couple of parts that were noteworthy.

What — what is that American promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours — ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology. (p. 3)

Businesses have the responsibility to play by the rules of the road – what he left unsaid is that he believes that government has the right/responsibility to define the rules of the road. While there may be some rules that government should define, most of the rules of the road should be left to the market.

Perhaps more disturbing to me is that third paragraph which starts promisingly with the admission that “government cannot solve all our problems,” and that it should stick to doing things that we cannot do for ourselves. I’d like to know why we cannot “{keep} our toys safe, invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.” In the short term and on specific projects it may make sense for the government to make those investments, but we do ourselves a disservice if we learn to expect that government should be respoonsible for all those things that we can do for ourselves.

If Obama becomes President I will weigh what he does against these words:

And, Democrats, Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America’s promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us . . . each of us must do our part . . .

Yes, we must provide more ladders to success . . . But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents, that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework, that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, that’s the essence of America’s promise. (p. 4 to p. 5)

Those are wonderful and true words but if his policies do not support that requirement for individual responsibility his will be a failed presidency – regardless of his popularity. (I’m confident that the mutual responsibility aspect will not be ignored under Democratic leadership.)

Tags 2008, government, Obama, parties

culture

A Universal Dream

Is there anyone who could not support the dream shared by Jess:

it’s my dream that the citizens of our country renew their interest in politics half as much as they love the olympic games. . .

to preserve the posterity of politics in our country, the greatest country in the world, we need to start caring about the leadership of our country like we care about the olympics. that surge of patriotism we feel when a united states athlete wins a medal in the olympics – i wish we’d experience some of that same feeling when we are in the process of selecting our next mayor, governor or president.

in turn, the leadership of our country must train like athletes – they need to be inspirational. they need to be focused. they need to be uniting. they must never give up. they must aspire for greatness . . . if they could accomplish those things, we would offer our support . . . because they are AMERICAN, not because they are a democrat or a republican. we’d stand with them because we’re proud of their accomplishment . . .

(spelling and punctuation original)

If anyone can’t get behind that kind of a dream they probably should not be a citizen of this country. Unfortunately, even if Michael Phelps has political interest he can’t run for President until 2020 – we can’t afford to wait that long.

Tags 2008, citizenship, civic participation, Olympics, sports, swimming

culture National

Who Are You Voting Against?

Post author By David
Post date August 8, 2008
9 Comments on Who Are You Voting Against?

I really wish I could find the article I glanced at yesterday postulating that the presidential race is not looking like a blowout for Obama because the contest has been framed as a referendum on Obama rather than a referendum on Bush and the Republican party.

The thought that struck me is that when an election gets framed as a referendum on a candidate that candidate or party usually loses. I think that the reason that Gore did not receive enough support in 2000 to overcome the Nader voters is that the voters were fatigued by the emotionally charged Clinton presidency. In 2004 the vote got framed as a question of whather Kerry was really presidential or if he was just another politician. I think that 1996 was 2004 with Dole in the place of Kerry.

The exception seems to be 1988 which was a referendum on Reagan in which Bush I won.

What do you think? Is this how the outcome of our elections is decided – by voting against whoever the debate is centered on? (If so I would predict that 2010 will be a bad year to be a Democrat seeking election – regardless of the outcome this year.)

Tags 2008, 2010, civic participation, elections, Obama, questions