Happy New Year: A look back at the past decade

The first decade of this century will pass into the history books in the next few hours.

In some ways things look remarkably the same as they did ten years ago: there is a Democrat in the White House; the United States is represented around the world by a female Secretary of State; our country is trying to end military involvement in Iraq; Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear capabilities; a Republican occupies Utah’s Governor’s Mansion; the GOP has a supermajority in our State Legislature; and, abortion legislation is pending.

In other ways there is a stark difference: almost no one had heard the names Karl Rove, Osama Bin Laden, Ken Lay or Gary Herbert; the Dow Jones Industrial Average was approximately 1,000 points higher; unemployment was at an historic low; the federal budget was producing surpluses that would be put in a “lockbox” to pay for the Social Security of Baby Boomers; healthcare reform legislation had failed; global temperatures were a few degrees lower;  the Jazz played at the Delta Center; Utah’s tax structure was progressive and would have provided $1 billion more each year for education by now; you had to have a club membership to buy an alcoholic drink in Utah; and, progressives were fairly happy with “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Politically in Utah the decade started with a Western Presidential Primary. Utah Democrats began the push for it in 1988 and had a nice showing with a firehouse primary in 1992 where Bill Clinton came in third -- as he would in the general election that year. But when Gov. Leavitt got behind the idea late in the 1990’s, Utah adopted its first state-run primary in 2000 with contests between Bush v McCain for the GOP and Gore v Bradley for the Democrats. The Utah victors met in the general election which only ended when the Supreme Court decided the lawsuit Bush v Gore. The Utah presidential primary was seen as a bust. By 2004 with a Republican in the White House, Utah’s legislature defunded the primary. But it was scheduled to come back with a vengeance in 2008, except that Republican wannabes ceded Utah to Mitt Romney who went on to raise more political funds from Utahns than any other candidate in history. Another 2008 surprise was heavy spending in Utah’s media by Hillary Clinton and newcomer Barack Obama. Obamamania didn’t skip Utah as Obama raised more funds than GOP nominee John McCain and Obama became the first Democrat to win Salt Lake County in two generations.

The decade would see four Utah Governors (Leavitt, Walker, Huntsman and Herbert); Democrats exchanging a popular Attorney General Jan Graham for a popular member of Congress Jim Matheson; three Salt Lake City Mayors (Deedee Corradini, Rocky Anderson, and Ralph Becker); a new form of government in Salt Lake County where Democrats regained control for the first time since 1994 and elected a popular County Mayor Peter Corroon; a legislature that barely changed with Dems up one in the House and down one in the Senate but sweet victories like Patrice Arent over the Senate Majority Leader, Jay Seegmiller over the Speaker of the House, Cindy Beshear over gun-total wild shootin’ David Zolman, Tim Cosgrove over union foe Chad Bennion, and the return of Trisha Beck; the loss of dear leaders like Wayne Owens, Ted Moss, Cal Rampton, Pete Suazo, Bill Orton, Ed Mayne, RJ Snow and JD Williams; the retirement of a Capitol Hill legend Mike Dmitrich; and, a series of ballot issues dealing with English as the official language, a tax on radioactive waste disposal, a measure on dealing with property seized following a crime, marriage between “a man and a woman”, and school vouchers.

Congressional Reapportionment – a fourth seat eludes Utah because missionaries weren’t counted and the Census Bureau used statistical sampling. The Supreme Court decides sampling is okay after all. But the District of Columbia wants just one vote and the prospect of the DC Votes Act causes Utah to redistrict again mid-decade. Alas, Utah ends decade without a fourth seat. But liberals are prematurely licking their chops about a strong Democratic seat they expect to come after the 2011 redistricting, but underestimate the greed of GOP lawmakers trying to nab all four seats for themselves.

Thanks to legislative counsel and GOP lawmakers who wanted every office they could lay their hands on, the 2001 round of redistricting was a values-free zone combining sets of Democratic incumbents and giving the members of Congress vastly new districts despite the fact that the population loss was primarily in Republican districts. Longtime Congressman Jim Hansen retired setting up a fight between State House titans Rob Bishop and Kevin Garn. State Rep. Eric Hutchings switched parties. In a stunner Democrats survived Matheson v Swallow by 1,641 votes and House Democratic Whip Patrice Arent bested Senate Republican Majority Leader Steve Poulton, but other targets like Ed Allen and Trisha Beck lost by narrow margins.

The Winter Olympics came for a brief shining moment in February 2002. Dashing some dreams in a bribery scandal and elevating others like Massachusetts US Senate wannabe Mitt Romney who looked good implementing the plans of others and throwing the world a party after a horrific terror attack of 9/11. It would have political implications as Romney returned home to see if the way to the White House could go through the Statehouse.

The Utah Education Association helps RINOs win convention contests and primary elections much of the time but purity is desired by activist base: the wake-up call for the decade is Leavitt v Glen Davis, the sequals were Bridgewater v Swallow Pt 1 & 2, Bishop v Garn, Dana Love v Paul Ray, David Zolman v Kory Holdaway, Leonard Blackham v Darin Peterson, Jon Greiner v Dave Thomas, Jim Bird v Peggy Wallace, Dave Ure v Kevin VanTassell, Becky Edwards v Paul Neuenschwander, Cannon v John “the devil” Jacobs and the knock-out punch Jason Chaffetz. But the real news is that public employees and teachers political might on Utah’s Capitol Hill was overthrown by the Utah Realtors Association after a brief skirmish by Utah’s banks and credit unions.

Ethics – The annual House Dems presser comes alive with bribery allegations in State Treasurer wannabes Richard Ellis v Mark Walker, and buying votes on the hill in Rep. Greg Hughes v ex-Rep. Susan Lawrence. Rep. Phil Reisen was accused of exposing pig in a poke by letting the cat out of the bag. Utahns for Ethical Government files citizens’ initiative that unites the GOP against ethics. All of that was preceded by Nancy Workman putting her daughter on the payroll and claiming “it was for the children” and Speaker Curtis double-dipping and getting his mileage paid by two governmental entities and Speaker Mel Brown’s potential job with Qwest and his allegedly improper relationship with the staff.

LGBT issues take center stage with Amendment 3, Proposition 8, hate crimes, adoption policy, non-discrimination, viatical settlements, student clubs closing, PFLAG, GLSEN, GSSA walk-outs, Stonewall, Equality Utah, HRC and a dynamic trio of Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson in the State House and Scott McCoy in the Senate battling Eagle Forum maven Gayle Ruzicka and Senator Chris “I don’t know when to keep my mouth shut” Buttars. But "openly gay elected official" is not an oxymoron in Utah where in addition to the legislative crew there has been Big Water Mayor Willy Marshall and newly elected SLC Councilman Stan Penfold.

The school voucher issue in Utah is one that could consume the better part of a book about too much money following a single issue, the hubris of the GOP incumbent legislators, the fall and rise of the once-powerful Utah Education Association and its allies, and the heat of partisan politics. From Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne to alleged Ponzi schemer Rick Koerber, from Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to State Rep. Carl Wimmer to GOP legislative candidates George Garwood, Jess Clifford, Deena Ely, Sandy Thackeray, Robyn Bagley, Phil Conder and many, many more, the elections of 2006 and 2007 were like nothing Utah has seen before . . . and hopefully will never see again. Democrats in Utah probably had their best chance for a rebound in 2006, the second mid-term for GOP President GW Bush, but late in the game had to switch from offense to defense when tons of what now appear to be illegal funds were used to make vicious attacks on incumbent Democratic legislators. The Republican Party got so caught up in the game that it was left almost bankrupt following the election with staff and leadership leaving the sinking ship for former disgraced Congresswoman Enid Greene to clean up after them. Even a popular Governor Huntsman facing re-election wasn’t in a strong enough position to name the State Party Chair and was forced to call a special statewide election on a referendum when the legislature went a bridge too far in passing a very unpopular plan to defund neighborhood schools.

We round out the decade with the economic collapse of 2008 when federal stimulus money saves state budget, Moab tailings finally start moving, social services are in dire straights and non-profit funding in dumps, politicians avoid tax increases while public votes for one bond issue after another, realtors of new houses given huge tax benefits, car dealers closed with survivors getting cash for clunkers – local politicians on the take while berating their benefactor in Washington, DC.

Meanwhile on the campaign front: a decade ago no one had heard of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, ActBlue, Constant Contact, Google blasts; McCain-Feingold hadn’t upended federal campaign financing; there was still some local news media on radio and television that was allowed to cover politics and help us get to know the candidate and our choices; mail and telephone were the kings of local elections; and, while we all paid lip-service to door to door canvassing Gerber and Green hadn’t proved its effectiveness. In fact, we all thought that voters made rational decisions instead of undergoing different “heursuitics” and other neurological process and emotional connections as identified by microtargeting.

It is a marvel that the most popular television program of the decade was “American Idol” and, yet, a local version like Eugene Jelesnick's “Talent Showcase” would never be considered for airtime. There is no room for local heroes anymore. The loss of local celebrity has hurt the political world as much as any other endeavor. It continued its long decline to the point where over 50% of Utahns couldn’t tell you the name of the Governor when he was recently inaugurated. Fewer than 10% can name either of their state legislators, and even the professional politicians can’t name their school board representative.  I doubt more than 3% could name just one member of the State Supreme Court. So, here’s to Ed and Elizabeth Smart, David Archuleta and Ken Jennings! At least Utahns got to know someone local during the past decade whether for triumph or tragedy.

If this decade shows us anything, it is that the only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

Happy new year to one and all! One thing is certain, for good or ill the next decade won’t be anything like the one just past.

A Wish for Wings that Work

The United States Senate in an historic Christmas Eve session voted to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It provides more Americans with the opportunity to protect themselves against catastrophic healthcare costs than at any time in our history and creates the greatest deficit reduction package passed in the last decade. It will expand coverage to more than 30 million Americans while reducing the deficit by more than $130 billion in the next ten years.

This bill is a clear victory for Utahns. It will decrease the federal deficit. It will deliver on the promises President Obama has made since the health care debate began – reducing costs, providing quality, affordable choices for the uninsured and providing stability and security for those who already have coverage.

While the legislation received unanimous support from Democrats, it passed without a single Republican vote.  As we approach the 2010 elections, Senator Bennett  will need to explain to voters why he chose the status quo that is bankrupting Utah families and preventing tens of thousands from getting appropriate health care instead of restoring a functioning health insurance market.

So today we thank President Obama and Senate Democrats for their strong leadership on this issue and continue to offer our support as they move closer than ever to making comprehensive health insurance reform a reality for Utahns.

Many on the left and right wanted more radical reform that denies our unique American experience. The right wanted individuals to bear more of the risk and direct costs. The left wanted a move to a single payer system, or at least the option of a government-run program that took the profit motive out of healthcare. American policy makers have been trapped in this century-long debate resulting in piecemeal reforms for only certain segments of the population.

This reform is comprehensive, impressive and critical. One-third of working adults in Utah went without health insurance for a significant period during the past two years.

The health care insurance system in the United States ought to work for everyone. It doesn’t. It doesn’t even work for those who pay for it. It especially doesn’t work for those who pay for it.

Got a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, and a good education, and a decent job, and good health insurance? According to a 2005 Harvard study on the causes of bankruptcy, that didn't protect half of bankruptcy filers who were financially ruined by illness or medical bills.

We buy insurance is a form of risk management where in exchange for a premium, a person has a guaranteed small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss. The population absorbs the cost of risks to an individual by spreading the impact of incurred costs amongst the insured population. However, if the population is split into insured and uninsured groups, or into selective groups the concept of population solidarity breaks down.

Breakdown is where we find ourselves today with the health insurance market.

The problem is that insurance companies don't sell insurance as we think of it. They sell health care payment plans only to those least likely to need it. Should you need to use your payment plan, the insurance company will spend money to hire insurance adjustors and lawyers to say the insurance company need not be the one to pay. Sometimes it appears that health insurance is not even for sale in America. There is no real market.

The poor are eligible for coverage by Medicaid, those over 65 years of age by Medicare, and children by SCHIP.

Who is left? Employed adults.

When the people who foot the bill for everyone else cannot purchase security for themselves, the system has broken.

According to the Harvard study, medically bankrupt families lost more than just assets. One out of five went without food. A third had their utilities shut off, and nearly two-thirds skipped needed doctor or dentist visits.

Faux coverage policies that can be canceled when you need them most are useless. So is bare-bones coverage like the Utah Medicaid program pioneered by former Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt while he was our governor. It pays for primary care visits but not specialists or hospital care. The plan adopted by our legislature this year wasn’t any better.
Promising high-priced coverage through COBRA is meaningless since nearly no one can afford to pay when an illness that has led to job loss.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act finally takes a mammoth step to providing us with a fair, functioning health insurance market again for working adults.

For those on the political left and right who are like Berkeley Breathed’s cartoon character Opus the Penguin, a bird that cannot fly with a wish for wings that work who discovers on Christmas Eve what  his natural abilities are: It is time to take another look. The Senate has adopted a solution that deals with the world as it is, not as we would wish it could be. It is a major victory.

Now, let us help them cross the finish line early in the next year.

War, Tax Cuts and Recession - Not Obama Policies - Explain Deficit for Next Decade

There is a new analysis of the causes of the budget deficit by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Here are some key findings from their report:

Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress generated the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to astronomical levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the Presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the Obama Administration budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

One of the major domestic initiatives of the Bush Administration was a new prescription-drug benefit in Medicare, known as Medicare Part D. This legislation was only partly paid for, and it added significantly to the deficit that President Obama inherited. But Part D outlays are coming in lower than CBO and the Medicare actuary expected. CBO now expects the net cost of Medicare Part D over that initial 2004-2013 period to be about $355 billion, as compared to the original $552 billion figure.

Conservatism's "pro-business" anti-regulation ideology has hurt both business and workers

  For years we have been told mandates and regulation kill business and ultimately hurt workers.  While our competitors required employers to provide sick leave, maternity leave or just a good old fashioned vacation, many US workers saw their wages stagnate and, unable to afford an unpaid sick day off, went to work exposing their co-workers and unsuspecting members of the public to their illness.  This, we were told, was not only the right thing to do, but somehow good for the economy.

But a study released in November shows not only did humane policies like mandatory paid sick leave not undermine the economies of the growing list of nations around the world implementing them, it seems they may have actually helped these economies while failure to adopt the same or similar measures here put ours at a competitive disadvantage. 

According to Jody Heymann, one of the study's authors "The world's most successful and competitive nations are providing the supports the United States lacks, without harming their competitiveness."  Heymann continues "Globally, we found that none of these working conditions [paid sick leave, maternity leave, annual leave, etc.] are linked with lower levels of economic competitiveness or employment...In fact, we found that a number of these guarantees are associated with increased competitiveness." (Emphasis added)

Okay, so once again the facts demonstrate they have a liberal bias.  Conservatives, if forced to confront these facts, will argue that while requiring things like paid sick leave may be good for both business and employees, denying business the freedom to do what is bad for business and employees is un-American. In the meantime, virtually every other country in the world save a few freedom loving hold outs like Syria have adopted mandatory paid sick leave policies.  More and more are also offering paid leave for new mothers, or even fathers.  Here are just a few of the numbers:

• 163 nations have guaranteed paid sick leave; the U.S. does not
• 164 nations have guaranteed paid annual leave; the U.S. does not
• 177 nations guarantee paid leave for new mothers; the U.S. does not
• 74 nations guarantee paid leave for new fathers; the U.S. does not
• 48 nations guarantee paid leave to deal with a sick child; the U.S. does not

Many may also argue while policies such as these are great during good times, the weight of such mandates breaks the back of business during recessions such as the one we are currently struggling to recover from.  Once again, the facts simply do not support such an assertion. 

In countries such as Germany for example, unemployment has risen from 7.1% in October of 2008 to 7.5% today.  To the south in Austria these figures are 4% and 4.7% respectively.  In the Eurozone as a whole, unemployment has jumped from 7.3% in October of 2008 to 9.3% in October of this year. 

I am not arguing policies mandating paid sick leave or family and medical leave are the reason countries like Germany haven't seen unemployment jump as much as it has in the US.  However, such policies obviously don't necessarily cause unemployment during a recession, especially if the government response to the recession includes programs like Germany's short-time working or 'Kurzarbeit' program which now covers up to 67% of the cost for about 1 million workers nationwide.

The evidence is in.  Conservatism's so called "pro-business" ideology has failed both business and workers, and the time has come for Americans to support worker friendly policies that will improve both the work place and our competitiveness.  Three pieces of legislation have been introduced which deserve support include:

1.  The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1902) - Requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide a certain minimum amount of paid sick leave.
2. The Family Leave Insurance Act (H.R. 1723) - Directs the Secretary of Labor to establish a Family and Medical Insurance Program which will be mandatory for certain covered employees.
3. The Federal Employees Paid Leave Act (H.R. 626) - Already passed by the House, this bill would allow federal employees to substitute any paid leave for any leave without pay available for either the birth or adoption of a child. 

For additional information on employee leave policies in the United States or around the world, please visit one of these excellent websites:

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/PageServer

http://raisingtheglobalfloor.org/policies/policy-selection.php?policy=health

Top 10 Utah Political Stories

What political event has affected Utahns the most since January 1, 2000?

• That computers didn’t crash leading to the end of the world as predicted by Sen. Bob Bennett?
• That good deeds never go unpunished like when Nancy Workman expressed her support “for the children”, Mark Walker wanted to keep a good worker like Richard Ellis on the payroll, Greg Hughes devised sure-fire lobbying tactics for school vouchers, and Phil Reisen’s subtle ability to leak a story?
• That the economic collapse of 2008 was mismanaged?
• That the LGBT community found something in common with the LDS Church in that they want to be treated with basic dignity?
• That redistricting and reapportionment never seems to end?
• That terrorist attacks on 9-11, two wars, the Olympics, and TSA have changed life forever?

As we near December 31, 2009, there will be a number of stories recalling the “best” and “worst” of the first decade of this millennium. It is a good time for some reflection and to gain some perspective on where we have been and where we’re going.

We would like your help to identify the most important political events to affect Utah in the past decade for better or worse. Send us your ideas to Top10@utdemocrats.org.

We will highlight these stories in the coming days.

Odd couple: Ayn Rand and Karl Marx

Don Jarvis, 2008 legislative candidate and director at the Utah County Democratic Party, wrote this column for the Provo Daily Herald: 

The Herald editors recently wrote that Ayn Rand's writings are useful for "understanding the underlying political tectonics of 2009." The editors are not alone. Rand's ideology of no-holds-barred capitalism and minimal government has attracted many American followers, including many Utah County legislators and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Since the recession of 2007, however, Greenspan has admitted that the market was much less able do the right thing than Rand had predicted, and his confidence in the Mother of Libertarianism has been shaken. But many others still remain true.

Ayn Rand's popularity in church-going America is odd. Like her philosophical rival Karl Marx, Rand hated and ridiculed religion. She taught a fiercely anti-Christian philosophy of "Rational Egoism" and wrote a book entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Perhaps her initial success was partly due to lucky timing. She became well known in the 1950s, during the depths of the Cold War, when Americans were desperately seeking any philosophical answer to Communism. Having grown up in Soviet Russia, Rand knew how badly things go under that variant of Marxism, and she attacked it with passion and religious zeal.

Rand and Marx were both talented critics: Marx had expertly pointed out the failures of the dominant system of his age: predatory capitalism/imperialism in 19th Century Britain. But both were worse than bad at prescribing remedies for their respective economic systems.

Their predictions and prescriptions were polar opposites and equally flawed: Marx hated the power of money, while Rand worshipped it. Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism because of its excesses and a revolt of the working class. Rand predicted the collapse of socialism/communism because of its stifling bureaucracy and a revolt of the thinking entrepreneurial class. Marx failed to see that capitalism would be saved by legislation against monopolies and promoting workers' rights. Rand failed to see that Social Security and reasonable economic regulation would preserve equality of opportunity both for talented poor families and for the thinking business class that she so ardently worshipped. Marx held a fatefully naive faith in government to solve all problems of humanity, while Rand had a no less dangerous belief that unchained capitalism could solve all those same world problems by itself.

So how "useful" are the writings of Rand or Marx for understanding our politics today? Not very. Our American system involves a complex and constantly shifting dynamic tension between democratic government and the free market. Finding the best balance between them is central to every election in every state and requires the best thinking of leaders and voters. The answers are seldom easy.

On the proper balance between government and the market, both Marx's communism and Rand's libertarianism are disastrously wrong -- two sides of the same bad penny.

Don Jarvis is a resident of Provo. Jarvis worked extensively in Russia under communism and later under Yeltsin's "anything-goes" capitalism. He saw plenty of suffering under both systems.

Here is my addendum to Jarvis’ column: A few months ago there was a PBS documentary, Frontline: The Warning, about the seeds of our current financial crisis that featured the role of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in the economic collapse.

Greenspan had once been a regular attendee at an informal gathering of friends who met with Russian-born novelist and political philosopher Ayn Rand on weekends at her apartment to discuss philosophy. Greenspan spent decades trying to put Rand’s free-market theories into practice.

On October 23, 2008 at a Congressional hearing Greenspan reversed position on the premise that you could trust the markets to regulate themselves.

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA): You have been a staunch advocate for letting markets regulate themselves. And my question for you is simple. Were you wrong?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Yes. I found a flaw, but I've been very distressed by that fact.

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked because I've been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Ron Suskind said, “You see Greenspan at the hearing table after the collapse, and you see a crushed man, really.”

Greenspan’s is a lesson that should be learned by Utah’s conservatives and Republican elected officials. Don Jarvis’ column does a good job telling you why.

This lesson of political moderation and against extremism should have been learned long ago. Adam Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations described an “invisible hand” of the market that created a self-regulating nature of the marketplace and was capable of allocating resources in society. It is the founding justification for laissez-faire economic philosophy.

But the “invisible hand” has long been known to  be invisible because it is not there. The tragedy of the commons or slavery are examples where self-interest tends to bring an unwanted result.  We have seen for ourselves that markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution and too little basic research. Moreover, a free market provides numerous opportunities for maximizing profit at the expense -- rather than for the benefit -- of others. One Islamic economist wrote to the effect that, if the “invisible hand” were visible, the hand would have been chopped-off long ago for persistently steeling from the poor in favor of the rich.

On the other hand, we have seen benefits from prudent regulation of banking and markets, public works, and limited “safety net” programs that actually promote a healthy economy by enabling households to make productive investments in their future that they may otherwise miss through better education, health, and pensions. These were the basis for the New Deal programs of the Great Depression that led America to create the largest and most prosperous economy in the world.

Is it any wonder at the popular backlash against implementation of the Bush administration’s TARP? The public is looking for the chopping block but hasn’t found the invisible hand.

Once again, Senator Hatch proves he will say anything to prevent reform

This morning (December 2, 2009) on FOX News, Senator Hatch stated if health care reform passes the language in the legislation "could be used against Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals, other groups that do not believe in abortion, which may cause actions of discrimination..."  This is completely false. If Hatch had actually read the bill as he claims, he would know that.

In truth, page 123 of the Senate bill reads "No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness...[to] provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."  The language couldn't be more clear.

Call or email Senator Hatch and ask him why he feels it is right for his "holy war" against health care reform to include lies. 

Senator Hatch's DC Office: 202-224-5251

Senator Hatch's Salt Lake City Office: 801-524-4380

Online contact form

President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

President Obama outlines his strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. December 1, 2009 (Public Domain).

Ethics Initiative: Nothing is different now than back then

Last Friday, State Representative Craig Frank asked on his blog of past legislators who endorsed the Utahns for Ethical Government initiative, “Are things really any different now than they were back then?”

We agree with Rep. Frank that the answer is clearly, “No.”

Where Rep. Frank is flat-out wrong is about the legislators doing nothing about these issues during their terms in office. He really needs to find a friend with some historical perspective. What hasn’t changed is that GOP legislators and their leaders are just as hostile now to improving their ethics as they have always been.

I don’t know much of Karl Snow’s tenure in the legislature. And, I didn’t know David Irvine when he was in the legislature, but he has been a reformer on political issues for as long as I have known him.

I did, however, occasionally work with Rep. Jordan Tanner who was such an irritant on ethics issues that many of his Republican colleagues shunned him. Few seemed sad to see him resign when he moved from his district.

Rep. Kim Burningham regularly submitted legislation on these issues, too. While he felt strongly that there should be some change, he never pushed too hard. His courtly manner kept him from making too many enemies and his passion was education – cynically, I might add, the industry that paid his bills.

And, I have experience with former House Clerk Carole Peterson. She was always the sternest of mother figures trying the best way an employee can to help her bosses be better than they were. Her power was strictly delegated from her employers. She used it effectively and well. I was met by her glare and few choice words more than once. I occasionally made new mistakes, but never the same one twice. To my never-ending frustration, she mostly succeeded in helping the GOP leaders look good even when they were not.

I’m afraid that the really good legislative staff like Carole Peterson do their jobs too well. They have protected the legislature from being embarrassed by its own mistakes and failed to let it grow up. I would add a large number of the senior staff in the legislative counsel’s and fiscal analysts’ offices to this critique. (They know who they are.)

As for Rep./Lt. Gov./Gov. Olene Walker, I was disappointed more than once by her failure to push on reform issues, but she did bring them up. I will never forget sitting next to her in her office during a particularly spirited discussion. I was afraid that I might get hit by the heavy jewels on her hand which she was waiving about emphatically. She asked then Sen. Pres. Lane Beattie and House Speaker Mel Brown if they could get their bodies to support a measure. Both just looked into their laps with shame, and she said "I thought not." That was the end of the discussion.

Democrats, representing nearly 40% of the population who are overlooked by Rep. Frank – as he does regularly, have brought forth a whole package of these issues nearly every session for as long as I can remember -- since at least 1988. It seems to be an annual event with the the Democratic caucus doing a “reform” press event.

I remember Sen. Karen Hale finally getting a hearing on the personal use of campaign funds. She knew it would be voted down and was a bit depressed. So, we set a goal of getting legislators on the committee to say in public the outlandish and greedy things they had said in private. They took the bait with a KSL camera catching their every move. I think it started John Daley's focus on these issues. Sen. Hale said it was the most fun she had ever had while losing.

Failure to listen to your colleagues concerns is not the same as their not having tried. Rep. Frank needs to consult a much better historian before making these accusations.

There is little doubt in my mind that if Republican leaders had acted reasonably – even simply allowing hearings -- on some of these issues throughout the years that the UEG initiative would never have been written and we would likely have much better laws already in place.

The real irony is that Common Cause, whose citizen lobbyists pushed these issues throughout much of the 1980s and 1990s, has disappeared from Capitol Hill. Legislators trying to introduce good ethics legislation do not have experienced support that they can rely on for assistance. More is the pity.