Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

 When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:

"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."

When asked about his support for gay rights he said:

"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't.  On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."

When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:

"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."

He also opposed sending our military to Libya.  He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it.

These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though.  They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here).  They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real).  They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation.  They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they apologize profusely for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.

But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas.  Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.

First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas.  I'm pretty well fully liberal.  So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.

But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions.  I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do.  If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.

So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican?  And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights.  Maybe he'll support repealing the Patriot Act, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting.

Finally, Jon Huntsman is Mormon.  I know he's been a little evasive about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."  I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.

Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion.  That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders.  But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster.  It's a point, a single point, in his favor.  Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.

But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible.  His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.

So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.

Liberal States' Rights

My visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources.  First, I don't like the way my state generally does things.  Utah is a drag.  This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.

Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen.  I went into detail about this here.

Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below.  I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing.  As long as we are the United States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.

Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a race to the bottom.  This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses.  Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.

Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring.  States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities.  The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian.  Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.

Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage).  There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.
 
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the famous line from Justice Brandeis that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels.  I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems.  But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.

For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation.  If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers.  So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things.  It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.

It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry.  Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside.  If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand.  The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform.  But otherwise they didn't.  But now they are.

Vermont is about to create a single-payer system.  California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents.  This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country.  The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better.  Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.

Utah HB477 and Government Transparency

The Utah legislature passed, and Gov. Herbert signed, HB477 which is an attempt to destroy government transparency.  It is a bill that excludes cell phones and emails from GRAMA laws, imposes extremely high fees for information requests, and requires proof by preponderance of the evidence of wrongdoing before granting requests for communications that are suspected of being illegal.

It is an absolute assault on good governance and the proposition that government is for the people, of the people, and by the people.  The public response is universal outcry, but the legislators and governor don't care because there is basically no threat that they will be voted out of office in Utah's one-party system.  So they can pass laws which hide what they do and say from the public and assault the very contract between the governing and the governed and know that no matter how upset people get, it won't translate to the ballot box.

Please read the excellent and surprisingly combative editorial by the Salt Lake Tribune, visit keeputahopen.com for information on the referendum process that is already under way to get the law repealed, and contact your state representatives and let them know how undemocratic this is.  Just when I start to get the bug to be more states' rights oriented something like this happens and I remember that I live in Utah.

Utah State Legislature Fails Constitutional Interpretation

I got a really nice laugh this morning on the way to work.  KUER, the local NPR radio station, ran a story about the Utah legislature defining rules for how it sues the federal government.  One of the sections of this legislation is a list of powers given to the federal government.  Rep. Ivory explained the need for this list by stating:

I thought it was fascinating. There oughta be a list out there that just lists the enumerated powers. There's just not. There's just not, and we talk so often about the government being one of enumerated powers, but there's no list anywhere.

There oughta be a list?  Uh, I believe that "list" is the United States Constitution itself.  In fact, within the Constitution there is an actual section known as the Enumerated Powers.  Is Rep. Ivory too lazy to read the Constitution and therefore needs a nice, simplistic list for him to understand?  Or is it possible that Rep. Ivory doesn't like how the Constitution is written and would like to re-write it in a way a bit more pleasing to himself?  Is there something wrong with the Constitution that he believes needs fixing or clarifying?

The bill also requires the state to "judge federal action against that list, using the meaning of the provision at the time it was drafted - as far back as 1789."  So the touchstone for all Constitutional interpretation by the Utah state legislature is now not the Constitution itself, but a hackneyed, superficial, and biased list of enumerated powers as interpreted by Rep. Ivory?  Sounds like a real logical step forward.
 
And I've laid out before why it is inane to try to interpret the Constitution based on "original intent" -- because there was no single original intent and because it doesn't make sense to try to overlay 18th century understanding on an infinitely more complex 21st century world and because the Constitution was intentionally written broadly to adapt to changing circumstances -- but now the Utah legislature has made state law.

We now have further evidence that the Tea Party extremists who profess such love and fealty to the Constitution neither understand it nor respect it.

Utah's Republican Hegemony

Utah again elected a Republican as governor and a Republican as United States Senator.  Both Gov. Herbert and Sen.-elect Lee won by wide 2-1 margins against moderate-to-conservative Democrats.  These are perhaps the least surprising election results since racist Democrats owned the South from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era.  In Utah, Republicans win and they win big, particularly for governor and United States Senate, which are the big, important statewide elections.

It got me wondering when the last time was that Utahns elected a Democrat to statewide office.  It turns out that Utah has not had a Democrat in statewide office since Scott Matheson (father of current Rep. Matheson) left the governor's office in January of 1985.  That's about 26 years.  Utah has not had a Democrat in the United State Senate since Frank Moss was defeated by Sen. Hatch and left office in January of 1977.  Sen. Hatch, ironically, made a big deal that Sen. Moss' 16 years in office were too many and that he had lost touch with Utahns.  Sen. Hatch has now been a senator for about 34 years.

I then began to wonder how this Republican hegemony stacked up against other states that are perceived to be dominated by one political party.  The results were not good for Utah.  No other state has gone as long as Utah voting for a single party in the major statewide elections of governor and senator.  The results follow.

I first looked at governors.  Out of all the states in the Union, 42 have elected governors from both parties in the last 16 years (since the 1994 elections).  Those that haven't, with the last year of opposite-party control in parentheses, are:  South Dakota (last Democrat in 1978), Utah (last Democrat in 1984), Washington (Republican 1984), Oregon (Republican 1986), Delaware (Republican 1992), North Dakota (Democrat 1992), and North Carolina (Republican 1993).  Connecticut last had a non-Republican Independent governor in office in 1994, and a Democrat in 1990.  Every other state has voted for both Republicans and Democrats for governor in the past 16 years.

So I took those eight states that showed a lack of diversity in governorships and compared the last time they elected a United States Senator from the opposite party.  Connecticut was easy because while they have been voting for Republican governors for the past few years they have also been voting for Democratic senators.  Both current Connecticut senators are Democrats, and the last time they had a Republican senator in office was 1998.  So hegemony is not a problem there.

North Carolina was similarly easy in the opposite direction.  That is a conservative state but has been voting for Democratic governors consistently for years.  They have a healthy mix of both Republican and Democrat senators over the past few years and currently have one of each.

The Dakotas, I would have thought, would have been the conservative states to challenge Utah in terms of hegemony, but I was wrong.  North Dakota currently has two Democratic senators and South Dakota has one.

Delaware and Washington, a couple of liberal states, both last had Republican senators in 2000, and Oregon, another liberal state, last had a Republican senator in 2008.  That last Republican Oregon senator was Gordon Smith, a Mormon, who was defeated in the Democratic surge that year.

And that leaves Utah, who, as I mentioned earlier, last had a Democratic senator in 1976.  That means it has been 26 years since Utah last had a non-Republican hold major statewide office.  No other state comes close to that record of hegemony.  The closest competitors for this ignominious distinction are Idaho and Texas, both practicing hegemony for 16 years.  Idaho last had a Democratic governor in 1994 and last had a Democratic senator in 1980.  Texas last had a Democratic governor in 1994 (the election that George W. Bush won) and last had a Democratic senator in 1993.  Delaware and Washington, as outlined above, have seen ten years of hegemony.

This is a bad thing, as I've written about before.  It detaches the controlling party from reality in that they are not really accountable to voters and there is never a threat that their bad choices will be reflected in election results.  Most importantly, though, is that one-party hegemony suffocates opposing points of view, healthy debate, and thus democracy itself.  As the Deseret News reported recently, it also suppresses voter turnout at elections.  Utah has seen voter turnout decline for decades to go from one of the highest voter turnouts in the country to 48th out of 50 states.  Many Utahns feel that our elections are foregone conclusions, which in essence they are.  I doubt Utah has had a surprise election result in decades.

I'm sure we could dig deeper and look at state legislature control, party identification, and how close elections have been, and I'm sure they would all show that Utah is far more one-party oriented than any state in the country.  It is not hard to see why people believe that many, many Utah Republicans blindly vote for the party without studying the candidates and issues and voting with an independent mind.  If voters never knew which parties Herbert and Corroon, Lee and Granato belonged to and simply voted based on their characters and stances on the issues, I think this election would have gone much differently.  Herbert and Lee hold extreme positions on many issues whereas Corroon and Granato hold moderate positions on just about every issue.  The latter two, in my opinion, more closely represent the beliefs and positions of a majority of Utahs, unfortunately they both had a D next to their names and never stood a chance.

I've been saying for a long time that the time will come when Utahns will take a turn toward the left (or at least more towards the center) and start voting in a more balanced way.  I'm beginning to doubt myself, to be honest.  It may be that this rut will last for another 30 years, or it may be that some big scandal or decision will cause a sudden course change.  Or maybe we need some sort of Huntsman-esque Manchurian candidate type who gets elected as a popular moderate Republican and then reveals that s/he will switch parties to become a Democrat, broadening many horizons along the way.  In the meantime, the current hegemony that prevails in Utah is harmful to our state.

Liberaltarianism: Might Mormons Embrace a Liberal-Libertarian Alliance?

I once foolishly asked if the liberal dominance of the immediate post-Bush era would have the effect of liberalizing Mormon voters.  The answer came resoundingly recently with a Gallup poll that showed that Mormons give President Obama the lowest favorability marks of any group, 24%.  Sigh.

So I started wondering if there is anything that could be done about this.  In my mind Mormons should feel very comfortable leaning politically left on issues such as immigration (love thy neighbors, the special place of "Lamanites" in Book of Mormon prophecies), the environment (the sanctity of all God's creations), war (Gospel of peace), and poverty (BOM: no poor among you, all things in common, 4 Nephi), among others.  But I am continually disappointed.

In my meanderings trying to figure all this out I came across my solution du jour: liberaltarianism.  That's right, the fusing of libertarianism and liberalism.  This newish brand of Western politics could be just the thing to shake Mormons out of our political heterodoxy.  Or not, but let's take look.

Mormons unquestioningly have a libertarian bent.  Hostility to government has a solid foundation in extermination orders, declarations of war, military occupation, and opposition to the religious practice of polygamy.  Whereas early members focused on communal living among saints at the exclusion of federal government meddling, modern-day members have taken those anti-federal government feelings and invested them in free-market capitalistic principles.  Add that to the now cliche Western Individualism, wrought by eking out a living in a harsh land, and you have the perfect storm of libertarianism.

For many years libertarians found a natural relationship with conservatives.  Both argued for small government, because big government led inevitably to a loss of individual freedom and liberty.  They had basically every government ever as a precedent for this belief.  But some funny things happened over the years.  First, conservatives adopted a big government agenda just like liberals and Republican administrations increased the size of federal government and national debt exponentially more than Democratic Administrations who actually reduced the national debt.  Second, corporations grew to be just as big or a bigger threat to individual freedoms and liberties as government.

The libertarian-conservative alliance has been weakening for years now.  That has lead some political thinkers to wonder if there might be room for a new alliance between liberals and libertarians.  The basic idea is expressed well from that first link in the previous sentence:

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.

Such an alliance would be based on some mutually agreeable principles.  The low-hanging fruit where there is some obvious common ground includes opposition to government intrusion into Americans' family decisions and churches; opposition to government's weakening of civil liberties in the name of self-defense like NSA's spying program, warrantless wiretapping, and police brutality; opposition to war and entangling foreign policy; strong support for protecting the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment - I know I wrote this and I'm grudgingly willing to start perhaps maybe rethinking it if it means edging some Mormons' minds to the left a bit); support for a more open immigration policy; and rethinking our approach to the drug problem.  So there are certainly some significant areas of agreement between liberals and libertarians.

The hard part, of course, is economics.  Where libertarians have a general distrust of government intrusion into free markets, liberals have a general distrust of free market forces and wish government to promote more fairness.  The alliance, then, has to be framed in terms of creating more real choices and individual freedoms for Americans.  The first easy one is cutting corporate welfare.  Corporations in America receive billions of dollars of subsidies and tax breaks every year.  By eliminating corporate welfare we would open up the markets for greater competition and choice, and protect Americans from corporate restriction of our freedoms.  If we eliminated corporate welfare for traditional fossil fuel companies we would make it easier for alternative clean energy companies to compete.  If we eliminated corporate welfare for big agriculture we'd encourage more local, sustainable family farming.  If we eliminated corporate welfare for big banks we'd open up the market for smaller, community-based banking.  These all create more choices for Americans and a healthier economy.

The government could help create more choices, freedom, and information by investment in roads, public transportation, and the internet.  Infrastructure is key to promoting individual freedoms.

Next, a liberal-libertarian union would agree to dramatically reduce government over-regulation of small businesses.  Some of these measures may be painful for liberals, but could really go a long way to forging that left-libertarian alliance and free small businesses to create more jobs.

Finally, left-libertarians would have to agree that some regulation is necessary to keep markets healthy by expanding choices and giving consumers more information.  Regulating the worst health insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and refusing coverage based on technicalities gives consumers more and better health care choices.  Regulating the food and drug industries allows consumers to have more information on which to base their choices.

One of the keys, here, is to remember that the modern-day libertarian really has little in common with the extreme version seen in some "Tea Party" candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle.  While those examples certainly verify that the extreme libertarian still exists in America today, most libertarians are more the Cato Institute ilk that understand that some regulation of markets is required to make them more efficient.

This obviously isn't going to be for every liberal or every libertarian.  Both sides would have to give up a significant amount to make it work for the long-term.  But the idea is to appeal to voters in the "Mormon Belt," where libertarianism is strong but liberal thought has a lot to offer.  In places like Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada, a small-government liberal in the mold of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, Montana Senator Jon Tester or Wyoming Governor David Freudenthal can and has done very well.

So there's the idea for liberaltarianism.  It is a focus on individual freedoms and choices and identifying places where the government can facilitate progress.  It is about maintaining that core Western and Mormon belief in the power of the individual, while reminding us that if we work together we can achieve more.  I think this has some potential, but I've been wrong before.

How To Write A Rough Draft

I've written lots in my life.  Between majoring in English and going to law school and being a lawyer and inexplicably keeping up this blog, I've written thousands of documents in my life.  So I've developed a few strategies I find useful to help the process along.  One of these strategies is the Rough Draft.  In the Rough Draft I'll outline an argument, throw in a few sentences that hit on major ideas I need to flesh out, and generally set the course for what I want to say.  From there I will polish and shine.  But a good Rough Draft is indispensable.

Which bring us, of course, to the Daily Herald, which believes so fully in this writing strategy that they use it exclusively in their publishing activities.  The Rough Draft, in their capable hands, becomes the Final Draft.  Case in point, this little gem called Utah ponders fed handout (lack of capitalization in the title after first word: theirs).

I often make unsupported claims in a Rough Draft with little notes to myself to verify this or find examples or add citation.  This way I can plot out the argument I want to make up front but fill in the detail after some more research and thought.  If I find my unsupported claim remains unsupported after research, I drop it and work around it.  But when the Rough Draft is your Final Draft, as in this "article," no such follow up work is required, which is convenient.  I've recreated this article in proper Rough Draft form:



Utah's governor and legislators are struggling over whether to accept a "gift" of money from Uncle Sam.

They should stop thinking and just take it. It's our money in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with getting it back. 

Flesh out argument for how federal taxes collected legally under Constitution belong to state treasury in the first place.

Of course, the machinations surrounding this business are reprehensible. The Democrat Congress and President Obama recently passed a $26 billion "emergency" spending bill that critics call a payoff to the teachers unions. Out of that, $101 million has been offered to Utah to pay teachers. 

Make sure to change to "Democratic," which is an adjective, instead of "Democrat," which is a noun.  Also, find critics who think this is a payoff to teachers unions so it doesn't seem like I'm just raising issues out of thin air on my own.  Finally, look how good it is, and how easy it is, to put words in quotations marks to cast doubt on them without putting any effort in to back it up.  Remember to do this more.

Some lawmakers are furious that the federal government seems to be trying to usurp the state's role. 

Suss out what I mean by usurping the state's role because right now this refers to nothing and makes no sense.  What role am I even talking about?  Not sure.  Also, the phrase "seems to be trying" is so vague and vapid that it will likely undercut my entire point here, when I figure it out.

"What the federal government is pushing on us is wrong," Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, has said. "I don't know why we're not looking for ways to fight back. I don't know why we're not looking for ways to sue the federal government to stop the federal hamstringing of the states." 

Quote, good.  Concrete.  It might be worth getting a quote from someone with a different perspective, though.  Uh, nah.

There's not much choice, however. If the state were to refuse the money, the U.S. Department of Education could do an end-run and give it to school districts directly. Such financial shenanigans are deplorable; the reasoning lamentable. 

Find example, preferably real but make one up if necessary, of the DOE ever doing something like this.  I might have just made that possibility up.  Remember to explain why the reasoning is lamentable because conclusory statements like that without any support are weak and lazy.

Gov. Gary Herbert defends the handout by saying that the money isn't new deficit spending, but simply a shift of resources. It's sad to see that Utah's chief executive is buying that deceptive Washington line. Supposedly Congress found offsetting spending cuts that made the handout possible. Uh-huh.

More skeptical observers doubt the cuts will ever really happen. As House Speaker David Clark, R-Santa Clara, said of the congressional legislation, "This bill is just loaded with what I would call voodoo accounting," 

Delve into this issue in the future, find out what the offsets are and if they are something that have been used as smoke and mirrors in the past, or if they are legitimate.  Don't just raise the possibility of deceptiveness without backing it up with actual facts of some sort.

It's an apt description. The U.S. is borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends these days. That means that if the feds are giving Utah $100 million, about $41 million of that will be debt. On the other hand, it also means that $60 million was Utah's in the first place. 

Not sure what I mean by that last line or how I came up with that number, look into it.  Also, try to figure out what this paragraph has to do with anything at all because it is really out of place now.  A snappy segue might do the trick.  Add segue later.

So we can take the money without guilt. And rest assured that the feds will just throw it at some other state if Utah were to turn it down.

Let's just hope that an infusion of cash doesn't take the steam out of efforts to streamline Utah's educational system. It can and ought to be done. State government has set an example by cutting more than 2,000 employees in the last year and a half, shrinking its work force 6.8 percent. 

Don't forget to add some meat to the argument that the fact that the state is running out of money to educate our children and is cutting teachers and increasing class sizes is simply "streamlining" and ought to be done more, because right now it just sounds crass, short-sighted, and mean-spirited for no reason whatsoever.

Nobody should get complacent about this additional funding. It will be good to get some money back, but only if it doesn't come with strings that cost a lot in the future.

What could I possibly be implying about getting complacent?  Not sure yet but it sounds like the kernel of something profound so leave in for now.  Also, you can't just say "strings" because that doesn't actually make sense.  "Strings attached" does because that is a well-known (read: cliche) phrase, but strings by themselves in this context is just bizarre.  Change wording before turning in.

In this case, Washington hasn't yet revealed the fine print. Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said that lawmakers don't know how many conditions will be put on the spending. "We won't get that information unless we put in the application," Waddoups said.

That's in the new congressional style of "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it." But here's a safe bet: The Capitol Gang will attach strings and lots of them.

There's that strings again, I can work out that kink later.  Now, as for the actual potential restrictions or conditions attached to the money, work out some sort of argument that says that even though this is purely federal money given freely to the states the federal government has no right to add conditions or restrictions.  I don't want to sound ungrateful, after all, because money for education is super important for America's and Utah's future.

All in all, it's disagreeable to watch Washington spend irresponsibly. But look at it this way: When you fill out your tax return, you may be incensed at what the government does with your hard-earned money. But if you get a refund check, you'll cash it. It's your money.

Utah should request its refund check right away.

Remember to circle around and come up with some sort of argument, anything really, that spending on education is irresponsible.  Because otherwise this entire article is just a waste of time and might appear to some crazy left-wingers to be simply an opportunity to whine about the federal government instead of a thoughtful discussion of federal education spending in the wake of huge financial shortfalls for the states in this, the worst economic environment in 80 or so years.

Next draft due in 24 hours.

The Right Kind of Justice For Illegal Immigration

We've entered a new era of creepy in the Utah immigration debates.  A group of "Concerned Citizens," who cowardly chose to remain anonymous, quietly spied on Hispanics and compiled a list of 1,300 names of people they claim are illegal immigrants.  They listed names, birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, Social Security Numbers, and due dates of women who are pregnant.  There is good evidence that the group had illegal access to private information through government databases.  Besides being creepy and despicable, and this should come as no surprise, the list is also inaccurate.

The most common trope about illegal immigration is that it is just that, illegal, and that we shouldn't allow any illegal activity in America to go unpunished.  Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration undermines the rule of law, cheapens our legal system, and threatens our security.  These conservatives want the illegals rounded up and shipped off.  Their rhetoric, unfortunately, usually goes beyond simply wanting the immigration laws enforced, it usually contains a level of vindictiveness and anger that is easily associated with racism and xenophobia.  It is unChristlike and unbecoming of members of our faith.  They want justice through punishment.

What they are less interested in, however, justice through mercy, which is just as valid.  It is equally as just for me to forgive a neighbor of his trespasses against me as for me to prosecute my neighbor and demand the full weight of the law be brought down on him.  Of course, different crimes require different demands of justice.  We don't simply forgive a murderer, that is too heinous to apply easy mercy.  But we don't typically require speeders to be fully fined and prosecuted.  We have to use some judgment about where it is humane and reasonable to demand full justice through punishment or full justice through mercy.

So the question is where does illegal immigration fall in our sense of justice.  The facts are that most illegal immigrants come here to find a better life.  There are more jobs, security, and opportunities in America than nearly anywhere else on Earth.  We are a nation built upon the very idea immigration, most of it illegal or at least unethical, and that is not lost on those coming today.  They would likely go through the legal process of immigration if it were reasonably available to them, which it is not.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants are peaceful, otherwise law-abiding, intelligent, and hard working.  And Hispanic, which makes it easy for some to delineate differences from themselves and single them out.  It makes it easier to hate them.

My idea of justice is that it is not morally sound to harbor such hatred-filled feelings towards Hispanic illegal immigrants and demand full justice by punishment.  I don't think it fits the crime.  The crime is that they are simply here, they haven't infringed on any of my rights and haven't hurt me in any way.  The jobs argument is slippery at best.  They are simply generally good people trying to make their lives better in the only way they know how.  They have families and are trying to give their families the best life and most opportunities that they can.  Then some racist and McCarthy-istic group comes along and spies on them and feeds on their fears and threatens to bring down full punishment on them.

Justice through mercy is much more fitting.  If we identified them, gave them a path towards citizenship, enforced some penalty such as a fine or a loss of some social benefits until they become citizens, and dealt with them humanely and morally, we'd be much better off and justice would be much better served.

I would hope that Americans, and members of the Church in particular, learn to treat illegal immigration differently that other sorts of crime.  I would hope that we see them as children of God and try to help them instead of punish them.  I hope we enact the right kind of justice, and not the ugly kind that these "Concerned Citizen" predators are demanding.

A Lean To The Right?

Bennett is out.

“When it was announced that Bennett had been eliminated from the race, a huge ovation swept through the convention hall and there were hoots and shouts of 'He's gone! He's gone!' Other delegates hugged and tea party members waved their yellow 'Do Not Tread On Me' flags.”

I am exceptionally curious about what, specifically, Bennett did that resulted in this level of vitriol. Even more, I am interested in what the Republican delegates see in Tim Bridgewater that has him as their nominee. If anybody out there has an answer better than “Bob Bennett was too liberal to represent Utah,” I would love to hear it.

My greatest fear is that democracy is slowly being smothered by popular media. Do “democrats” understand “liberal” policy? Do “republicans” truly agree with “conservative” ideology? Are “independents” and party swappers (and everyone else for that matter) simply opportunistic snakes, waiting for the chance to strike?

I don’t live in Utah, but I found a recent article from The Salt Lake Tribune that I felt brought up some excellent questions for conservatives. Naturally, one could make a similar, polarized list for “liberals”. What I struggle with is that the major gripe of the Tea Party movement is that the incumbents are not conservative enough, and as such, I thought it would be interesting to point out what “ultra-conservative” really means. Here are the ten questions from the recent article I cited above:

1. Do you oppose or support socialized medicine? If you answered "I oppose socialized medicine," will you introduce legislation to repeal Medicare for seniors -- socialized medicine brought to us by Great Society liberal Lyndon Johnson? If not, explain why you support socialized medicine for seniors and but do not support Obamacare for working families.

2. Will you introduce legislation to repeal all agriculture, grazing and mining subsidies? If not, please explain why you support socialized agriculture, grazing and mining.

3. Will you introduce legislation to sell off all federal lands in Utah to the highest bidder? If not, please explain why you think the big federal government, not the private sector and private landholders, should own Utah's lands. (Note, giving the land to the State of Utah just transfers the socialism to a different level of government, so that is not a valid answer).

4. A major criticism of Sen. Bennett was his support of the TARP in 2008. Will you pledge to oppose all government bailouts, even if that means a freezing of the credit markets and the failure of small businesses across the United States?

5. Which federal regulatory agencies will you eliminate? The Securities and Exchange Commission? The FDIC? The Consumer Product Safety Commission? The Federal Mine Safety Administration? The Environmental Protection Agency? The Agricultural Inspection Service? The Food and Drug Administration? If you support these agencies, please explain why we need big government in these areas, none of which are expressly provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

6. Do you support repealing the Small Business Administration? If not, please explain why you think big government bureaucrats know better than the free market which small businesses deserve help and support (and what a bureaucrat could possibly do to help a free market capitalist business person).

7. Do you support the National Weather Service? If so, please explain why big government can track the weather better than the private sector.

8. Will you oppose all appropriations earmarks for Utah?

9. Will you pledge to oppose government interventions to bring jobs to Utah? If not, please explain why you think you, and not the market, should determine where jobs are located in the United States.

10. Will you introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Communications Commission and the work of its nanny state, liberal, politically correct bureaucrats who regulate the words people can say on the television and radio and the images shown on TV? Or do you think bureaucrats, not the free market, should decide what is appropriate to air in America?

I’m sincerely curious about people’s responses to these questions. I will never suggest that a party member must adhere to all of said parties’ ideology; however, considering the cry that the GOP needs to be more conservative, I wonder how many people out there are ready for what that really means. Comments?

Urban Sprawl and the Utah Lake Bridge

A group of groups, led by the Sierra Club, recently offered their idea regarding a potential bridge that would span Utah Lake: Don't build it.  The Daily Herald, in typical fashion, offered a poorly thought-out rebuttal to the rebuttal, on which I would like to comment.

They were first offended that Marc Heileson of the Sierra Club called it a bridge to nowhere, saying:

Bridge to nowhere? That's quite a slam. Utah Valley is nowhere?  One end of the bridge would land near 800 North in Orem. That's not only at the heart of the valley, it's likely to be even more bustling in the future. Close by is the planned transportation hub for the Frontrunner train line and the Bus Rapid Transit project.

He didn't say a bridge from nowhere, he said a bridge to nowhere.  Clearly Orem is somewhere.  A lot of people live there.  The other side of the proposed bridge, however, is nowhere, and that is a good thing, and it should stay that way.  Unfortunately, there are developers eying the west side of the Utah Lake like Utah Republican lawmakers eye fifteen year old girls in hot tubs (too soon? low blow? I couldn't resist.  I take it back).

It's a reminder, however, that the region has plenty of assets that draw people and keep them here. Those people need places to live and work, and the west side of the lake is a prime spot for growth. Growing numbers will need to get over to the lake's east side.  What all this means is that it's certain the Utah Lake boundary area is going to be developed, as is land farther west. The only question is how.

Why is it certain?  It does not have to be certain.  We can actually choose where we want growth to go, it is not some uncontrollable beast from which we cower.  Urban sprawl is a real problem for many reasons.  The more we sprawl, the farther we have to drive to work and church and school and the grocery store.  The more we drive the more oil we consume and pollution we spew into the air, and the less time we have to spend with family and friends and hobbies and helping others.  The more we sprawl the more we lose that sense of community that our pioneer ancestors cherished.  The more we sprawl the more we put pressure on natural ecosystems.  The more we sprawl the less open space we have nearby to enjoy and in which to decompress from our city lives.

The west side of Utah Lake where one end of the proposed bridge is located is largely undeveloped and if we want to keep it that way and avoid urban sprawl we can absolutely do it.  We can not build the bridge and not let the developers develop the land.  We can choose that, and we'd have good reason to do so.  We can choose to create higher density, mixed use neighborhoods on the east side of the lake.  We can choose the direction our growth takes.

Opposing citizens groups seem to be afflicted with a common attitude among the green crowd. It's worse than NIMBY -- not in my backyard. Their take is: "Not here, not there, not now, not then, not ever."  That's short-sighted. They'd do better to work to see that the inevitable development isn't just the haphazard growth that has plagued other communities.

The Daily Herald completely misses the point.  First, it is actually far-sighted to say that we are going to protect some of the last open spaces we have near urban centers.  We would surely regret the short-sighted action of low-density development far from the places we work just to enrich a few developers.  It is also far-sighted to engage in urban planning that keeps people close to the places they frequent to reduce traffic and pollution in the long-term.

Second, opposing the bridge and urban sprawl is making sure that growth is not haphazard.  It is forcing our urban planners to actually plan as opposed to just allowing more tract housing in previously undeveloped areas.  There is nothing inevitable about urban sprawl, as the Daily Herald wants us to believe.  Growth may be inevitable, but how we deal with it is up to us.

And that doesn't even touch on the environmental damage the bridge would cause to the lake, which is another issue altogether.

When One Party Rule Goes From Uncomfortable to Appalling

Appalling: adj., inspiring horror, dismay, or disgust.

Utah State House Majority Leader Kevin Garn getting into a hot tub naked with a 15 year old when he was 30 is appalling.  Paying this woman $150,000 to keep quiet about it so as not to ruin his political career is appalling.  Expecting the public to believe that nothing else happened between them is appalling ($150,000 for just sitting there?  Hmmmm).  Only confessing 25 years later when the story was about to become public anyway is appalling.  It is made more appalling that he is a member of the church and an elected leader of our state.  This is all appalling.  The story inspires me to horror, dismay, and disgust.

Perhaps the most appalling thing, though, is that when he finished making his speech at the end of the legislative session on the floor of the state House, he received a standing ovation from his fellow legislators.  They congratulated him on being so brave and coming clean.    And if you are masochistic enough to read the comment section of the Deseret News story I linked above, you will find the vast majority of commenters applauding his courage and eviscerating that poor girl.  I feel like we are living in some bizzaro world where up is down, dark is light, courage is cowardice, and right is wrong.

This is not an attempt to go after Republicans.  I am fully aware that awful scandals like these happen to politicians of every political persuasion.  This is about one-party rule.  Republicans have ruled the legislature in Utah for decades by huge margins.  As a result they have become insulated, detached from all consequences of their actions, and completely out of touch with Utah voters.  So when one of their own admitted to being a pedophile on the floor of state House, a crime that would have required years in prison if the statute of limitations had not run, they applaud him and refuse to call for his resignation (he resigned anyway).  He is one of the club, they like him personally, and full-throated support of his actions would carry no consequences politically.  That, my friends, is the definition of appalling.

I lived in Oregon for a little while after graduating.  Oregon is the opposite of Utah (though to a lesser degree).  It is a liberal state with Democratic control of the legislature and governship.  While I vastly preferred its policies to Utah's (strict urban planning, environmental protection, health insurance for all, emphasis on public transit), I had every intention of voting for a Republican for governor just to keep the Democrats honest and to make sure they didn't get too comfortable with their power.  We didn't live in Oregon long enough to make that election, but I know that the problem cuts both ways.

Now, lest you think this will be a strictly non-partisan post, I want to also make a point about intra-party orthodoxy.  Besides the fact that the Republican party has somehow become entangled with religious belief among many Utahns, the reason why one-party Republican rule is dangerous is because it is a party that requires a higher degree of orthodoxy than Democrats.  The current Senate Majority Leader is a pro-life Mormon who opposes the legalization of gay marriage.  Can you imagine Republicans electing as their congressional leader a pro-choice atheist who supports gay marriage?  The strongest pro-life voice in Washington right now is Democrat Bart Stupak.  Can you imagine the leading voice of the pro-choice movement being a Republican?  The strongest conservative voices right now are Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the Tea Party Nation.

There are no strong moderate voices in the Republican party right now (which has not always been the case).  The Democrats, as evidenced by the health care debate, are ruled by moderates.  If it wasn't so we would have a universal health care system right now (or a public option at the very least), stronger environmental protections, no lingering military presence in Iraq, no fear of trying terrorists in criminal court, and tough regulation of the runaway financial system.  Some call the inability to unify the party behind important issues a weakness, and from a political standpoint it is because they are less likely to make the big changes we need.  But a diversity of voices within a party is actually a good thing.  Orthodoxy, like the threatened house cleaning of the Republican party by the far right wing, is bad.  It's bad for democracy.

I would love nothing more than principled liberals with upstanding moral character, the voters' best interests at heart, and a George Washington-like ability to eschew power, to dominate our politics.  But I'll repost the quote from Joseph Smith that seems more and more prescient every day:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

The decades-long one-party rule by Republicans in Utah has created a generation of untouchable Republicans.  Even states viewed as traditionally one-party dominated like Massachusetts, the Dakotas, Washington, Oregon, and Kansas regularly elect opposite party governors and Senators.  But Utah doesn't, and the consequences are appalling.

The Status of Wolves in Utah

There is a fight intensifying in Utah over wolves. This is a sensitive subject in the West because two powerful groups hate wolves and don't want them in Utah: ranchers and hunters. Ranchers hate wolves because they are viewed as a threat to their livestock. Hunters hate wolves because they makes hunting more difficult.

It has gone so far that state senator Allen Christensen introduced a bill that would have allowed state officials to kills or trap any wolf found in Utah. Sen. Christensen has made the following claims about wolves:

"They serve no real useful purpose."

"Despite what Disney portrays them as, being little fluff balls, they make their living by killing other animals and sometimes they do it just for the sport of the kill."

Both claims are demonstrably false. Wolves never kill for sport. They also serve an incredibly useful purpose ecologically. In Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced in the 1990s, the benefit of wolves has been profound. Wolves have kept herds of elk on the move, preventing overgrazing, particularly along streams and rivers. This has increased the stability of the banks and made the water clearer. It has also allowed cottonwood and aspen to grow to maturity which has increased bird and beaver populations. With more beavers damming streams and rivers there is more slow-moving water, which has increased bug populations and further helped birds. Wolves also hunt year-round which means more carrion in the winter to help scavenger populations like eagles and coyotes.

You can only claim that wolves serve no useful purpose if you don't understand science and respect the natural beauty and balance of the Earth.

As for the ranchers, the threat of wolves is overblown. Studies have shown that livestock losses caused by wolves are only a tiny fraction of overall livestock deaths. This simply isn't a big enough problem to justify decimating entire wolf populations.

As for hunters, I just don't have any sympathy. I don't really have a beef with hunters (excluding trophy hunters, i.e. hunting predators, I have a beef with them), but what is best for our ecosystem is exponentially more important to me than what is best for hunters. Wolves and other predators pick off the weakest of the herd, thus strengthening the herd and the ecosystem. Hunters pick off the strongest and biggest, weakening the herd. Plus, it's not a bad thing to give the hunters a little competition, they've had it too easy for too many years. Our early ancestors had to compete with all the other predators to hunt, and thus had to hone their skills and prove their worth. If modern hunters have to try a little harder to kill elk, I say all the better.

Anyway, luckily the bill has been watered down to merely petition the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves as endangered species and allow Utah to come up with its own management plan. The original bill would have been unconstitutional as the federal government has jurisdiction over wolves as an endangered species and a state government cannot supersede that authority. But the fight is not over in Utah. As wolves slowly start to make their way back in Utah after being exterminated in the 1930s, the anti-wolf voices will only get louder.

I hope Utahns will understand that what is best for our state is a healthy wolf population. It will certainly take some adjustment, but if we are truly interested in being good stewards over the Earth we will let the wolves live.

The Jason Chaffetz Show

I like having Jason Chaffetz around. He is fun to follow. He has kooky ideas, a weird personality, boyish enthusiasm, and really kooky ideas. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a liberal representing that district, but since it is arguably the most conservative district in the nation, and any representative they elect is going to be an extreme right-winger anyway, we might as well be able to sit back and enjoy the show.

Chaffetz, remember, won his seat by ousting Chris Cannon, the 16th most conservative representative out of 435 by one measure, by running to Cannon's right. I still find that fact horrifying and entertaining, like watching the audition stage of American Idol.

Interestingly, however, sometimes there are bizarre issues that Chaffetz latches onto where I can kind of see his point. For instance, Chaffetz recently had a vendetta against TSA whole body imaging devices at airports. This is a device that creates something like a 3D image of the persons body for security purposes. Chaffetz's money quote is that "Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane."

I have got to say, I kind of agree with him. The images are not like photographs by any stretch of the imagination, but they kind of do look like a human body naked, kind of, and it seems maybe a little too far. And what is wrong with all the other security measures we have at the airports that we need this new thing? Does our right to privacy have some bounds that this maybe encroaches? I get where he's coming from.

But don't forget that he is still Jason Chaffetz. He recently went to the airport, purposefully got in line for one of these machines, and then reportedly went berserk and made a big scene about them and caused a ruckus and claimed he was being harassed because he was the Congressman that introduced the bill to get the things banned. Again, weird dude.

He went to Congress with this real absolute personal quest to end all earmarks. Again, there is something to that. Earmarks, while just a fraction of the federal budget, are a place where a lot of money gets wasted on pet projects, like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." He was incredibly adamant about this and used it as a major campaign issue. Remember he is still Jason Chaffetz, though, and now has a set of rules where it will be okay for him to get some of his own earmarks.

Which brings us to the latest Jason Chaffetz issue. He wants the census going out next year to require people to mark if they are legal U.S. citizens. Okay, so I understand the problem. The House of Representatives is configured by the number of citizens in each state and in each district. There are 435 seats which can get switched around from state to state as populations shift. We should make sure we have a pretty good idea of where U.S. citizens are before we move around seats. For instance, Utah is going to get a new seat, probably at the expense of South Carolina, with the new census. That should not be done willy-nilly.

But it is such a horrible idea to make people check a box if they are legal citizens in the census questionnaire. First, it would obviously depress responses. If I was not a citizen I wouldn't mark it and send it back in. I would be afraid that would be used against me, even if I was in the country legally. Second, the census is used for more than just redistricting, it is used to track population trends, income trends, gender trends, and the like. It is more important to get as many accurate responses as possible than to use it as what looks like an attempt to further his extremely offensive immigration stances.

Anyway, since we are going to get an extreme conservative out of Utah's Third District no matter what, we might as well get one that is entertaining (again, in an American Idol audition kind of way) and harmless.

Chris Buttars Needs A Nap

It has been too long since we have talked about Chris Buttars. That is an oversight on my part, which I am going to rectify now. Buttars is our most outspoken and prominent Utah legislator. He has a lot of anger in him and, what's more, a lot of confusion. We spent some time in the bizzare world of Chris Buttars here, here, and here.

Apparently, he doesn't like gays. So when Salt Lake City decides that it wants to pass an anti-discrimination law aimed at protecting the LGBT community, this makes Buttars angry. He wants to shut this down, even though he does not even live in Salt Lake City. Here is the oh-so predictable Buttars comment on this:

They want to say they're being hurt more than someone else, I guess. If anybody had a right to special protection it would be Mormons; they've been persecuted but not as bad as the American Indian. But they're not pounding on the newspaper's door. Or the Jewish people; the Jewish people have lots of people hate them. I love them. But you know that's true.

Let's break this down and see if we can make any sense of it. "They want to say they're being hurt more than someone else, I guess." This whole deal was started by factual reports of incidences of discrimination in the city. I'm not saying the LGBT community is like blacks facing down fire hoses in Alabama in the 1960's, but they actually are being hurt more than the general population for just being gay.

"If anybody had a right to special protection it would be Mormons." This is coming from a Utah legislator. I'm pretty sure that Mormons are doing just fine in Utah. For that matter, in the country as a whole. As a Mormon I am comfortable stating that I don't need any special protection. Now, if I was in Missouri or Illinois in the 1830's and 1840's, over 150 years ago, I might be asking for some protection. But Utah in the 2000's? I'm good, thanks.

"They've been persecuted but not as bad as the American Indian." The American Indian? What is even going on here? Where did that come from? I'm a little rattled.

"But they're not pounding on the newspaper's door." It's because the Mormons own the newspaper. If they pounded on the door it would be from the inside. Mormons went through their persecution decades and decades ago. Just because people don't trust our religion doesn't mean we are being persecuted. No one is denying us housing or hospital visitation or end-of-life decisionmaking. And I still don't know what American Indians have to do with anything.

"Or the Jewish people; the Jewish people have lots of people hate them." Now he's just rambling. Does he honestly not understand the difference between hate and discrimination? Is he just throwing out any group that might raise some emotion to distract from the fact that he is completely ill-equipped for the task of being a legislator? My money is on yes.

"I love them." Thanks for clearing that one up for us. We were all looking around trying to figure out why you hate Jews. Why does he need to let us know explicitly that he loves them? Is he self-conscious about his relationship with Jewish people? And I hope he realizes he's talking about a group of actual human beings, not just some amorphous philosophical idea that I kind of feel like it is trendy for some far-right conservatives to adopt now that Pres. Obama is taking a hard stand against Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But again, why even bring Jews into the conversation?

"But you know that's true." What? That you love Jewish people? That a lot of people hate Jews? That people persecute Mormons, but not as much as American Indians? That Mormons need protection more than gays? What is going here? How did this man get even a modicum of power and authority in this state?

You know who really needs protection, though? Belgians.

Utah Escapes Global Climate Change Thanks to New Governor

I remember when Utah used to have a really normal, really smart, really pragmatic man running our state. Now we have Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. As Gov. Huntsman begins the process of being confirmed by the Senate to take the post of Ambassador to China, he has turned the reigns over to L.G. Herbert.

This is what we call the old bait-and-switch. We are sold on a product that we like a lot and that we want to own, in this case Gov. Huntsman. Then at the last minute we get a somewhat similar product that is different enough to be of much less value, in this case L.G. Herbert. We've been betrayed. I never thought I'd have this deep sense of longing for a Republican.

So right off the bat L.G. Herbert, at the Western Governor's Association meeting, attired in the classic all-black look, professes his serious doubts on climate change and publicly mulls over whether to remove Utah from the Western Climate Initiative. Thanks for everything, Huntsman, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

By the way, can't you just imagine ultra-conservative L.G. Herbert gritting his teeth as the late Gov. Huntsman enrolled Utah in the WCI, supported civil unions and other gay rights, criticized Congressional Republicans as "irrelevant," and generally made of mockery of Utah County-style extreme conservatism? But all those worn down teeth finally paid off, L.G. Herbert, because you're in charge now.

Now, I'm no scientist. Far from it. So lets take a look at the institutions that consider climate change very likely (in scientific parlance "very likely" means 90% to 99% chance it is true) a man-made problem: the U.S. EPA, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NASA, the U.S. Geologic Survey, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program which include thirteen federal agencies (for those keeping track, we now have every scientific body of the United States government), the United Nations, Science Magazine, MIT, the National Academies, Britain's Royal Meteorological Society, and on and on and on. If you are able to find a scientific body that disagrees, by all means bring it forward.

But let's listen to what L.G. Herbert has to say:

"I've heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for. People say man's impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive."

Hmmm. Compelling. "People" do say that. My uncle, for instance. Also, a guy in my neighborhood. Keep going, LGH.

"Is there a hidden agenda out there? Help me understand the science."

Yes, every-major-scientific-body-in-the-world-that-has-studied-the-issue, do help us understand.

Herbert told the Deseret News after the discussion he wasn't convinced because all he heard was "the science is conclusive, the science is over. The debate is done. I'm saying, 'Based on what?' "

Seriously, LGH. Somebody show us what the conclusion to this debate is based on. Because if you're just going to point to a bunch of scientific reports, no thanks. Rather . . .

He said polls have shown the public is divided on the issue.

"I think people are confused," he said. "Most people are ignorant of the issue. They all say it sounds good until all of a sudden you've got $4-a-gallon gasoline."

The clincher! I think we can all agree that when it comes to science and major global environmental issues, we should base our reasoning and conclusions on divided public polls and people that are unhappy about high gas prices.

This is going to be our new governor? Ugh. We can debate about just how bad global warming is going to be, and what steps should be taken to best protect us and sustain us, but there simply is no more debate over the fact that human-caused global climate change is real and it is serious. The debate is over based on scientific facts and consensus. It's not haughty to say so, it is haughty to think that you know better.

But my favorite LGH line comes way at the bottom of the story: "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist." Thanks for clearing that up, Herbie: Science and capitalism are now mutually exclusive. Science is for commies.

A Real Utah Senate Race?

Utah Democrats have a seemingly legitimate candidate to run against Senator Bob Bennett. Sam Granato has decided to make a run for the seat, and the timing and situation are nicely aligned such that there is definite cause for optimism.

Granato is the owner of the Salt Lake City deli chain that bears his name. He is also a non-drinking chairman of the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. He is also known in political circles as someone who is involved with local leaders, moderate, and well-liked. This is exactly the type of candidate Utah Democrats need to be running right now: moderate, connected, and likeable.

Combine Granato's personal attributes with a political climate in Utah that is complex these days, and you have the recipe for a potential upset. Pres. Obama is more popular in previously dark red Utah than could ever have been predicted. Sen. Bennett is under fire from state Republican activists because, amazingly, he isn't conservative enough. These charges stem from the unthinkable actions of trying to think through issues instead of just toeing the party line. Because of this Bennett has some primary challengers from the right in the forms of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Tim Bridgewater.

There is recent history suggesting that Utah Republican activists are willing and able to defeat a very conservative federal office holder with someone even more conservative. Jason Chaffetz, our cute little ultra-conservative from Utah county, defeated Chris Cannon in a primary and eventually won a House seat.

So what if the perfect storm occurred? What if Mark Shurtleff defeated Sen. Bennett in the primary? Mark Shurtleff, while no lightweight, isn't exactly the most charming or articulate or popular politician in the state. Combine a candidate who has positioned himself way to the right against a moderate, well-liked Democrat, in a year where Pres. Obama is polling well in Utah, and you might just have the ingredients for an upset. Or, at the very least, a competitive Senatorial race for the first time in years.

And in a state where one party dominates as much as Republicans do in Utah, a competitive statewide race that builds momentum for the Democratic party would be a huge victory.

Utah Loves Obama

The Deseret News has come out with another poll showing Pres. Obama's favorability in Utah that it downplays to an almost criminal degree. In this latest poll it shows the president with an amazing +10 favorability among Utahns, 53-43%.

There are some pretty striking features of this poll. First, 100% of Democrats polled in Utah approved of his job performance. I've never seen that in a poll. Not suprising, though, is that Republicans disapprove 64-34. But independents, the real gem of the electorate, and typically reliably conservative in Utah, support the president +24, 59-35.

Sixty-one and 56 percent of Utahns approve of the job Pres. Obama is doing in foreign policy and health-care reform, respectively. Fifty-five percent, however, disapprove of the stimulus spending.

Since I already threw a fit once about the ugly bias with which the Deseret News reports positive news for Pres. Obama here in Utah, I will pretty much refrain except to show these ridiculous quotes:

While much of America really likes the job President Barack Obama has done in his first 100 days in office — a milestone reached today — Utahns are more reserved, with a bare majority approving his actions.

. . .

Since Republicans outnumber Democrats in Utah two-to-one, it's no surprise that the president doesn't do very well here.

I think the President, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any person with even just a little bit of sense, would disagree whole-heartedly. Pres. Obama is doing very well here. Have we forgotten that this is Utah? This is easily in the top three of conservatives states in the country (out of fifty!). And he has a plus ten favorability here? He's kicking butt, is what he is doing. And he has been kicking butt since the election. His favorability in Utah has actually increased the more Utahns see the job he is doing. The man is a juggernaut.

And all of this bodes very, very poorly for Republicans. The Republican party has essentially been relegated to the deep South and what is now being called the Mormon Belt. They are chasing off moderates, like Senator Arlen Spector, in an effort to become more and more ideologically pure and far-right conservative. Independents throughout the nation strongly favor Pres. Obama. Congressional Republicans are seeing some of the worst poll numbers across the board in decades.

This is a party in crisis, and the number one piece of evidence could easily be that arch-conservative Utah has a strong preference for the way Pres. Obama and the Democratic party are running the nation. If the Republicans can't even count on good old reliable Utah anymore to be staunchly conservative, then what can the count on?

I would pay close attention to the 2010 and 2012 elections here in Utah, because I think we're going to see a decided shift to the left. If Utah Republicans want to have any chance to preserve their dominance of state politics, they had better start moving swiftly center-ward (think Gov. Huntsman) or they are going to have start learning how to play nice with the opposition.

A Change in Utah's Liquor Laws

It's no secret that Utah recently changed its unique liquor laws. The change has gotten national, even international, attention. Previously, all bars were considered private clubs, and to get in you had to be a member of that private club. This system has been replaced by one where anyone looking 35 years or younger must have their ID scanned to keep underage drinkers out.

I tend to think of alcohol as an invasive social ill. Statistics show that violent crimes are all too often related to alcohol consumption. DUI's, in particular, are a selfish and devastating crime that, I believe, should be punished more severely. In my opinion alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana (not that I think marijuana should be legalized, but that's another discussion).

That said, Utah's old liquor laws were not effectively aimed at preventing alcohol abuse. Those that wanted to drink but were not interested in the hassle of the private club system would just head to the State Liquor Store and purchase their alcohol to drink at home, a friend's, or some other private place.

It might reasonably prove effective to make of-age drinking more accessible in public bars where a bartender is keeping track of consumption, a person is more likely to plan ahead and identify a designated driver, and taxis are waiting to drive people home. Despite all of that, the argument that won the day in the Utah legislature was that liberalizing Utah's liquor laws would increase revenue from tourists.

What is interesting is the role the Church played in this process. The Church has previously been very involved in shaping Utah's liquor laws and is widely considered the force that kept the unique laws in place. This recent go-round, however, the Church was conspicuously quiet. Its public statement on the matter was that its goal, as always, was "reasonable regulations on alcohol that reduce underage drinking, over consumption and drunk driving."

There is reason to believe that the Church liked the idea of scanning ID's for younger drinkers, but rightly opposed the idea of compiling that information into a central database. That issue was resolved by maintaining the records of those scans for seven days before discarding them. So with that compromise on the table, the Church was willing to quietly back the bill in order to avoid ballot initiative on the issue (which likely would have been more liberal and widely accepted by the voters) that would have dragged the Church into another public battle right on the heels of Prop 8. There is also the feeling that a change in Church leadership, following the deaths of Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Faust, made the change possible because both were involved in creating the original private-club program, whereas Pres. Monson, with his business background, may have been more inclined to support the more practical approach to the situation.

So the watch is on now to see if alcohol-related crimes, particularly DUI's, increase in the coming months and years. I would frankly be astonished if that were the case, but I would also like to see some additional measures taken to make sure that is not the case. The buses and trains should extend their service hours past around midnight and bars should be required to have taxis waiting. There need to be real alternatives to driving home drunk after a night of drinking.

All in all, it is probably a good compromise between economic considerations, moral considerations, and crime considerations. Hopefully it is a good signal going forward that the Church is going to be less actively politically outside the core areas of freedom of religion and expression, and the separation of church and state.

Optimism from the Left in Utah

Mormons are not simply sheep following an unquestioned authority, and I refuse to believe that Utahns are either. I also refuse to believe that Republicans unerringly satisfy every political urge of Utahns. Despite my optimism, Utah is devastatingly one-party dominated.

In the 2009 legislative session, the Deseret News reports that Republicans sponsored ten out of every eleven bills passed in both houses. Democratic bills were almost universally rejected, and typically in committee without a chance for even a vote. The trend is getting worse and worse every year. For all intents and purposes, it is a Republican-only state legislature. Republicans outnumber Democrats in both houses 74-30.

The D-News also reports that the legislature has a 64% approval rating. That is a great number, to be sure, but does not square with the 90%+ domination of bills passed this session. What's more, Gov. Huntsman has a historically high approval rating of 84%. The governor and the legislature have some serious disagreements, however, and the governor seems to be winning the public relations war.

The governor has Utah involved in the Western Climate Initiative with other western states and Canadian provinces in order to combat global warming. He also is being aggressive with state resources in preserving energy. Republican legislators continue to deny that global warming even exists and are doing everything they can to get Utah out of the WCI. The governor supports gay rights and civil unions, the legislature rejected the very mild Common Ground Initiative bills that sought basic civil protections for gays. The governor supports the stimulus and will take the money offered from the Obama administration to create jobs, while the legislature opposes it and would reject that money. The governor recently made a very public point of claiming that the Republicans in the U.S. Congress were inconsequential and out of ideas. He is distinctly more left than any Republican politician in Utah, than any recent governor, and arguably just as far left than Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson.

John McCain won Utah 62-34%, in contrast to 2004 where Pres. Bush beat Kerry 72-26%. That is an 18 percent shift to the left.

Now, given all of that, and given that Gov. Huntsman has the highest approval ratings of any governor in the history of the state, a much higher rating that the legislature, I have a lot of optimism that Utah will soon start to even out. That the more centrist and left-leaning Utahns will start to have a more prominent voice in Utah politics. That this trend of complete and total control of the legislature which is at odds with the underlying sentiment of Utahns will start to reverse course. That an "R" next to a name will not mean near automatic election. That Utahns will start to demand a legislature that more closely represents their views.

This is a little ways away still, I admit. I would wager that if John Huntsman held his exact same views but was a Democrat (and he honestly isn't that far off from being a centrist democrat like Utah needs), he would be soundly defeated. He would not stand a chance. So there needs to be a significant mindset shift in Utah.

So the Democratic party has to start running candidates who are more centrist for statewide office, more like Jim Matheson, Peter Corroon, and even John Huntsman than Rocky Anderson. If they do that, then they will find that Utah democrats, independents, and disenfranchised republicans will view it as a breath of fresh air, an appealing alternative to the same old ultra-conservative Republicans they are used to voting in, feelings that Gov. Huntsman is arousing right now. We can take advantage of the shift to the left in Utah by offering candidates that appeal to their more moderate views. Ironically, Gov. Huntsman is leading the way.

There is a lot to be optimistic about in Utah politics from the left, despite the rut we seem to be in recently. It is time to dig in.

Sorry, More Utah Politics

The Senate recently voted to expand the members of the House of Representatives from 435 seats to 437, giving one seat to the District of Columbia and another to Utah. The reason for Utah's inclusion is because it was 80 human beings short of getting a new district from the 2000 census, was the fastest growing state since then, and will likely vote a Republican to fill the seat to counter the forgone conclusion that D.C. will vote in a Democrat.

There is this tantalizing possibility, though, that this could all backfire and Utah would end up voting for a Democrat, as well. The Utah legislature drew up the four districts back in 2000 when it seemed likely Utah was going to get the seat the good old fashion way. You can see the map here.

District 1 in Northern Utah is solidly conservative, and so is District 3 because even though it has Grand County and some of Summit County, both of which went for Obama, and San Juan County, which nearly went to Obama, it also contains Utah County which is big and hugely conservative. So that puts District 1, likely for Bishop, and District 3, likely for Chaffetz, solidly Republican. District 2 is a slam dunk for Democrats. It contains the north half of Salt Lake County, a little bit of Davis County (Woods Cross), a little bit of Utah County (Alta) and the real liberal part of Summit County, Park City. Then there's District 4. This little gem is the southern half of Salt Lake County and then the western counties down to Washington County.

The backfire comes where in the last ten years the southern half of Salt Lake County is more and more liberal, especially along the east bench. Republicans have lost some state seats in that area to Democrats, most notably Senate president Greg Curtis from Sandy. Also making this intriguing is that Matheson has the highest approval ratings outside of the Huntsman juggernaut and is from Iron County, which is within that District 4. So Matheson could run in that 4th District and win, with the only challenge being picking up some votes from big-ish and conservative Washington County. He also has experience running in conservative districts and a record of being a moderate. If he did that, then District 2 could run any viable Democrat and win and suddenly Utah has 2 Democrats in the House. I'm not sure if Matheson is that big a risk-taker with District 2 seemingly in the bag, but this is not that far fetched.

Which leads to another interesting little bit of politcal time-wasting. The National Journal Online (warning, slow loading) recently ranked all Congresspeople along the ideological spectrum. You will notice such things as Jim Matheson being predictably moderate, fellow Mormon Harry Reid not as liberal as conservatives think, and Bob Bennett and Orin Hatch are suprisingly moderate. These rankings are not official, by any means, and there is some criticism of it methodology, but it is probably more or less the starting point to some arguments.

The juiciest tidbit, for me, is seeing Chris Cannon, former Representative from Utah, as the 16th most conservative in the 435-seat House. This is not surprising, and Rob Bishop is just barely behind. Chris Cannon, however, lost to Jason Chaffetz in the last election, from the right. Chris Cannon, the 16th most conservative Rep in the nation, was too liberal for the good folks of Utah County, at a time when the entire rest of the nation shifted to the left.

Now I'm not saying that Utah Republicans that don't fall in line with shockingly moderate Governor Huntsman are already irrelevant, but it is quickly approaching that point. The problem with the Republican Party over the past five years is not that it is too liberal, or that it got away from it conservative roots, or that it is not listening intently enough to Rush Limbaugh, it is that the American people have moved to the left. The American people now favor more liberal policies. So either the Republican Party can gravitate toward leaders like Huntsman, or it can fade to obscurity.

And just to be clear, more liberal does not mean less moral. Is it more or less moral to torture? How about being responsible for the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians as the result of an unprovoked war? How about letting millions go without proper medical care in the name of self-sufficiency and the free market? And so on.