Chief Greiner’s friends say the law doesn’t apply to him

Since 2006 the United States Justice Department’s Office of Special Council has been involved with a possible breach by Ogden City Police Chief Jon Greiner of the 1939-era Hatch Act that protects citizens from experiencing improper political pressure by federal, state and local government workers if they are principally employed by an agency in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants.

The Utah Democratic Party’s experience is that application of this law by local authorities in Utah has been uneven. Some Democrats who work for public agencies requesting permission to seek public office have been denied on the grounds that it would violate the Hatch Act while similarly situated Republicans have been allowed to continue their campaigns.

Democrats have lost a number of potentially good candidates because they attempted to comply with a law that didn’t seem to apply to Republicans.

Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner’s case couldn’t provide a better example of our concerns.

According to Scott Schwebke in an article for the Standard-Examiner, Mariama C. Liverpool, an attorney for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, said during a federal Merit Systems Protection Board hearing in Salt Lake City yesterday that the case against Greiner is a textbook example of a Hatch Act violation. "It was a knowingly willful, egregious violation."

An attorney for Greiner argued that he chose not to comply with the Hatch Act on advice that he was not covered from then Senate President John Valentine, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Ogden City legal staff.

All of the local and state lawyers, of course, had an interest in Greiner continuing his campaign – two were partisan allies of his campaign and the others work with him for the city. They are evidence of the problem Utah Democrats face of uneven treatment – not by the feds – but by local authorities advising employees.

All of this could have been avoided if Greiner had complied with an earlier deadline from the Office of Special Counsel to resign as police chief or to withdraw his candidacy by Oct. 31, 2006.

No matter what the outcome of this hearing, the Judge does not have the power to force Greiner to step down from the State Senate. The Hatch Act does not bar him from serving as a State Senator, but from being a partisan candidate for the office.

If the Judge upholds the Office of Special Counsel's complaint, the penalty may or may not be paid by Greiner and certainly won’t be paid by Greiner’s Republican friends on Utah’s Capitol Hill.

The final decision of who will pay the penalty will be made by Greiner’s friends in City Hall. They can remove Greiner from his job as police chief or forfeit to the federal government grants equal to two years of his salary, a total of $215,088.

Yes, that’s right, the residents of Ogden may be asked by their city leaders to pay the price for the police chief’s failure to obey the law even though they voted against him in the 2006 election. (NOTE: Greiner lost the vote in Ogden City to Stuart Reid by 350 votes. Greiner won election with votes from surrounding cities.)

Greiner’s friends apparently told him that the law doesn’t apply to him. We may find out soon if they were right. If they weren’t, we hope that the penalty isn’t paid by the residents of Ogden and that we can all – regardless of party affiliation -- get better advice in the future.

Is healthcare a right or a privilege? Perhaps we have been asking the wrong question.

There is a lot of heated debate between those who support healthcare reform and those who don't whether or not healthcare is a right or a privilege. Conservatives like to argue healthcare isn't a right. It isn't mentioned in the Constitution and besides, rights don't come from the government they argue. The Sunday, October 18th issue of the Deseret Morning News has a story about a couple fortunate to receive $750,000 in free charitable healthcare at LDS Hospital. They argue healthcare isn't a right but a privilege. It is not clear why they deserved the privilege and others do not, though I have no doubt they are incredibly kind and decent people. Maybe the Deseret Morning News will do another story investigating the decision making process when it comes to who gets charitable care and who doesn't.

The problem with the debate about rights vs. privileges when it comes to healthcare is both sides are so passionate about their position other serious issues are often ignored or minimized. If I have a right to healthcare, do I have the right to every available treatment under the sun even if my life cannot be significantly improved or saved by any of them? How much care do I have a right to given every healthcare system ever devised has and will necessarily have only limited resources at its disposal? These are tough questions and ones our society has avoided so far by linking the amount and quality of care many receive to ability to pay. Those arguing healthcare is a right should define it as a civil rights or equal rights issue rather than as something we are simply entitled to. Our income/insurance based method of rationing care impacts the poor and minorities the greatest. The focus should be on the injustice of not asking everyone to share equally in the rationing currently taking place within our system. Framing healthcare itself as a right implies any action short of full treatment violates that right, which isn't always the case.

Those arguing it is a privilege necessarily take the position some people deserve the highest quality appropriate treatment possible and others do not. Privileges by definition are given only to those deemed worthy to receive them. This is an ironic position to take for those who have falsely raised the specter of "death panels" deciding who will live and who will die if the government becomes too involved in healthcare. If healthcare is a privilege, than someone must decide who gets it and how much they receive. Should treatment decisions rest with the government, the insurance industry, medical professionals or some combination of the three? Where do patients and their families fit in when it comes to deciding who is worthy of the privilege of certain levels of care and who is not? Regardless, some person, panel or organization has to make the decision of who receives the healthcare privilege and who doesn't. The "healthcare is a privilege, not a right" crowd never clearly articulates exactly who that will be and what the criteria will be for deciding how best to continue to treat people differently within our healthcare system.

Polls show Americans believe everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. Differences about how we get to universal coverage aside, once everyone is covered our treatment within the healthcare system should be as identical as reasonably possible. All things being equal, no two people experiencing the same medical condition should receive radically different care based on income, race, gender, etc. The passage of healthcare reform legislation is only the beginning. Once reform provides all of us a more equal share as participants in the healthcare system than we have had so far, we will need to continue engaging in a dialogue about what we want that system to look like when the time comes we inevitably need it. A serious national discussion about cost, care, and a variety of other issues has not happened thus far precisely because we have not all shared in either the benefits or the responsibilities imposed by our healthcare system, but those days are finally coming to an end.

Some Folks in Congress should Grab a Mop

If you listen to some folks in Congress (like Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, and Congressman Rob Bishop), you would think they had nothing whatsoever to do with our current economic mess.

If you watch the actions of some folks in Congress (add Congressman Jason Chaffetz to those named above), you would think they have no responsibility to help the country clean it up. 

Indeed, you might think they’d been sounding warning bells all along about the dangerous and irresponsible policies of the past.

Ummm, not so much.

These folks in Congress were right there supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent and turning a blind eye while crooks swindled middle-income families unchallenged by the lax regulators hired by the GOP to oversee our financial system.

Now some folks in Congress are offering nothing but more of the same, and shouts of "NO" to any of the President's ideas to clean up the mess we're in.

President Obama has often spoken of our mutual responsibility to one another. He has worked tirelessly to set right what went wrong. He has rolled up his sleeves, he has called on all of us to pitch in and work together.

Some folks in Congress have eschewed their responsibility, rooted for failure, and said NO to needed reform of financial regulation, the health insurance system and how we use and produce energy.

To them we say three simple words: Grab a Mop.

What I reject is when some folks say we should go back to the past policies when it was those very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

Another way of putting it is when, you know, I'm busy and Nancy busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else’s mess –- we don’t want somebody sitting back saying, you're not holding the mop the right way. You're not mopping fast enough. That's a socialist mop.

Why don’t you grab a mop, why don’t you help clean up. Grab a mop –- let’s get to work.

-- President Barack Obama, October 15, 2009

Parents hosting swine flu exposure parties

There is a dangerous trend starting. Chances of serious complications from the disease are far greater than from a vaccination. Please read this article by Elizabeth Stuart at the Deseret News.

University of Utah officials are gearing up for an influx of H1N1 patients, some resulting from "exposure parties" hosted at homes on the Wasatch Front.

"It's horrifying" that parents are exposing their children to the virus intentionally "just to get the virus and be done with it," Kimberly Wirthlin, associate vice president for marketing and communications at the U.'s Health Sciences Center told a committee of the state's Board of Regents on Friday.

The U.'s hospital system is anticipating a surge of patients exhibiting H1N1 symptoms and has designated a separate area of the emergency department to keep them from infecting other patients. But the idea that people might be infecting themselves, Wirthlin said is tough to deal with.

Statewide, there have been 127 hospitalizations related to both the H1N1 virus and the seasonal flu since August 30, according to the Utah Department of Health. Forty-one of those patients were checked in during the past week.

One hundred percent of the 27 lab specimens that tested positive for influenza last week were confirmed as H1N1, officials said.

With Reform so Close, Ignore the Naysayers

The Deseret Morning News today joined with Senator Orrin Hatch to announce opposition to health care reform.  Of course, neither Hatch nor the D-News has any real serious alternative to the various proposals passed out of committees in the House and Senate so far - though the D-News did suggest leaving reform to the states because, you know, the hodgepodge of insurance regulations and plans varying from state to state has worked so well and state governments have generally been so eager to tackle reform.

So far five separate bills have passed out of committees in the House and Senate.  Two Senate committees and three House committees have approved legislation now being reconciled in preparation for floor votes in both chambers.  With so many proposals being considered it is easy to lose site of the fact we are closer now to seeing some major legislation pass than at any point in the nearly 100 years since Theodore Roosevelt first advocated healthcare reform during his 1912 bid to return to the White House.  No legislation came out of any committee in 1993 during the last major push to reform the system, and few efforts have faired much better over the years.

Naysayers like Senator Hatch have a seat at the table if they want it.  In fact, Senator Hatch walked away from negotiations with Senator Baucus and others on the Senate Finance Committee, opting instead to simply oppose whatever proposal was offered.  With estimates ranging from 20,000 to more than 40,000 Americans dying annually as a result of lack of coverage and costs continuing to rise to levels more and more families and employers can no longer afford, Hatch's decision to walk away was irresponsible at best.  Regardless, Hatch and those who defend his position on reform can no longer be taken seriously.   They had and continue to have an invitation to play a constructive role, but the ball is in their court and reform appears almost certain to move forward with or without them. 

WTF, are they serious?

Over on Twitter @dantnl asked "How do we promote intelligent discourse and decision-making on regional and national civic issues?"

It seems that first we need to know what issues are serious and which are silly.

So, take a shot.

1) List silly issues that Republicans bring up.
2) List silly issues that Democrats bring up.
3) List serious issues that Republicans fail to address.
4) List serious issues that Democrats fail to address.

The comment section is open.

A CALL TO ACTION: President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Peace Prize awarded to Spokesman for Hope

The announcement this morning that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama was a pleasant surprise.

While the prize has often been awarded to those who have toiled for many years to accomplish a worthwhile goal, it has more often been awarded to people who raise important issues that need world attention.

In our opinion this award to President Obama is well-deserved for just the reasons mentioned by the Nobel committee:

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman.

Republicans who oppose this award show that they are out-of-step with American aspiration and the leadership that the world desires. They show why they are not fit to lead our country at this time.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about America’s place in the world and the concept of American Exceptionalism (please see our previous post here). He has reached out across party lines to include people like our own governor, Jon Huntsman, to help show that his vision is the vision of the American people and not just the Democratic Party of the United States. And, yes, he has demonstrated to America that it is best to try cooperative means to reach our goals rather than unilateral action and bullying.

This prize is for Obama’s campaign of hope in 2008 and its early implementation in 2009. It spoke to the American voter and we awarded him our votes. We now have evidence that it spoke to people all over the world and they have voted to award him this prize.

Congratulations, Mr. President!

We are proud of you and honored to have played our part in sustaining your vision that there is, “no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.”

This blog may exacerbate gluteal myalgia

BLOGGERS BEWARE: On October 5, 2009 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) updated its 1980 regulations “Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Alarm is spreading. The government is extending its long arm into the Wild West of the World Wide Web. And its target is people who offer their opinions!! Très horrible for bloggers!

So as a public service here are the implications for those who post reviews of consumer products on their blogs. The news release from the FTC is best summarized as follows:

The post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.  And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims. Endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement.

Now most bloggers will hardly find this a problem. Nobody never gave them nothin’ – despite their wishes to the contrary.

If a blogger does score a free ticket to a movie or event, they might mislead people to believe it was enjoyable, but this subjective opinion will hardly be the stuff of lawsuits. Even so, it might be good to disclose to readers that the blogger snagged a free ticket.

And, of course, the FTC doesn’t regulate politics. The First Amendment still gives free reign on political opinion to bloggers.

So, it is reviews of products and services that are the stuff of concern. Our advice to bloggers: Tell the truth about your experience and how that experience came about. Then you will have nothing to worry about with this FTC regulation. (NOTE: If  a blogger can’t bring themselves to tell the truth, label your commentary as satire, fantasy, tragedy or as some other literary device. This is probably a sure-fire way to gain the safe harbor.)

All the FTC is demanding is for a little more disclosure into the murky area of blogging for pay. Sunshine is a good disinfectant, and a few more words at the end of a review aren’t a big burden.

This commentary was written by Todd Taylor who is paid to occasionally be a pain in the @ss!

Failure of the financial system is not an option

Listening to the punditocracy these days, it would seem that political fighting has progressed to the point where civility itself is in question: Civil War II – the commentators of CNN versus FOX.

So it is worth pointing out when even the most polarizing figures like Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush, goes out of his way to say that President Obama is “right” about changes that are needed.

Appearing on Nightly Business Report on October 2, 2009, Hubbard provided this commentary:

Earlier this month, President Obama delivered tough words in New York's Federal Hall on the need for financial regulatory reform.

The president is right that Washington and Wall Street are complacent about changes that are needed to safeguard our financial system and protect taxpayers and we need change.

When a systemically important institution is in danger of failure and its failure could trigger a chain reaction of other failures, there may be no alternative other than to inject public funds. But the needed amount of these injections has been significantly increased by weaknesses in our current regulatory system.

Capital requirements are our principal bulwark against bank failure, a key trigger of systemic risk, but they can be improved. Larger banks should have higher capital ratios and more information should be provided to investors.

We also need a better process than bankruptcy for resolving the insolvency of financial institutions. Our framework for banks needs to be extended to other financial institutions and their holding companies. This process, unlike bankruptcy, puts the resolution of institutions in the hands of regulators rather than judges and permits more flexible approaches to keeping systemically important institutions afloat.

The president's own proposals would increase regulatory complexity and keep high the risk of financial crisis, but he is right to call for thoughtful action. Let's hope Wall Street and Washington were listening.

I'm Glenn Hubbard.

OSE OpEd - Snake Valley: Secret talks, quick deals and a sucker's bet

At some point during the past four years the Huntsman administration eagerly entered into secret negotiations with Nevada to create a pact to divide 132,000 acre-feet of water each year in the Snake Valley before the Southern Nevada Water Authority can stake its claim on 50,000 to 60,000 acre-feet for Las Vegas.

Governor Herbert seems determined to sign a Snake Valley Compact as soon as possible without regard for public input, reliable information about the amount of available water, or the consequences of over-allocating our resources.

The proposed deal is worse than gambling our inheritance away in Vegas before we can receive it, it is like writing a check at the Mirage casino without ever taking our chances at the table.

There is no potential prize for Utah. Utah water would leave for Nevada while we keep our fingers crossed each year for sufficient rain and snow to replace what we send across the border.

No Utah communities could benefit from this bet. The Utah Medical Association warns that the wages of this sin may be death. Ranchers and farmers, wildlife and plants, and downwinders along the Wasatch Front could end up paying the ultimate price when the water is gone.

A signing ceremony may be immanent. There has been a seeming rush. Last week the Snake Valley Research Advisory Council was summoned to a meeting in Baker, Nevada with little notice to the public or council members.

The process seems inverted. The draft admits to insufficient information to determine with precision the available groundwater supply saying research will be done during the next decade of planning for a 300-mile pipeline. Doesn't it make more sense to do the research first then agree on what to do with the water?

Additionally, the recession has hit Las Vegas hard. So hard that water demand has dropped and construction on what is referred to as a "third straw" to draw all the water Nevada is entitled to out of Lake Mead was recently suspended (Las Vegas Sun, Sept. 13, 2009).

It is impossible to make the case for rushing the Snake Valley Compact when southern Nevada water districts are postponing opportunities to withdraw water they already have at their disposal from Lake Mead.

Las Vegas clearly can live without Snake Valley water for a few years while we conduct the research needed to determine with more certainty what water resources exist on both the Utah and Nevada side of the border and how much can be safely pumped out for use in Las Vegas or elsewhere.

But there is more to consider. Utah will likely wake up one day to find Las Vegas has been taking water at an unsustainable rate. Vegetation in the valley has died ending farming and ranching. The National Wildlife Refuge at Fish Springs is drying up. Dust storms blow into the Wasatch Front from the West Desert containing mercury, carcinogens from 900 nuclear tests, and fungus spores that create potentially lethal infections.

Scientists with the Utah Geological Survey say a drop in the water table of more than 100 feet are likely to result leading to dust storms if there is pumping on the magnitude envisioned by the pact. The Utah Medical Association has warned that adverse health impacts may be widespread.

There is little indication the governor is taking these concerns seriously. The proposed deal promises only that "appropriate action" would be taken should the water drawdown prove harmful.

Would they really put a halt to the project after such massive investments? How quickly can we really expect ground water supplies to recover, if at all, in a place like Utah's fragile West Desert? How many more decades of fighting for compensation for downwinder victims will we have to endure?

This pact only pays lip service if there is harm, not real penalties in real dollars.

One last thing to consider as we gamble away our future water, covetous eyes are all around us. Southern Utah has talked about a pipeline from Lake Powell; legislator Mike Noel and his former colleague Aaron Tilton want vast amounts of Green River water for a nuclear power plant; Denver wants a pipeline from Flaming Gorge.

Cumulatively these projects, if all implemented, would consume hundreds of thousands of acre-feet. Can Utah afford to gamble away our water, and possibly our lives, with Nevada?

This guest commentary was provided by Utah Democratic Party Chair Wayne Holland and published by the Ogden Standard Examiner on October 3, 2009.