Utah State Democratic Party

ER Award to honor SLCo Clerk Sherrie Swensen for public service

2010-07-29T17:26:00.002-06:00

The Utah State Democratic Party’s Chair of this year’s Eleanor Roosevelt Award Luncheon, Salt Lake County Community Services Department Director Erin Litvack, is pleased to announce the 2010 Eleanor Roosevelt Award recipient will be Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen.

Ms. Litvack said, “Sherrie Swensen is a modern example of the courage and values we saw from First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt was a woman ahead of her time, a warm, loving, sincere, kind, wise, strong, disciplined, and very human person who used her talents and position to help bring about much needed social change for which she will never be forgotten and will always be treasured. We think the same can be said for Sherrie.”

Democratic State Party Chair Wayne Holland praised the selection saying, “The level of participation in Utah’s elections has fallen to such a low level that Governor Huntsman created a commission to find ways to encourage participation. I know of no person in Utah who has done more to fight the tide of apathy or more to encourage positive participation than Sherrie Swensen. She has truly been a great public servant, doing her best to get us all involved and doing it with such competence and style. Utah’s election system is highly trusted by the voters in our state. That is due in no small part to the efficiency and hard work of Sherrie and the staff of her office.”

Sherrie Swensen was born in Murray and resided in Midvale for 28 years prior to moving to Sandy in 1998. She has two sons and eight grandchildren. She enjoys all sports including bowling, tennis and rollerblading, but particularly loves water skiing. She was involved in little-league sports programs for over ten years. Ms. Swensen served on the Executive Board of the Ute Conference and was both president and secretary of the Hillcrest Little League Football program.

Ms. Swensen did volunteer work for youth baseball and basketball programs as well. She served on the Board of Directors for the Advocates for People with Mental Retardation (ARC) and numerous civic boards and is involved in many community organizations.

Sherrie Swensen serves the community with integrity and, as the Salt Lake County Clerk, sticks to her mission of running accessible, fair, honest elections in Salt Lake County. She has coordinated and established several successful programs to make voter registration more convenient for residents in Salt Lake County. Swensen proposed and successfully lobbied for the passage of House Bill 488, "Emergency Absentee Ballots," which allows votes to be cast by people who have been hospitalized or confined to a care facility after absentee ballots have been mailed out.

Sherrie Swensen was selected by a committee of past award winners from nominations submitted by members of the public and party activists. Other nominees this year included wonderful people truly deserving of the Eleanor Roosevelt Award such as Kay Christensen, the former Chief of Staff to Congressman Wayne Owens and Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini; Gwen Larsen; wife of the later Congressman Wayne Owens and educator Marlene Owens; State Senate Democratic Leader Pat Jones; educator and longtime Iron County Party officer Georgia Beth Thompson; Maria Garcia; Meg Averett; former Box Elder County Party Chair Jan Douglas; State Senator Luz Robles; Stonewall Caucus Chair Nikki Boyer; former State Party Treasurer Susie McHugh; congressional candidate and educator Claudia Wright; and, the recently deceased party activist Bettina Rothrock Black.

The award will be presented at the seventeenth annual Eleanor Roosevelt Award Luncheon to be held on October 7, 2010 at the Salt Lake City Downtown Marriott. In addition to the award presentation, luncheon attendees will enjoy a dynamic keynote address by Joan Goldsmith. Joan has been an organizational consultant, coach, and educator for the past thirty-five years, specializing in leadership development, organizational change, conflict resolution, and team building. She has served on numerous boards of directors, and been an advisor to the Woman's International Health Coalition, Disney Institute for Women Entrepreneurs, Women's Lens on Global Issues, and Women International League for Peace and Freedom, and a speaker at national and local conferences on issues of women in leadership.

Past award winners include former Congresswoman Karen Shepherd; Utah First Ladies Lucy Beth Rampton and Norma Matheson; former Attorney General Jan Graham; former State House members Judy Ann Buffmire and Beverly White; State Senator Karen Mayne and former State Senators Karen Hale and Paula Julander; Party activists Fae Beck, Rosa Vida Black, ShaRon Nelson, Louise Henson, and Helen James; former Executive Director of the Utah Education Association Susan Kuziak; former Utah AFL-CIO political director Beverly Saathoff; well-known community activists Annette P. Cumming, Esther Landa, Robyn Matheson and Peggy Swenson.

Granato likes their beach, but not their budget process . . .

2010-07-29T17:24:00.001-06:00

Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate Sam Granato said he opposes amending the United States Constitution to adopt California-style rules for the federal budget.

“Delayed tax refunds, forced work-reduction furloughs, paying small business vendors with IOUs, court ordered tax increases, downgraded bond ratings, increased interest rates. All of these things have happened in California because of rules that prevent responsible budgeting. This is a future that I do not want to see for the United States of America. We are better than that,” Granato said.

Granato’s comments come on the heels of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s declaration of a “fiscal state of emergency” in California on Wednesday, a dire situation that was created by the state’s inflexible budget laws and ensuing political gridlock. Mike Lee, Granato’s Republican opponent, has supported adding similar rules on the federal level by amending the U.S. Constitution.

Granato said he opposes a so-called Balanced Budget Amendment because it will invariably result in draconian cuts that will hurt average Americans.

“They have cynically called it the Balanced Budget Amendment, but it is an unnecessary and extreme attempt to cut important programs that many ordinary Americans rely on, such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. We certainly need to balance our federal budget and deal with our long-term deficits, but this contraption won’t do it. It is an extreme proposal that will send America further down the wrong-track,” Granato said.

Granato continued, “We have seen what it has done in California to adopt these types of rules. It is guaranteed to produce gridlock and political grandstanding of the worst kind. For too long, this very serious problem has been used as a partisan punching bag to score points and win elections. That Washington mindset needs to end now. We need to be fiscally responsible and end deficit spending, but not by playing political games with the Constitution.”

Glorious Revolution: An Email Exchange

2010-07-02T09:49:00.001-06:00

On July 1, the Utah Democratic Party sent an e-mail out to people who have given us their e-mail addresses for one reason or another over the years. It said:

The Utah Democratic Party wishes you, your friends, and family a joyous Independence Day!!!

This coming long weekend is a good time to reflect on the direction we want our country and state to go. The Obama administration and the 111^th Congress have worked diligently to change our national course to a direction that will bring benefits for decades to come – we’ve seen reinvestment in our nation’s infrastructure, reform of our broken health insurance system, reform of the outlaw world of credit cards, and soon a change in our financial regulatory system to prevent the abuses that got into the current recession. It has been the most productive congressional session since in 45 years since Lyndon Johnson was President. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same here at home in Utah.

Last Thursday, Governor Herbert was talking to reporters about Utah’s economy. He said "there's a lot of good news out there." So what's the good news?

Is it that we rank dead last in education funding, or that we have the highest jobless rate in over 25 years? Maybe it's that we're the only state in the western United States that has lost clean energy jobs in the last 4 years. There is one place where we know Utah is number one. We have the highest gasoline prices in the Country. That doesn't sound like a lot of good news.

See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqOmjRcxRUo

We can't take two more years of this kind of leadership!

The State of Utah at one time received an "A" from Governing Magazine. Now, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, our state has dropped to twelfth worst in the nation for budget gaps. And the incumbent governor recently discovered an additional $150 million dollar deficit in our state budget that he explains as "right on target" and "normal." How did this happen? Simply put, this situation is a result of poor leadership.

Thankfully, we can do better with your help to get new leadership by electing Peter Corroon as our next Governor.

Peter has developed a plan to get “Back to Basics” and increase government efficiency in the State of Utah.

Government efficiency is one of the best ways we can enhance government and private sector programs. In Peter Corroon’s plan, he pointed out several areas where we can dig deep, cut fat, save money and still improve our quality of life.

As governor, he will:

□ Reform the budget process by ending gimmicks

□ Demand results

□ Cut waste

□ Require department directors and other top-level employees to sign performance agreements

□ Conduct a top-to-bottom review of ALL state programs

It's pretty clear we need to take steps RIGHT NOW to make state government better for the 21st Century.

Read Peter’s “Back to Basics” Government Efficiency Plan at http://www.votecorroon.com/images/stories/media/0628%20-%20budgetpaper.pdf

As mayor, Peter Corroon cut Salt Lake County's government by nearly 20% last year and made our government more honest and transparent. He can do the same for the State of Utah. Peter Corroon is ready to roll up his sleeves and get to work. As the next Governor of Utah, he has a plan to provide true fiscal discipline to our state government.

Please help bring fiscal management to Utah by supporting Peter’s campaign at www.votecorroon.com.

We join you in celebrating America this 4^th of July and hope you talk with your friends about how much better it could be here in Utah next year if we elect Peter Corroon as our next Governor of the State of Utah. You can bring a little of the revolutionary spirit to your holiday by supporting good candidates who will set us on a new course to better days ahead.

It got mostly a positive response. But here is one that respectfully took us on. It was signed and a telephone number was given. It read:

Dear Utah Democrats,

While I don’t believe Republicans have all the answers, I do believe Democrats stand on the wrong side of many of the issues facing our nation and our state. Take for example your recent statement in the 7/1/10 newsletter:

“Last Thursday, Governor Herbert was talking to reporters about Utah’s economy. He said "there's a lot of good news out there." So what's the good news?

Is it that we rank dead last in education funding, or that we have the highest jobless rate in over 25 years? Maybe it's that we're the only state in the western United States that has lost clean energy jobs in the last 4 years. There is one place where we know Utah is number one. We have the highest gasoline prices in the Country. That doesn't sound like a lot of good news.”

First off, when are you Dems going to be satisfied with enough per pupil spending? Dollars spent does not necessarily equate to smarter kids. Dems are always crying for teachers, union workers and government employees. I never hear either party crying for my profession other than Dems attacking business owners (of which I am not one). I’m just a lowly, non-union worker bee. Teachers are OVERPAID and OVERCOMPENSATED as or other government employees. Don’t get me wrong, I believe business owners should pay taxes and a decent wage to their employees, but your party spends WAY TOO MUCH time worried about the POOR TEACHERS.

Secondly – The jobless rate is because of the democrats, longstanding anti-capitalist stance.

Thirdly – Clean energy is a MYTH. It’s been around for a long time and is proven to be inefficient as compared to other forms of energy. Again, don’t get me wrong, clean energy and conservation have their place, but job growth through clean energy positions is a looser.

Forth – It’s because of your party that the economy is such a wreck. SPARE ME with the “George Bush did it” garbage. Your party is solely responsible for this mess, you take pride in it, and you have no plans for recovery. Btw. Spending more and more money you don’t have is no way to stimulate a budget, whether it be large or small. Governments DO NOT CREATE anything.

And finally gas prices – Your party hates gasoline, and from all indication wants prices as high as possible so we’ll all have clean energy.

Thank you,

It was full of ideas that needed rebutting. Here was our response:

Utah Democrats will not be satisfied with per pupil spending until our children have the resources and learning they need to keep up in our fast changing world and lead productive lives. One would think that would be at least the average in this nation (which is double what Utah’s legislature provides). Doing this does not require any tax increase from individuals, simply setting the right priorities. Over the past decade, we have decreased education funding by $1 billion of an $11 billion state budget. If we had simply left the state constitution and tax code alone, we would have a 10% increase. The GOP is systematically defunding public education in order to drive people away and get them to seek private education.

It is laughable to think that the Kennedy family, Rockefeller family, John Corzine, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and most of the Democrats serving in Congress are anti-capitalist. Many of them come from the largest investment banking systems in the world. Many of them are entrepreneurs. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both Democrats. It takes a whole lot of brainwashing to believe that Democrats are anti-capitalist.

We know about small business. The Democratic Party of Utah is one. Every successful candidate knows what it means to meet a payroll, to deal with regulation, to find banking services. We know what makes life easier and more difficult for small business owners. Small business owners will be the great beneficiaries of the health insurance reform (more than any other segment of our population). Small business owners know what it is like to get jacked around by banks changing the rules at their own whim. The credit card reform and financial system reform will lighten those “surprises” of free market capitalism. I’d put the business savvy of Peter Corroon against Gary Herbert any day. Ditto for Sam Granato versus Mike Lee, Jim Matheson versus Morgan Philpot. All three of the Democrats were successful small business owners. Two of the Republicans are professional lawyers and Herbert last ran a business twenty-five years ago.

To believe government does not create anything is preposterous. From the water you used to shower, brush your teeth and flush your toilet every morning to the streets you drive to work on to the education that your employees had before they came to work for you to the technology that is sending this communication, you benefit from the things that government has created.

As for gasoline, it is a necessity in America today, but our overreliance on this one fuel has cost us countless lives in foreign wars and from pollution in our skies. Salt Lake, Provo and Logan consistently rank in the top ten cities in the United States for the worst acute spikes in air pollution. Air pollution causes many serious illnesses, aggravates many others, and shortens the life span of Wasatch Front residents about two years. And, four to eight percent of all deaths are attributable to air pollution (about 1,000 premature deaths along the Wasatch Front annually). The federal government is doing something about it. Starting with model year 2012 and by 2016, the American fleet of cars and light trucks will be almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient than it is today, with an average of 35 miles per gallon. The program is projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and will achieve greenhouse gas reductions equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road.

Air quality is a serious problem that is uniquely bad in Utah because of our geography. But do we see any leadership from Republicans who cry “state’s rights” to solve what is a great problem that is unique to us – something that kills 1,000 of our family, friends and neighbors each year. NO!!! Failure to find and promote alternative energy sources leads directly to death. Fossil fuels are not renewable. We will run out. With the industrialization of China and India, that day is coming sooner rather than later. We either find an alternative or fight with them over the scarce resources that are remaining – and there are over 1 billion of them compared to 360 million of us, and they are younger and more male.

Republicans think that if you get government out of the way and let the free market operate, then the economy will magically take care of itself – like it does in Afghanistan and Somalia where there are no governments. Democrats know that the economy grows only when we invest in human, physical and intellectual capital as the United States has done for most of its history. Businessmen know this, too. Investment in those three areas are critical to economic growth. Sometimes the free market will do this, much of the time it won’t or does so in a manner that leaves out important segments of the population. By working together collectively, we can accomplish things that we never could individually. Adam Smith described this effect of the division of labor in the Wealth of Nations. One example he used was the making of pins. One worker could probably make only twenty pins per day. However, if ten people divided up the eighteen steps required to make a pin, they could make a combined amount of 48,000 pins in one day. Government has a role in this division of labor. We can use it to uplift us or to torment us or we can let it fall into nothingness and the American influence we enjoy will truly die.

And, finally, our correspondent got the last word, with this:

Thank you.

In this world of sound bites and name calling substituting for political discourse, it’s good to hear what Utah Democrats believe in and you’ve made some very good arguments. I appreciate you taking the time to spell some of these out. With Jim Matheson voting against Obamacare it has solidified in my view that the Utah Democrats (if I can lump them all together) are a special breed apart from the ones in Washington. It’s Blue Dog Democrats like Jim who are beginning to realize that their conservative campaign platforms which get them elected, do not align with the radical left leadership in their party.

By the detail you’ve provided it would appear you are more in tune with the day-to-day dealings in local politics and can see all the good that comes from good pieces of legislation. I tend to take an interest in a high-level view of politics and generally apply a principle of trusting the private sector over big government. This view is over simplistic and can not be broadly applied, but I would caution anyone not to trust so heartily in our public servants. These days it appears the population is trending more and more towards government dependence and a blind faith in our elected leaders as demonstrated with all the current administration handouts including stimulus, tax credits and out-of-control spending. There is a balance between belt tightening and infrastructure investing which most recently has tipped too far towards recklessness. I do not consider Utah Democrats anything like Pelosi, Reid and Obama, but, unfortunately, they’re in the same party. You sound like you want a stronger Utah and a stronger America. I do to. The details and the over-arching philosophies in doing so can be debated all day. Like I said it’s good to hear your side of the argument without the usually nastiness and name calling which usually accompanies political discourse today clouding the real issues we face as a state and a nation.

Signing Citizens’ Initiative Petitions On-line

2010-02-10T17:43:00.001-07:00

The on-line process designed for use by Fair Boundaries and Utahns for Ethical Government is in full compliance with Utah law and today’s Attorney General’s opinion. While the government could be provided with electronic records and electronic signatures, if they are not willing to accept it in an electronic form then the petitions will be provided in the paper format as required by today’s opinion. The government will not be a party to the electronic transaction. Registered voters of Utah should still be encouraged to go to http://fairboundaries.utahpetitions.org and http://ueg.utahpetitions.org to sign the petitions.

America needs more than a great president to realize my father's dream.

2010-01-18T02:45:00.001-07:00

In my home is a reminder of August 28, 2008, the night the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama to become the 44th President of the United States -- a dozen flags waved enthusiastically as a symbol that America continues to progress in its respect for all our citizens.

The evening was the culmination of historical moment that had begun forty-five years earlier and the message was declared by two children of the Rev. Martin Luther King.

Rev. Bernice King opened by letting us know that this is not just a story of the South or inner-cities, but of all America:

"Tonight, freedom rings! From the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado, freedom rings!

Forty-five years ago today, my father delivered his "I have a dream" speech. Tonight, we witness in part what has become of his dream, the acceptance of a Democratic presidential nominee, decided not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character."

Then, Martin Luther King III included us all among his brothers and sisters and gave us a continued mission when he announced that:

"We're all children of the dream.

But my father would be quick to remind us that realizing his dream is not Barack Obama's job alone. America needs more than a great president to realize my father's dream. What America needs is a great America.

Let me paraphrase my father: The ultimate measure of a nation is not where it stands in times of comfort and convenience, but where it stands in times of challenge and controversy.

On some questions, cowardice asks, is a position safe? Expediency asks, is a position politic? Vanity asks, is a position popular? But, that something deep inside us called conscience asks, is a position right?

Sometimes we must take positions that are neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; we must take them because they are right!

If we are to be a great democracy, we must all take an active role in our democracy. We must do democracy. That goes far beyond simply casting your vote. We must all actively champion the causes that ensure the common good.

In five short years, when we reflect upon the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, let us look back and celebrate our audacity to redress poverty, commemorate the hope and faith that led us to take charge of our lives and communities, and venerate our dream of life, liberty and happiness, through our renewed commitment to prevent unjust wars from ever being waged.

Then let us look forward to the next 50 years as we stand together, because our potential as a people is limitless. Work together, because our ability to do good in the world is boundless. And live together, because of our values of fairness, full justice, opportunity and the majesty of the dream."

These words are what I'm thinking of on today's celebration of MLK Jr Day.

Statement on Republican Leader Killpack

2010-01-15T19:15:00.001-07:00

Democratic State Party Chair Wayne Holland issued the following statement regarding the arrest of Senate Republican Leader Sheldon Killpack for suspicion of driving under the influence:

“Senate Republican Leader Sheldon Killpack’s circumstances are tragic – for him and his family, his constituents and colleagues, and for the public who he may have endangered.

We ask all Utahns to honor the principle that he is to be presumed innocent of the charge of driving under the influence until proven guilty. However, his decision to refuse to comply with the investigating police officer’s request for breath test shows that he did not deal with this in a responsible, forthright manner.

As a public figure, he knows that he will be held to a high standard. We expect that there will be consequences for his leadership position and his position as Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee.”

ksl.com - Corroon kicks off Utah gubernatorial campaign

2010-01-12T17:28:00.000-07:00

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Corroon - Back to Basics

2010-01-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

Mayor Peter Corroon talks about getting back to basics. Here is the first video message from the Corroon for Governor campaign.

Mayor Peter Corroon to Formally Announce For Governor on Tuesday

2010-01-09T18:58:00.001-07:00

Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon will formally announce his plans to run for Governor of the State of Utah on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:30 AM on the South City Campus of Salt Lake Community College.

The announcement will kick off a two-day statewide tour of Utah during which Mayor Corroon will travel to Ogden, St. George and Provo to discuss with Utahns his vision for Utah’s future.

During Tuesday’s announcement, Mayor Corroon will detail his plans as Governor and highlight how he believes he can help move Utah forward with a smaller, more efficient government focused on educating Utah children, creating jobs by fostering locally owned businesses, bringing new companies to Utah, and making Utah a leader in renewable energy while protecting our unique values and quality of life.

Peter Corroon was elected Salt Lake County Mayor in November 2004, taking on the concerns of over one million constituents, a budget of roughly $750 million, and a county infrastructure of 36 agencies and over seven thousand employees.

His "planning, not politics" policies have made him both a well liked and respected public official. He is a champion of small business, and his economic development efforts continue to improve lives throughout the county.

During his tenure, Mayor Corroon has consistently prioritized quality government through fiscally responsible policies that reflect his goal of an open, honest, and ethical government. He was overwhelming re-elected in 2008, with 66 percent of the vote.

The announcement is open to the public and Mayor Corroon will be on hand following his remarks to answer questions from the media.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

9:30 a.m.   Salt Lake Community College
                  South City Campus, West Steps
                  1575 S State State
                   Salt Lake City, Utah

12:30 p.m.   Ogden Municipal Building
                     2549 Washington Blvd
                     Ogden, Utah

6:30 p.m.   Ancestor Square
                  2 West St. George Blvd
                  St. George, Utah

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

9:30 a.m. Provo City Library
                 550 N University Blvd
                 Provo, Utah

You can visit Corroon for Governor website at http://www.votecorroon.com/

Financial contributions can be made at http://www.actblue.com/page/usdc_pc

Gaze into the Crystal Ball – Share your vision

2010-01-04T18:17:00.001-07:00

Anyone up for a little sharing of their gift to see the future? We are specifically interested in what you see coming for the 2010 legislative session.

Complete the following sentences about the 2010 session:

1) I hope to see . . .

2) I expect to see . . .

3) I never hope to see . . .

You know the thing-

1) I hope to see funding for dental and vision care for the poor.

2) I expect to see growing class sizes as they hold education budgets “harmless” but provide no funding for growing student populations.

3) I never hope to see House Speaker David Clark (R-St George) get his redistricting wish to “grapple with the state's changing demographics, particularly in the heavily populated Wasatch Front.”

We are looking forward to your contributions. We hope to use some of them at this year’s 2010 Legislative Gala (a/k/a Democratic Crystal Ball – Share our vision).

Happy New Year: A look back at the past decade

2009-12-31T15:00:00.001-07:00

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

2009-12-24T13:25:00.002-07:00

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

2009-12-16T11:34:00.001-07:00

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

2009-12-14T12:18:00.001-07:00

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:

The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1902) - Requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide a certain minimum amount of paid sick leave.
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.
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

Odd couple: Ayn Rand and Karl Marx

2009-12-07T13:36:00.001-07:00

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

2009-12-02T10:33:00.001-07:00

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

2009-12-01T21:12:00.000-07:00

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

2009-12-01T17:20:00.001-07:00

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.

GOP just won't take ethics seriously

2009-11-24T12:42:00.001-07:00

The Utah Republican Party made it official last Saturday; It opposes an ethics initiative currently being circulated by a group known as Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG). In the resolution passed by the GOP's central committee, the Utah Republican Party cites constitutional concerns with UEG's ballot initiative and the fact the legislature has already passed some ethics reforms, and more is on the way.

What the Utah GOP keeps overlooking is the fact ethics reform wouldn't be on the ballot at all if the Republican controlled legislature had taken advantage of numerous attempts to reform itself. Up until last year's legislative session, there was virtually no movement on ethics reform. It took evidence of growing public disgust with the way business was being conducted on Capitol Hill to get a handful of relatively weak reform measures passed. Fear of UEG's ballot initiative appears likely to have the same effect on the legislature in 2010.

In a draft Joint Resolution on Ethics Complaint Procedures circulated during a recent interim committee meeting, yet another reform is being proposed in hopes any effort by the citizens of Utah to take matters into their own hands can be derailed. This joint resolution would create an independent ethics commission, but the commission would only be empowered to recommend the House or Senate Ethics Committee take up a complaint against one or more representatives or senators.

The chair of the commission and the chairs of the House and Senate Ethics Committee are given extraordinary powers to "set time limitations on any part of a meeting or hearing authorized" by the resolution. Depending on the amount of time a committee chair allows for arguments, this could make it difficult to impossible for either complainants or defendants to make their case before the commission or the relevant legislative ethics committee.

In addition, citizens or legislators may only file a complaint against a sitting legislator if at least two citizens/legislators submit the complaint and one of those has "actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances supporting each allegation." In other words, while citizens or fellow legislators may have substantial evidence of ethical violations, unless they actually witnessed or were a party to the wrong doing - and they would have to be one or the other to have "actual knowledge" - they can't ask either the independent ethics commission or one of the two legislative ethics committees to look into the matter. How convenient.

In the proposed resolution legislators also shield themselves from any complaint filed within 60 days of an election. So, if evidence comes to light - excuse me - if "actual knowledge" of an ethical problem comes to light or if a violation of ethical standards actually occurs within two months of Election Day, don't count on the ethics commission or legislative committees looking into it.

But in their effort to shield themselves from accountability while still appearing concerned about ethics, the Republican controlled legislature seems poised to go much further than prohibiting ethics complaints within 60 days of an election. Under the draft resolution, unless the independent ethics commission created by it refers a complaint to one of the two legislative ethics committees for possible further action, no one can reveal a complaint was even filed.

"Except as provided in Subsection (1)(b) or (c), a person, including the complainants, the respondent, commission members, a committee chair or vice chair, or staff to the commission or a committee, may not disclose the existence of a complaint, a response, nor any information concerning any alleged violation that is the subject of a complaint."

Subsections (1)(b) and (c) refer to a response which is "publicly released by the commission and referred to an ethics committee" and "disclosing facts or allegations about potential criminal violations to law enforcement authorities" respectively. Subsection (2) goes on to state any revelation to the press or public a complaint has been filed not covered by one of the above two exceptions, would put the leaker in potential "contempt of the Legislature".

Whatever flaws are allegedly contained within the ethics reform initiative currently circulating, Republicans on Capitol Hill have no one but themselves to blame for the fact it got to the point citizens felt the need to take matters into their own hands. Proposing another weak piece of "reform" legislation shielding legislators from public scrutiny when ethical questions arise does nothing to address public doubts legislators take ethics seriously. If the goal is to do ethics reform better than the initiative and render it moot, lawmakers have a long way to go.

Preview of Thursday's Party Lines

2009-11-17T19:45:00.002-07:00

"...but even with LDS Church support there are conservative groups like the Sutherland Institute, Standard of Liberty and the notorious America Forever who are attempting to confuse the issue by stating that the Church was being less than honest with its support by asserting that the Church’s statement was just an “Entity” trying to protect itself."

Check out the Davis County Clipper's "Party Lines" with Rob and Todd -- Thursday.

Should the State Senate confirm Herbert tax nominee?

2009-11-17T16:32:00.001-07:00

Usually when we refer to Howard Stephenson’s Utah Taxpayers Association it is to point out how they don’t represent the interests of middle-income families. But we, too, were surprised by Gov. Gary Herbert’s nomination of Michael Cragun to the Utah State Tax Commission for many of the reasons that the association noted in its most recent newsletter. Here is what they had to say:

Governor Gary Herbert has just nominated Michael Cragun to replace Pam Hendrickson on the Utah State Tax Commission. Hendrickson has been a Tax Commissioner since 1997, even earning the Utah Taxpayers Association’s “Lifetime Achievement” award this past May. However, Cragun’s record on the Davis County Commission, and his significant deficits in tax expertise make him a poor choice for the State Tax Commission. The Utah Senate will consider his nomination in extraordinary session on November 17, 2009.

Unlike the Utah State Tax Commission, most boards and commissions in Utah government have no judicial function. They make policy recommendations for the Governor, various agencies and the Legislature to consider. The Tax Commission, however, is an adjudicative and quasi legislative body. Much like a traditional court, the Commissioners hear and decide legal appeals regarding the taxes you pay. Much like a legislature, the Commissioners also promulgate rules that bind taxpayers and taxing authorities.

To adequately perform their job, Commissioners require substantial knowledge of tax related constitutional law, federal tax law and Utah tax laws, in addition to the required procedure in adjucating tax cases, promulgating tax rules, supervising tax employees, and the minutiae of administering the many taxes Utah businesses and families pay. After leaving law school, tax attorneys and accountants spend years learning the intricate and crucial basics of tax law. In the past, both taxpayers and fellow commissioners have paid a high price for unqualified tax commissioners. Cragun is unqualified to be an effective Tax Commissioner.

Cragun’s experience in tax law is from his time as a Davis County Commissioner, where he proposed a 138 percent property tax increase. However, he was defeated in his next election because of his support for that property tax increase. (Davis County voters were so concerned with that property tax increase that every County Commissioner who supported it either lost their next election, or declined to seek reelection.)

Given this background, Cragun’s appointment should be very concerning to Utah taxpayers. Not only does he lack the basic background with and knowledge of tax law that should be a minimum threshold for any possible appointee to the Utah State Tax Commission, but his record on the Davis County Commission suggests his motivating incentive is to raise taxes. That experience alone should terrify taxpayers required to have him decide tax cases as Tax Commissioner. With a record like that, it is hard to understand why Gov. Herbert nominated him in the first place.

Cragun served as head of the Elections Office under Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert. During his tenure, the Elections Office tried to improve the state’s online disclosure system for legislators and lobbyists. However, that improvement remains a complete failure. When a new version was rolled out prior to a filing deadline, many legislators and lobbyists were unable to log in and file their reports, and had to scramble to file paper reports within the deadline. Moreover, the current system didn’t even support people logging in from Mac computers.

Some have speculated that the newly appointed Lt. Gov. Greg Bell didn’t have a place for Cragun on his staff, so Gov. Herbert looked for a soft landing for Cragun. Most other general qualification boards would have been acceptable, but the Tax Commission requires more expertise and experience than Cragun has. (For a list of Boards & Commissions, please visit http://www.governor.utah.gov/boards/home.html)

Others have speculated Cragun was selected because Governor Herbert viewed Pam Hendrickson as holding a “county” slot on the Tax Commission, and Gov. Herbert wanted to replace her with another “county” representative. However, we are unaware of any statutory slot for county representatives on the Tax Commission.

If Cragun views himself as a county representative on the Tax Commission, it would have a chilling effect on many business owners, fearful that the Tax Commission would support the counties’ ongoing efforts to reinstate the taxation of intangibles in the valuation of property. Given his willingness to raise taxes in Davis County, and his general lack of familiarity with the basics and nuances of tax law, that concern is very real.

Fortunately, nominees to the State Tax Commission must be approved by the State Senate. We urge Senators to look very carefully at Mr. Cragun’s qualifications.

(NOTE: For the record, the Utah Democratic Party had a good relationship with Michael Cragun while he served at the State Election Department. In our experience, he was courteous, friendly, appropriately accommodating, and serious about the work at hand even when the outcome was less than optimal.)

Reauthorization of NCLB. Time to speak up.

2009-11-16T13:16:00.002-07:00

Democrats have labeled the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) a failure full of broken promises. Many teachers complain bitterly about the emphasis on testing. Principals hate being labeled as failures. Superintendents say it wasn't adequately funded. And many parents just view it as toxic -- not helping children learn.

However, most give NCLB credit for exposing achievement gaps, and for requiring that we measure our efforts to improve education by looking at outcomes, rather than inputs. NCLB helped expand the standards and accountability movement.

Everyone wants the best for their children and they are willing to take greater responsibility. But when it comes to defining the federal role in education, there is a lot of confusion, uncertainty and division.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Our role in Washington is to support reform by encouraging high standards, bold approaches to helping struggling schools, closing the achievement gap, strengthening the field of education, reducing the dropout rate and boosting college access.” But, he added, “The best solutions begin with parents and teachers working together in the home and the classroom.”

NCLB unfairly labeled many schools as failures even when they were making real progress—placing too much emphasis on absolute test scores rather than student growth—and it is overly prescriptive in some ways while it is too blunt an instrument of reform in others.

But the biggest problem with NCLB is that it doesn't encourage high learning standards. In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when, in fact, they are not. Our schools produce millions of young people who aren't completing college because they are not ready for college-level work when they leave high school. Low standards also contribute to the nation's staggeringly high dropout rate. When kids aren't challenged they are bored—and when they are bored they quit.

Local educators don’t need a prescription for success. But they do need a common definition of success and agreement on what's important and how to measure it —focused on student achievement, high school graduation and success and attainment in college. The goals NCLB reauthorization should include clear standards set by states that truly prepare young people for college and careers—but should be loose on the means for meeting those goals.

It must be flexible and accommodating as states and districts—working with parents, non-profits and other external partners—develop educational solutions that are open to new ideas, encourage innovation, and build on what we know works.

President Obama has challenged us to boost our college completion rate to 60% by the end of the next decade. Over the coming months the Obama administration will be developing its proposal for reauthorization. Now is the time to voice your opinions and lend your expertise.

We don't need another study. We must stop simply admiring the problem. We need action. We cannot waste a minute. Every year counts. Every class counts. Every child counts.

Representative Chris Herrod requests scientists please stop trying to confuse him with the facts

2009-11-14T10:50:00.001-07:00

In an opinion piece published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Provo Republican Representative Chris Herrod makes abundantly clear: 1) no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince him global warming is real; 2) he really isn't all that familiar with the earth's geologic or climate history anyway; and, 3) he gets all his scientific and economic misinformation from Republican talking point memos.

When describing his concerns about the science surrounding climate change, Representative Herrod opens with the argument "Since the Earth is coming out of an ice age and been significantly warming throughout its history, most agree this is true." What Rep. Herrod believes most agree is true isn't exactly clear, but one thing scientists do not agree with is the notion the world has been "significantly warming throughout its history."

In fact, the Earth has gone through periods when it was warm and periods when it was cold. It has not, as Herrod claims, gotten significantly warmer but rather has seen climate fluctuations throughout its history. While Herrod and other deniers often point to past natural climate fluctuations as evidence we are going through something similar now, the science simply isn't on their side.

One recent study indicates peak carbon dioxide levels over the past 2.1 million years averaged 280 parts per million (ppm). In other words, throughout all the intermittent ice ages and warming spells which occurred over the more than 2 million years of our planet's most recent history, the average level of a key greenhouse gas was 105 ppm lower than it is today. Virtually all of that increase has occurred in the past 150 years. One of the study's authors states "Previous studies indicated that CO₂ did not change much over the past 20 million years..." though he admits the further back in time we go the greater uncertainty we encounter and more research is needed.

But Representative Herrod and others think it wise to throw caution to the wind and use any example of a gap in our understanding of the problem as an excuse to do nothing. Why not keep pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and see what happens when we go way beyond anything experienced in at least the past 2.1 million years, if not much longer?

Representative Herrod also wants proof we can do anything about climate change even if it is real. How exactly would we know anything we do helps mitigate or reverse climate change unless we try? How can we prove expanding our use of solar, wind, and geothermal technology and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will do any good unless we expand our use of solar, wind and geothermal technology and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?

Herrod and others claim increasing our reliance on clean energy will undermine our ability to compete with China and Europe, both of whom are now rapidly expanding their development of clean energy technologies. Not so sunny Germany has become a world leader in solar technology, Spain has become a world leader in wind power, and China has begun vastly increasing its investment into clean energy production. Contrary to the denier/do nothing camp's argument, the risks to both the environment and our economy if we just sit on our hands while the rest of the world moves forward are significant.

Unfortunately, the truth is Rep. Herrod and others don't believe in science. As he and others repeatedly demonstrate, no number of climatologists issuing warnings or BYU scientists signing letters will cure them of their anti-science world view. When a legislator or anyone issues a plea for someone to "Please convince me with the science" in response to a letter from local scientists citing "a database search on our university [BYU] library system" uncovering "more than 600 peer-reviewed, scientific articles" addressing just one climate related issue raised by some legislators, we really shouldn't hold out any hope that person will ever be convinced.

The only solution here is for voters to begin demanding their representatives have a healthy respect for science. There is nothing at all wrong with skepticism and asking scientists tough questions. The scientific method demands nothing less. But pretending little to no science has been done when literally thousands of studies are available and more than 97% of scientists are in agreement is, to put it simply, an example of willful ignorance that would make a flat Earth advocate proud.

We owe Veterans more than the words “Thank You & God Bless”

2009-11-11T13:47:00.001-07:00

The veterans of the War for Independence, who founded our country, waited decades for their pay.

Ten years after World War I, veterans marched on our nation’s Capitol to get their promised bonus pay. They didn’t get it. Instead, they got thrown out of town by the active military under the orders of President Hoover.

We live with the memory of VietNam veterans who were too often greeted with contempt and neglect upon coming home, and who continue to pay a price for their honorable service in a nation that has failed to sort out its feelings about that war and how to support people whose injuries are not physical.

Ninety-one years ago today, the battlefields of Europe fell quiet as World War I came to a close. But we don't mark this day each year as a celebration of victory. This day is a celebration of those who made victory possible. Because they did, our country still stands; our founding principles still shine; nations around the world that once knew nothing but fear now know the blessings of freedom. It is a reminder that when we fight, it is with the hope of a day when we no longer need to -- to recommit ourselves to the hard work of peace.

It is not enough to just say, “Thanks for our freedom.” The contributions that our servicemen and women make to this nation don't end when they take off their uniform, neither do our obligations to them.

Diplomacy matters. Building alliances matter. The ability to detect and respond to real threats instead of political maneuvering for power matter. The good judgment of our civilian leaders matter. And an ongoing commitment to mitigate the damage that is inherent to those who provide this service for our country is a moral obligation.

The Democratic Party has a long history of striving to support the troops and veterans in a fashion that is worthy of our thankful nation.

President Obama and our Democratic Congress have demonstrated a strong commitment to our country’s veterans, taking several steps in just the last ten months to expand economic opportunity, strengthen veterans’ health care services, and improve benefits for our troops and military families.

Through the post-9/11 G.I. Bill – the most generous education benefit since the original G.I. Bill of 1944 – more than 250,000 veterans will attend college in just the next two years.

President Obama and Congress have worked to strengthen the VA health care system by transforming it into a 21st century organization that prioritizes community-based services, promotes prevention and takes on the injuries unique to modern warfare, including post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

And President Obama requested, and Congressional Democrats approved, a 16% increase in the 2010 budget for the Department of Veterans affairs, the largest one-year increase in 30 years.

We have a moral obligation to do these things. A stronger America is fought for abroad, but it is kept healthy at home.

It is a sad commentary that too many of Utah’s representatives in Congress have not joined in fulfilling this obligation to those who have served us. Perhaps they think that because fewer Utahns have served in the military than the national average, that we Utahns don’t support services for those who sacrificed for us. They would be wrong.

All Americans, regardless of political party or feelings about our ongoing wars, are thankful and know we need to support veterans, not just for this one day, but every day.

Another Republican legislator joins the food tax increase bandwagon

2009-11-10T11:50:00.001-07:00

Last week Republican Representative Kay McIff advocated increasing taxes on working families through an increase in the tax on food. This week Republican Senator Howard Stephenson, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, joined him.

The November issue of The Utah Taxpayers Association newsletter dedicates its first full page and a half to chastising the Utah Democratic Party for advocating a fairer tax code and then states "most people realize that businesses don't pay taxes, but customers, employees and shareholders do."

Then Senator Stephenson uses his My Corner column to state cutting the food tax with an eye toward eventually eliminating it altogether was a huge mistake. Among other things "Corporate and individual income taxes should have been reduced..." instead. Corporate income taxes? Apparently Senator Stephenson didn't get the memo stating "most people realize that businesses don't pay taxes", people do.

Senator Stephenson then proposes increasing the food tax to 4.75% and thereby adding an additional $188.57 annual burden on Utah working families. Families making "no more than 150 percent of the federal poverty line" ($33,075 for a family of four) should be eligible for a tax credit to defray all or part of this added expense he says, but whatever money that's left over should be used to reduce income taxes, the state's $800 million revenue short fall notwithstanding. After all, "If the Legislature uses the remaining $116.8 million to lower the state income tax...the state would lose no revenue."

Under Utah's constitution, income tax revenue is dedicated solely to education. Sales tax revenue isn't. Therefore, schools would stand to lose the $116.8 million Senator Stephenson is proposing cutting from income taxes. The impact of this proposed income tax cut on per pupil spending - already the lowest in the nation - is completely ignored by Senator Stephenson.

While Stephenson and others go on and on about tax cuts benefiting the economy and fueling growth (trickle down economics), the role a strong public education system plays in attracting companies seems completely lost on them. Utah is already spending about $1,000 less per pupil than the state coming in 49th in education spending. Teachers salaries are becoming less and less competitive with each passing year and, if my daughter's recent experience with public education is any indication, many text books are woefully out of date. Numerous schools are also lacking up to date technology that would help us graduate students ready to compete in the modern world.

Now is not the time to hit working families with a tax increase and simultaneously reduce spending on education. Any benefit to Utah's economy would be short term at best. With a rainy day fund and numerous examples of corporate welfare riddling Utah's tax code, Senator Stephenson and other Utah legislators don't need a lot of imagination to come up with better solutions than this.

Congressman Bishop launches misleading attack on another Republican boogeyman: Environmentalists

2009-11-09T12:40:00.001-07:00

Congressman Bishop wants you to know environmentalists are receiving billions, that's right billions, of your tax dollars. In an Op-ed published in the Billings Gazette Congressman Bishop points to a report prepared by a Wyoming-based law firm as proof. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

In the Op-ed Congressman Bishop co-authored with Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, he argues money received for lawsuits filed against the government by environmental groups and ultimately either won or settled out of court are an abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The EAJA authorizes such payments in the event the government loses a lawsuit, regardless who filed it. Apparently, when the government loses to an environmentalist or environmental group it does not mean the government did anything wrong and should have to pay for the expense of being held accountable.

The report Congressman Bishop is relying on considers eight major environmental groups. It looks at how many suits three of them filed over the last nine years and five of them filed over the last fifteen years. The report then lists how much was paid out to all litigants whether environmental or not for the years 2003 - the first half of 2007. Wow, that's one thoughtful analysis there Congressman.

According to this report, over the past 9 - 15 years these environmental organizations have filed (but not necessarily won) 1,596 lawsuits against the federal government. That sounds like a lot, but when you consider the many thousands more federal environmental decisions made by the Forest Service, BLM, EPA and other agencies over the course of any given 15 year period this isn't many.

Also, as the analysis by the Wyoming law firm makes clear, the number of lawsuits (environmental or not) the government lost and paid out on an annual basis between 2003 and 2006 ranged from a low of 8,161 (2004) to a high of 10,595 (2003). In other words, even if all 1,596 environmental lawsuits had been filed and won in 2003, at most these lawsuits would have amounted to only 19.5% of all pay outs that year. Considering the 1,596 lawsuits Bishop is complaining about are over a 9-15 year period the total percentage of lawsuits which are environmental in nature the government lost is actually miniscule.

But what of the total cost of these environmental suits. After all, Congressman Bishop's larger point is these environmental suits are costing the federal government "billions", and therefore environmental groups should either stop holding the government accountable if they think the feds have violated the law or stop being reimbursed for legal costs if the courts say they are right.

During the four years analyzed in the report Bishop is relying on 41,881 plaintiffs were paid a total of $4,716,264,730 ($4.7 billion). Considering over a 9-15 year period the eight environmental groups the Wyoming law firm considered filed only 1,596 lawsuits (3.8% of the total for the four year period), and probably lost some of those, it is impossible to see how Congressman Bishop and Congresswoman Lummis reach the conclusion taxpayers are providing "billions of hard-earned tax dollars to support environmental lawyers"; unless of course they completely misread the report or are lying about what it really claims.

Is fear and loathing all conservatives have left to sell American voters?

2009-11-05T13:52:00.001-07:00

According to the Provo Daily Herald - and Senator Hatch from whom they are taking their cues - it is; fear and loathing of the big bad Democratic Party and, as usual, the US Government. No one should be surprised when conservatives demonize liberals or liberals demonize conservatives. Opposition parties, not to mention candidates, have been going after each other hammer and tongs almost since the founding of our republic. No news there.

What is annoying isn't that right wing papers like the Daily Herald are going off about Democratic proposals for health care reform and their alleged threat to our freedom, but that their arguments against reform of any kind have been repeated so often since about 1980, members of the electorate on either side of the debate could repeat them in their sleep. Well, that and the fact conservative hatred for government has significantly contributed to government's failure to do its job these past three decades, and now we are all paying the price.

So why will health care reform cause you to lose your freedom according to the Daily Herald editorial board? "If government controls your health care, they control you." Oh, and you also lose a two party system. What you lose if your insurance company gets to cut you loose the minute you get sick, or just refuses to cover you because you already got sick, besides possibly your life and any personal wealth you have accumulated up to that point, isn't clear. I guess getting screwed by a company means you're free as a bird.

Of course, the Herald and Republicans also apparently believe no one should be required to have insurance and that employers shouldn't be required to help us with coverage. Reading papers like the Herald rail against collective responsibility to pay for a system we will all use sooner or later, I half expect them to write a column next week calling for the end to auto insurance mandates or the requirement everyone with a mortgage purchase fire insurance.

Back around 1980 when Ronald Reagan began mocking government instead of governing, the debate in this country shifted from a philosophical difference about how best to make government work to a debate between those who thought government couldn't work and those who believed government could be a force for good. The result was a government which was fated not to work when those who thought it couldn't were in charge and a government trying to get back to functioning status when those who thought it could work were in charge. This was not an improvement over a government always being run by people who thought it could work, even if they differed on the means.

The Daily Herald and others on the right consistently ridicule the notion government involvement in health insurance will offer any hope of improvement to the current unsustainable and inhumane system. Given the absence of alternatives to reform proposals being considered in Congress in the Herald column and elsewhere, one can only assume critics like the Daily Herald prefer the status quo. Standing up for the right of corporations to deny coverage to the currently sick or previously sick, raise premiums faster than inflation, and leave tens of millions of Americans without coverage while attacking Democrats for ignoring "the little guy" would be laughable if this kind of rhetoric weren't what passed for typical political discourse these days.

This is one American who prefers a government that works. The choice is not between a government that is only good at sucking our money and freedom and a government that stands back and lets corporations suck our money and freedom. This is a government, or so we are told, which is "of, by and for the people". It works for us, and it can and should serve those whose consent our Declaration of Independence makes clear it requires to exist. Government does and will have a role in health care, just as it does in education, public safety, and transportation. Given the impact of a complete absence of health care regulation I can't believe even those on the far right really want government completely out of the picture when it comes to insurance. The potential consequences to themselves and their loved ones would be too great.

So when do we get to return to a debate about how government can best serve us instead of whether it can? When can we stop pretending corporations making decisions about our health don't threaten our freedom and well being and engage in a reasonable discussion about how government can best protect us from these threats? According to the Daily Herald, and by extension Orrin Hatch, we shouldn't be holding our breath.

Obama Elected One Year Ago

2009-11-04T16:00:00.001-07:00

It has been one year since November 4, 2008 when the promise of the American dream and the audacity of hope for a better future was made manifest by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

His election brought a renewal of the inspiring words of the 1776 Declaration of Independence that has been a source of hope to countless millions around the globe:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

One year ago the governed chose to institute a new government headed by a different party with a leader that is the first African American to hold the office, as well as the first president born in Hawaii – our newest state.

Barack Obama’s election was just the start of making hope manifest. His actions as president have continued to demonstrate his singular talent to fulfill our collective hopes:

The Obama administration has pulled us back from the brink of economic collapse. His policies have led to a tax cut for 95% of Americans; available credit to those who would buy new homes and cars, and to invest in businesses; tens of thousands of teachers, law enforcement officials and firefighters have been able to stay on the job because of the billions of dollars in Recovery Act assistance made available to state and local governments. The stock market is up over 50% helping millions of savers and those in retirement who count on their investments.

The Obama Administration also took the difficult but necessary action to keep America’s financial and automotive sectors from collapsing, which would only have further shocked our economy.

President Obama signed comprehensive credit card reform into law – the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD) – that will level the playing field by stopping unfair credit card company practices that have been confusing and unfair to American families for far too long.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) gives the federal government more tools to crack down on the kind of fraud that put thousands of hardworking families at risk of losing their homes despite doing everything right to live within their means. It expands the Department of Justice’s ability to prosecute at virtually every step of the process from predatory lending on Main Street to the manipulation on Wall Street.

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act expands on the success of the Making Home Affordable Program first announced in February. By reducing foreclosures around the country, the average homeowner could see their house price bolstered by as much as $6,000 as a result of this plan, and as many as 9 million homeowners could get help making their mortgages affordable and avoid preventable foreclosures.

Those dealing with a job loss are collecting an additional $25 a week in unemployment benefits – assistance more than 12 million Americans have already benefited from.

Families who qualifying for food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have seen their benefits increase by more than 13%.

More than 51 million seniors, as well as veterans and other high-need groups, have received $250 relief payments.

President Obama’s budget makes historic investments in health care, energy and education to help us move beyond the bubble and bust economy of the past, to one of sustained economic prosperity for all.

President Obama re-authorized and expanded health insurance to four million more low income children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), an action President Bush vetoed twice. Now, 11 million children are covered under SCHIP.

President Obama lifted a ban on federal funding of stem cell research, ensuring that scientific decisions are based on facts, not ideology.

Families who rely on COBRA health insurance are paying 65% less for their health coverage.

State governments have received more than $34 billion in additional Medicaid funds just as they are facing record budget shortfalls.

President Obama signed new tobacco legislation – Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - that will finally give the FDA broad authority to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. This landmark legislation that will prevent tobacco companies from marketing to our kids and do more to protect our kids and improve our public health than any tobacco law in a generation.

The President signed a national service bill (Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act) create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for people to serve their communities.

During his first few weeks in office President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, finally guaranteeing equal pay for equal work -- something activists all over this country have dreamed about for a long, long time.

President Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination, Sonia Sotomayor, brings more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years. She is the Court’s first Latina Justice and the third woman to serve.

The President signed a presidential memorandum that will extend key federal benefits to the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees. He signed the first federal hate crimes law to protect LGBT and the disabled – paving the way for long-overdue progress in our pursuit of equality and a more perfect union.

President Obama signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, one of the most sweeping pieces of conservation and public land management legislation in years. Among other things, the bill designates about 2 million acres of new wilderness areas.

President Obama announced new national emissions and fuel efficiency standards for American cars and light trucks. For the first time ever, limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be combined with fuel economy standards in one single standard.

These new standards will make the American car fleet cleaner and more efficient, saving families money at the pump, while reducing harmful emissions. By 2016, the American fleet will be almost 40% cleaner and more fuel-efficient than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

President Obama has also taken important steps to restore our alliances and our standing around the world. The Obama Administration has prohibited torture, and has begun the work of leaving Iraq to its people, taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rebuilding our military, and restoring our alliances and our standing around the world.

His work to make hope manifest is not over. Now, the President is working to pass comprehensive health insurance reform that will lower costs, guarantees choice and ensures all Americans have access to quality, affordable care. Every President since Harry Truman has tried and failed to reform our system, but we are closer than ever to passing real reform. Reform will end unfair insurance industry practices and provide everyone – people who already have insurance, and those who don’t – with eight basic consumer protections to make sure the American people are getting a fair deal from the insurance companies.

President Obama will continue to create a new energy policy that will help fuel a lasting economic recovery, break our dependence on foreign oil, jumpstart our clean energy economy with the creation of millions of new good, green new jobs and finally address the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

President Obama is working to reform our financial regulatory system, by building on the strengths of our current regulatory structure and correcting its flaws. Reform will fix the gaps and weaknesses in our regulations to help guard against future crises. And give regulators the tools they need to respond quickly to any future crisis, and to prevent that crisis from causing widespread harm.

He is working to reform our education system, so America’s students are competitive and can succeed in the global economy.

President Obama has done much during the first months of his presidency.

The President is making the tough choices and critical -- and often long overdue -- investments in our infrastructure and in our future.

While President Obama and his team continue their work to rescue our economy, they are also working to rebuild it stronger than before so America is ready to compete and lead in the 21st century.

It is our duty to help the President make hope manifest. Your efforts and energy are not in vain. As we pursue our individual dreams, we must act on the words of Barack Obama July 27, 2004 . . .

“We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope? Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; a belief in things not seen; a belief that there are better days ahead. I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.”

Ted Wilson to advise Gov. Herbert

2009-11-04T12:21:00.001-07:00

Our congratulations to former Salt Lake City Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ted Wilson on his new job as senior advisor on environmental matters to Gov. Gary Herbert.

Ted Wilson is well-known for his experience as an activist for environmental causes. The State of Utah and our citizens can greatly benefit from this appointment.

Ted has supported protection of our wild places, preservation of open spaces, clean air and water, improved health from lowered pollution rates of toxic and radioactive waste. We have not seen a commitment to those things from Gary Herbert in the past.

In fact, just the opposite, we have seen strong opposition from Gary Herbert to the things that Ted has fought for – opposition to EPA standards for clean air, opposition to protecting wilderness, failure to support Congressman Matheson’s legislation to prohibit foreign import of radioactive waste, blaming the Forest Service and Wilderness designation for the wild fires at Mill Flat, support for selling-off public lands including wilderness, and, worst of all, endorsement of anti-environmental extremists like Rep. Mike Noel who Herbert called “one of the strongest and most reasoned voices when it comes to multiple use of the public land in Utah.”

We hope this appointment is more than political window-dressing to make Herbert look moderate. Actions will have to speak louder than words in this case.

Our direct message to Gov. Herbert: Don’t waste our tax dollars to hire a talented person like Ted Wilson if you don’t intend to act on his advice. We want the State of Utah to benefit from Ted’s service, not just your political profile.

Tax increase on food is wrong - especially now.

2009-11-02T14:43:00.001-07:00

Republican Representative Kay McIff has renewed his push to raise the sales tax on food. With the state facing upwards of an $800 million shortfall, this time around he may actually have a reasonable shot at passing this tax hike.

After years of arguing taxing a necessity like food is wrong, low income advocates and other Utahns finally got the GOP dominated legislature to begin lowering this tax a couple of years ago from the old rate of 4.75% to the current 1.75%, with the promise of eventually eliminating the tax altogether. The idea every Utahn should now face a 3% increase in their grocery bill at the very moment they can least afford it is upsetting to say the least.

The sales tax, or any flat tax based on a percentage not adjusted for income, is regressive to begin with. When it comes to food, we all need around 2,000 calories a day whether we are rich or poor, and while the quality and cost of those calories varies some with income, millionaires don't generally spend considerably more to feed themselves in dollar terms than those earning minimum wage. Therefore, any tax on food, be it the current 1.75% or the proposed old rate of 4.75%, takes a significantly larger bite as a percentage of total income out of the pockets of the poor than it does the rich.

Because we are talking about a substance necessary for our survival, the poor don't have the option of cutting back, at least not much. The Purchase of other items like an automobile or a new flat screen television can be postponed by low to middle income people during tough times. Food, however, must be purchased or people start to get sick, or worse. Therefore, this particular sales tax can't be avoided and that, according to Rep. McCiff, is the point.

Rep. McCiff opens a November 1st Deseret Morning News Op-ed by stating quite plainly "Good tax policy requires broadening the base" and "narrowing exemptions..." Fair enough, but why pick as a good place to start increasing the tax on something essential to our survival and imposing a disproportionate impact on lower income citizens? Why not, for example, take a look at one or more of the many sales tax exemptions currently written into Utah Code which exempt some - primarily corporations - from taxes most if not all Utah families have to pay?

To take one glaring example, let's look at the exemption on sales of natural gas, electricity, coal, and fuel oil for industrial use. This exemption cost the state nearly $30 million in 2008 according to the State Tax Commission's annual report for that year. Why are those using these products for industrial use exempt while those of us using one or more of these products at home, primarily electricity and natural gas, not exempt? Why not "broaden the base" and "narrow the exemptions" here first before talking about increasing the tax on food?

Corporations also received just over $105 million in sales tax exemptions in 2008 on "Manufacturing machinery and equipment" with at least a three year life. This is no doubt in addition to the tax deduction most businesses get to take on equipment as a cost of doing business. However, you and I don't get a sales tax exemption on "machinery" we buy to keep our home running efficiently. The sales tax will still very much apply should we buy a new stove, refrigerator, washer, or dryer.

If the point here is to "broaden the base" and "narrow the exemption", why are we continuing exemptions for companies doing business in our state the citizens of Utah don't enjoy? If the goal of this and similar corporate exemptions was to offer an incentive to purchase machinery, why wouldn't the government consider a similar incentive for average citizens to stimulate the sale of durable goods? Either way, shouldn't we be sharing the burden or not sharing the burden ("broadening the base") as equitably as possible?

There is little doubt everyone is likely going to end up making at least some sacrifices once the legislature figures out how it is going to close the $800 million gap between current spending and revenue. Before asking every Utahn to pay 3% more for food, the legislature may want to take a look at sales tax exemptions that currently benefit corporations but are not enjoyed by citizens. Otherwise, any talk of "broadening the base" and "narrowing exemptions" will rightly be viewed with considerable skepticism by most taxpayers.

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

2009-10-21T17:35:00.002-06:00

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.

2009-10-20T09:49:00.003-06:00

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

2009-10-19T11:28:00.003-06:00

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

2009-10-16T17:31:00.001-06:00

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

2009-10-15T10:43:00.001-06:00

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?

2009-10-12T16:20:00.003-06:00

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

2009-10-09T17:27:00.000-06:00

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

2009-10-09T10:19:00.001-06:00

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

2009-10-07T11:20:00.001-06:00

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

2009-10-06T10:45:00.001-06:00

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

2009-10-05T11:57:00.001-06:00

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.

A New Normal for the Legislative Hive

2009-09-29T09:26:00.001-06:00

It is easy to fail to take notice, ignore, forget, or play down information that does not conform with expectations. So it is important to take notice when there is a “new normal” that is evolving.

Salt Lake Tribune writer Paul Rolly did us a service with his column, “The Legislature giveth, and taketh away”. He describes the “new normal” that is evolving regarding citizens’ initiatives.

In general, Legislators of nearly all political stripes dislike direct democracy in the form of citizens’ initiatives and referenda. It is a threat to their “representation.”

But there has been little for them to worry about in Utah where the process of qualifying an initiative for the ballot is as difficult as they can make it. It has not been much used.

In the past fifty years since 1960, 19 issues made it on the ballot and only five have been successful – one per decade on average.

Because of their rarity, legislators of the past took the results of this citizen action to heart, zealously protecting the decision of the people for decades -- even long past the time when it made sense.

For example, the long-running embarrassment of Utah’s laws on alcohol can be traced to the result of the 1968 “liquor by the drink” initiative; or the failure to protect our public health following the 1976 “Freedom From Compulsory Fluoridation and Medication Act.” Even the “Elimination of State Sales Tax on Food” was stymied for decades after it failed in a 1980 ballot test.

The turning point for this “new normal” came seven years ago in 2002 when the legislature found it could reverse much of the main intent of the “Utah Property Protection Act” passed by the voters in 2000.

At first, it was a timid move legislators made hoping that voters wouldn’t notice that their will had just been overturned.

Voters didn’t notice – and no legislator had to pay a political price.

Failure of the voters to be vigilant in protecting their decisions opened up the floodgates. The “term limits” bargain that the legislature made with voters in 1994 was struck down as it was about to take effect. Fluoride was placed on the ballot again. Sales tax started coming off food. The liquor laws were significantly changed. These long standing political articles of faith were breached with no political price – even in some cases with justifiable praise.

So when legislators got publically spanked on school vouchers, they feared the winds of change had come after a few short years of ignoring the public will. But few, if any, paid the price of losing their seat for this foolishness. The instigators agreed to respectfully wait a few years before trying again. A sigh of relief can be heard coming from Capitol Hill.

As legislators contemplate the ethics and redistricting initiatives, there is a patronizing feeling: allow the public throw a temper tantrum; it will not last long since it is so difficult to qualify initiatives for the ballot; citizens will probably not be organized enough to even get a vote; even if they do manage to pass these initiatives, legislators can safely ignore them and amend away all of the limiting aspects with impunity. All legislators need to do is act respectfully to voters and wait them out until the attention has abated.

This is the “new normal” for our super-majority GOP legislature. They have waited out a string of so-called RINO governors. They have waited out the attention spans of the voters. They have found ways to make end-runs around the attorney general and the courts. They have the power. They are the Hive.

Will you be assimilated? Is resistance futile?

Spoofing – or The Case of Momentary Terror

2009-09-28T10:14:00.001-06:00

Last evening a horrible moment of sheer panic gripped a number of people in Ogden, Utah when the ringing of a telephone awakened them in the middle of night from a deep sleep.

From a sleepy-haze, attention comes sharp and questions immediately fill the awaking mind:

How long has it been ringing?
What time is it?
Are all my kids home?
Who is on the other end?
How can this be happening?

Lifting the receiver of the phone, the ringing stops, and we begin to listen after offering a tentative “hello.”

The response on the other end is dissonant. It does not match. There is a hesitant second or two before a booming voice responds: “HELLO!! I AM CALLING ON BEHALF OF BARACK OBAMA TO GET YOUR SUPPORT!”

Those with the presence of mind to look are rewarded by seeing a caller ID number from New Jersey: 973-710-1680.

Anger abounds. The people who just assaulted you in your sleep want you to associate this feeling with President Obama.

Who could have done this horrible thing? If you call the number that was listed on your telephone ID, you are met with the following statement by yet another recorded voice:

“The number you have reached is not in service. This is a recording.”

McClatchy News Service says it’s called spoofing. It works like this:

Users register with a spoofing service. When they call the service, they enter the caller ID number they want displayed on the recipient’s phone, followed by the number they want to call.

Users can choose a male or female voice so that even when they speak normally, their voice is altered. The calls also can be recorded by the caller.

Some have used the technology to harass and terrorize others. Scam artists have used it to masquerade as someone in an official capacity, then persuade unsuspecting victims to give them personal or financial information. Others have called in fake police reports, causing entire neighborhoods to be shut down as emergency crews respond.

The service is legal, and spoofing companies point out that even law enforcement agencies use it as an investigative tool.

The are two victims of this unethical behavior: the recipient of the call and the President. We here at the Utah Democratic Party sympathize and ask not to be added to the list of victims. We did not make this call.

In last night’s case, it may have just been a practical joke or a political ploy by opponents of the President. Either way, anger should be reserved for the perpetrator of this case of momentary terror.

Our cause is just. Stand with us.

2009-09-23T12:42:00.001-06:00

The President’s address to a joint session of Congress on healthcare was soaring, inspiring, dramatic. Those in the Congressional chamber are divided, but Americans were brought together by President Obama with polls showing a positive reaction from 77% of listeners.

Yet, Republicans continue their “scorched earth” policy attempting to destroy the progress President Obama is determined to deliver for the American people. The Republicans are on a mission—a mission of negativity, opposition and strategic defiance to ANYTHING our President proposes.

Healthcare reform is Ground Zero in this battle for a better America!

Back in May, Republican pollster Frank Luntz led a briefing for Republican Capitol Hill staffers: acknowledging the public wanted healthcare reform, he cautioned Republicans to position themselves to appear in favor of fixing a broken system; but make use of the best words and tactics to defeat healthcare reform.

Clearly, Republicans want to have their cake and eat it, too!

The summer of 2009 will go down in history as the summer of incivility …

· Notorious town hall meetings. We saw pictures from across America of citizen forums filled with angry, gun-toting partisans intent on screaming out their talking points at members of Congress rather than engaging in civil discussion.

· Death panels. Sarah Palin coined the term “death panels” to strike fear and opposition to healthcare reform from senior citizens with a flat-out fabrication and yet it was featured by national media for weeks.

· “You lie!” Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted loudly and clearly during a Presidential address to Congress showing his contempt for democracy itself. Despite the urging of many of his GOP colleagues, Rep. Wilson refused to apologize on the House floor for his outburst. Instead, he took to the Internet and put up a YouTube video asking for contributions for his re-election campaign. AND IT WORKED—Wilson turned his outlandish behavior into a P.R. stunt to raise money.

The truth is that Republicans are more interested in attacks and instilling fear than they are in making tough decisions on the important issues facing Americans.

If you had any doubts that 2010 is an important year or thoughts about sitting this next election cycle out, hopefully you now see that Republicans are on a mission to say and do anything to grab back the power they lost.

Historically, the President’s political party loses seats in the mid-term election. We must fight harder than ever to ensure that history does not repeat itself in 2010.

That is why we are asking for your help now. It is our responsibility to make sure the lies and distortions that Republicans try to pass off as fact do not go unchallenged.

We know the power of information. We recognize the power of our grassroots army to deliver that message. Democrats have a mission, too. Our cause is just. Our cause is moral. I am counting on you to stand with us to help us accomplish our mutual goal. That is … to share the truth with your friends and family … to organize in your local community … and to contribute to the Utah Democratic Party.

Can you help by making a donation of $50, $100, $250, $500 or whatever you can afford today? Your financial contribution will help get our message out throughout our state, protect Democrats, and recruit exciting, new candidates that will deliver for you. Republicans never end their campaign of lies and smears—are you ready to help spread the truth?

Contribute today for a better America: http://www.actblue.com/page/fb_hcr

Frank Layden on U.S. Senate Candidate Sam Granato, "If he can't win then we're not America

2009-09-11T14:05:00.008-06:00

You can access the complete video on facebook here.

Sam will also be addressing the Davis and Weber County Democrats tomorrow at the Golden Corral in Ogden (988 Washington Blvd), and he will be attending the 2009 AVENUES STREET FAIR this Saturday, September 12th on 9th Avenue between D and I Streets in The Avenues of Salt Lake City.

U.S. Senate Candidate Sam Granato's Statement on President Obama's Message for America's Students

2009-09-08T21:43:00.003-06:00

"Today was a historic step for our most valuable natural resource, our children.

President Obama's address hit to the very heart of the issue.

I, like many Utahns, along with seventy percent of people all across America,was elated to see our eloquent president use his gifts of communication to inspire our children on living a principled and disciplined life. A life set with goals and ideals that will better help our youth compete on a worldwide scale.

Let's work together to re-challenge our youth so they may have better opportunities, into the future, and for generations to come."

President Obama's Message for America's Students

2009-09-08T18:45:00.006-06:00

Utah Democratic Party Outraged by School Districts’ Reaction to Presidential address

2009-09-03T14:35:00.001-06:00

The Utah State Democratic Party has been receiving calls all day regarding the reactionary position some Utah School Districts have taken in response to a very small minority of right wing extremists expressing paranoia over the President’s scheduled address to students around the country on Tuesday morning. The Department of Education has made abundantly clear on its website and through communications with local schools throughout the nation the purpose of this address is simply to encourage students to work hard and commit to achieving the best education possible.

The Utah State Democratic Party is extremely troubled by reports district administrators are caving to extremists by “warning parents” of the president’s speech. In the newly formed CanyonsSchool District waiver forms are proactively being circulated via their website.

President Obama is not the first president to address students and appearances by presidents in public schools to promote literacy, science and other aspects of the educational experience are common. The address by our president to the nation’s school children is in this tradition and is not a political speech. It has become clear the right is intent on politicizing everything in an effort to derail the presidency of Barack Obama and this politicization will not stop even at the school house door.

According to Utah State Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland “It is a sad day when even a very small number of Americans respond to a plea from our country’s leader to value the educational opportunities our schools offer with fear and paranoia. I am disappointed local districts are in turn responding with letters warning parents of the president’s speech.”

The Utah Democratic Party urges school superintendents, principals, and teachers to show our president the respect he deserves. While as Americans we value the right to disagree over how best to respond to various issues, a call by our nation’s highest elected official for our children to work hard and live up to their full potential is surely something all of us can agree on regardless of party affiliation.

© September 3, 2009 Utah State Democratic Party

Right-wing extremism reaching new heights.

2009-09-03T09:52:00.001-06:00

Apparently it is in inappropriate for the President of the United States to urge students to work hard and take responsibility for their education. That is the message coming from the right anyway as President Obama prepares to deliver a brief message to students around the country saying just that. Gayle Ruzicka, head of the local Eagle Forum, told the Tribune "I do believe whoever the president is that's speaking to school children, parents do need to find out what the speech is about."

Well Gayle, the subject of the speech isn't exactly a state secret. In a message to principals and administrators around the country and posted on the Department of Education's website, Secretary Arne Duncan tells everyone exactly what the president's message will be. "During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school." Secretary Duncan continues "The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning." In addition, anyone can tune in via the web at http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/ or on C-Span on Tuesday morning at noon EST and watch President Obama indoctrinate our youth with the radical values Secretary Duncan describes.

So, I guess the question for Gayle Ruzicka, the Eagle Forum, and other right-wing extremists around the country is are you opposed to the president telling our youth to be persistent, responsible, and to work hard or are you just so paranoid you think the president has some kind of hidden agenda and is lying to the public about the content of his speech? Either way, you are adding absolutely nothing to a serious discussion about the problems facing this country. We can differ on solutions, but the kind of fear mongering nonsense you are peddling isn't at all helpful.

Call your child's school today and tell them you want him/her to hear the President's message. Click here for a PDF Directory of schools in Utah.

The Utah Amicus

2009-08-31T17:22:00.004-06:00

You are invited to submit columns, commentary, insight, and wisdom.

Or, come by for any reason.

We just posted these two posts, today.

From PBS - Reporter: Other Nations Provide Health Reform Lessons for U.S.

From Utah Policy Daily: A Conversation with Wayne Holland, Chairman of the Utah Democratic Party

What we heard Herbert say at his first press events

2009-08-31T12:49:00.001-06:00

80,000 Utahns don’t have jobs right now who would like to have jobs. As people are looking at your performance, how accountable will you be for where that number is?

I’m accountable for everything now. The buck does stop with me. I cannot deflect it to anybody else. I’m accountable, not only now, but at the end of 2010 and beyond if I’m fortunate enough to stay beyond.

What is your vision for education in Utah?

We ought to be able to keep education held harmless, at least trundling along at the same level that we’re doing here today.

Utahns have historically placed great value on education. Within weeks of arriving in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, 17-year-old Mary Jane Dilworth established the area's first school.
Those early classes took place in a tent, in the middle of a stockade. There were no chairs, just logs, and no desks, only wagon parts to provide surfaces for reading and writing.

School vouchers are over, the public has spoken. We need to move on beyond that. That won’t be resurrected for, you know, a decade or more.

Is Utah achieving its goals with the four/ten workweek?

The answer is I don’t know for sure.

Aren’t smokers essentially a relatively small, special interest group?

Well, I guess we can always target somebody that maybe has no ability to defend their position.

Do you believe in creationism or Darwinism?

What I believe is probably irrelevant to what the government should be involved with. It’s always something that can be discussed with our legislative branch.

Do you support an option that would give parents the choice to give their kids comprehensive sex ed in public schools?

I do believe that parents have a right to make decisions in behalf of their children: the kind of education that they receive, and how it’s being taught. I have no problem with parents having choice. The question is who’s responsible to give it? We as parents seem to be giving up our responsibility of being parents and teaching our children -- that is the parents’ responsibility on sex education. The responsibility lies with parents and guardians, not the schools.

Would you support a state wide standard if Salt Lake City enacts a non-discrimination ordinance?

I believe in local government. I believe that we ought to build ordinances and policies, ground-up. Bottom-up, not top-down. And most instances government closest to the people reflects the people’s will a lot better. So I would be patient and wait and see what comes up. The legislature will react as they typically do on these issues.

We ought to just do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, and don’t have a law that punishes us if we don’t. Where do you stop? I mean that’s the problem of going down that slippery road. Pretty soon we’re going to have a special offer for blue-eyed blonds. Or people who are losing their hair a little bit, there’s a special classification that we put them in.

So should sexuality, sexual orientation be a protected class?

No. I just don’t think we need to have a law that ensures that.

What changes do you advocate for Utah tax policy?

I have no plans to change any of our tax policy that we currently have in place. Tax policy ought to be reviewed, particularly in the circumstances that we face ourselves with today. I expect there’ll be all kinds of ideas as there always are in the legislature.

Is the sales tax on food something you would like to see restored?

As a local government guy, I was concerned about the removal of the sales tax and the impact it would have on the local government’s budget -- particularly smaller rural cities where the grocery store is really the only commercial establishment they have. If the idea of having a lower rate and a broader base, then we have tax recommendations that say this sales tax removal of food doesn’t fit that category. I know it is in fact counterproductive.

Will you veto any budget that includes tax increases?

That’s premature for me to say.

Have you seen the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and what do you think of it?

I have seen it, and it’s inconvenient. And there are some inconvenient mistruths. The debate is not over. I’d like to encourage that debate and bring together people on all sides of this issue and say, “Let’s have a discussion, and let’s let the people decide.”

What’s your view of the Snake Valley water agreement?

This is really a draft agreement, there is no agreement. We’ve got to start someplace.

How is the economy in Utah doing now after your five years in leadership?

The economy in Utah is certainly not where we want it to be. Our emphasis needs to be on growing the economy. It is the number one focus that’s going to come out of my office. We will do everything we can to empower the private sector. We also have a significant effort in trying to attract businesses. We have over 100 different entities right now, today, looking to Utah as a place to locate or expand their business operation. So I’m going to be out and about with our private sector, with our business community, making sure we’re helping, not hindering their opportunities.

We need to get back to the economy we had two, three years ago, that would be our goal, and we’ll be moving in that direction.

Many members of your party feel uncomfortable with the initiative process. What’s your comfort level with the initiative process and the way it works in Utah?

I have a jaundiced eye about the results that come with initiatives, but I believe it’s important for the people to have that process, to have the checks and balances that are necessary on the legislative process is kind of the 2 X 4 to hit us up the side of the head to get our attention.

Would you sign petitions on Redistricting and Ethics Reform if they came around and asked for your signature?

Well, I haven’t read the petitions to know what they say.

(NOTE: This was his response despite his signature on every circulating petition attesting that:

I, Gary R. Herbert, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah, hereby certify that the initiative entitled “Utah Redistricting Standards Commission” contained in this petition section is a full, true and correct copy of that initiative as proposed by the sponsors for referral to the people of the State of Utah for their approval as law, or rejection.

Dated this 31^st day of July 2009)

Hatch and GOP can't blame Kennedy's death for failure to pass reform

2009-08-27T10:24:00.001-06:00

Senator Orrin Hatch's friendship with Senator Ted Kennedy has gotten a lot of press in the 24 hours following the death of the long time Massachusetts Senator and "liberal lion" of the US Senate. Unfortunately, Hatch's decision to use his friend's death as an excuse for what will almost certainly be a total or near total lack of GOP support for healthcare reform does not strike us as the act of a friend.

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting Senator Hatch told guests at a Sutherland Institute gathering yesterday (Wednesday, August 26) that he and Senator Kennedy had agreed to work out a bipartisan compromise on healthcare reform but now "there is no one on [the Democrats'] side that can bring together their base as Ted could." Hatch continued "There's not another Democratic senator who had that kind of sway."

Hatch's recognition of the tremendous admiration and influence Senator Kennedy had earned among Democrats is nice. However, using his death as the reason you won't be supporting what Senator Kennedy described as the "cause of his life" is inappropriate to say the least.

It is certainly no secret Senator Hatch is a conservative Republican and Senator Kennedy was a liberal Democrat. As such, the two had differences and this would come as a surprise to no one. The fact they were able to establish a friendship that transcended those differences is remarkable. However, when a friend dies you don't use his death as an excuse to do nothing or worse, actively oppose, an issue he cared more about than any other issue he had worked on during a long and distinguished career.

Senator Hatch dropped out of healthcare reform negotiations before Senator Kennedy's death, so the fact he is now using his death as an excuse for inaction or outright opposition to healthcare reform legislation is disingenuous to say the least. Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy have set aside partisanship and put Americans first before. Their joint work on the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) stands out as a prime example. The best way to honor Senator Kennedy's memory is to reengage with Democrats and the small number of Republicans still working to find a healthcare solution that will benefit working families and help America's struggling economy. We hope Senator Hatch will do so, if only in honor of the cause of his friend's life.

Utah Democrats Mourn Death of Senator Edward Kennedy

2009-08-26T13:57:00.001-06:00

President Obama said today that, “The Kennedy name is synonymous with the Democratic Party.”

Portraits of President and Mrs. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy hang at the Utah State Democratic Party headquarters.

Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy was a colleague of the late Utah Senator Frank “Ted” Moss and a mentor to former Utah Congressman Wayne Owens, who in their turn mobilized a generation of Utah Democratic Party activists.

One year ago, Utah Democrats in Denver joined the rest of the nation to hear Sen. Kennedy deliver what many believed would be his farewell address to the Party. It was an emotional moment for our delegation, many who believed it would be the last time they would hear from the Senator in person and some who were hearing him in person for the first time. All of us were inspired.

Better than any tribute we could write are his words from that occasion:

“I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America, to restore its future, to rise to our best ideals.

As I look ahead, I am strengthened by family and friendship. So many of you have been with me in the happiest days and the hardest days. Together we have known success and seen setbacks, victory and defeat.

But we have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and a newer world.

For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope.

And this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.

Yes, we are all Americans. This is what we do. We reach the moon. We scale the heights. I know it. I've seen it. I've lived it. And we can do it again.

There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination -- not merely victory for our Party, but renewal for our nation.

And this November the torch will be passed again to a new generation of Americans, so with Barack Obama and for you and for me, our country will be committed to his cause. The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on.”

Amen, Senator Kennedy. Thank you for your contributions to our community and for your personal kindness. May you rest in peace.

Our work continues.

No health care reform under any circumstances

2009-08-25T12:05:00.001-06:00

This past week or so has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt the far right's agenda for the summer of 2009 can be summed up in two words - "Hell no!!" It doesn't matter whether suggestions for health care reform are coming from Republicans or Democrats. If the right has anything to do with it we will all be paying more than $22,000 per family by 2020 for health care and that's that.

The latest demonstration of fear and loathing from the right with respect to health care reform is not aimed at a Democrat, but rather Utah Senator Bob Bennett. The Club for Growth has launched an attack against the Senator for co-sponsoring health reform legislation with Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. The fact this legislation includes neither a public option or health insurance co-op demonstrates the far right simply does not want health care reform in any form.

We simply cannot afford as a nation, let alone as individual families and employers, to see health insurance premium costs rise from the $12,200 range as of 2008 to the more than $22,000 annual cost predicted by 2020. Without reform that is exactly what will happen. A recent study concluded even a one percent reduction in the growth rate of insurance premium costs between now and 2020 would reduce the cost of insuring a family by more than $2,500 annually below current projections.

The word "growth" in the Club for Growth's name must be referring to health care costs. It obviously has nothing to do with broader economic growth.

Democrats Position on the Government Ethics Reform Citizens’ Initiative

2009-08-14T11:36:00.001-06:00

Normally, Democrats in Utah have a hard time getting press attention. Rarely are we mentioned in most stories on public policy.

So it is with sincere thanks that I acknowledge the attention given to us as a lead story in today’s Paul Rolly’s column in the Salt Lake Tribune and its echo on Glen Warchol’s blog Salt Lake Crawler.

However, contrary to these published sources, the Utah Democratic Party has not taken ANY position on the Government Ethics Reform citizens’ initiative. At this time, we neither support nor oppose the proposal.

Indeed that was the point of the e-mail written by me to members of the State Party Executive Committee and Democratic state legislators that was the subject of Mr. Rolly’s column.

We advised that members not take a position until we had a chance to review the actual proposal instead of basing a decision on what had been grist for the rumor mill. (BTW, it was simply advice. Of course, as always, people are free to do as they choose.)

We appreciate the old WR Hearst dictum for newspapers: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

This story had two good plot points. One I appreciated. The other I did not.

It accused the Democratic Party of being organized. For this, I thank you, Mr. Rolly.

The other, not so much. Given the Democratic Party’s long-time position in support of an independent ethics committee, I was cast as the villain: a craven, greedy and hypocritical politician. It is a role that I reject. But thanks for thinking of me.

I must also thank Mr. Rolly for educating me on a new definition for the word “grassroots.” He wrote: “Grassroots participation in politics usually is code for campaign contributions and favors from lobbyists.”

This is an entirely new connotation to me. It is not how I intended it. I used the word “grassroots” to mean typical citizens and voters engaging in their civic duties.

Finally, I wanted to address one last item from Mr. Rolly’s column. He wrote: “After all, the Democratic Party invites the same well-heeled lobbyists to buy tables at its fundraisers that the Republican Party does.”

This is true. But nothing in the initiative addresses this. So, your point, Mr. Rolly?

I suspect that it is likely that once we have had a chance to meet with sponsors of the initiative and undertake a thorough review, the Democratic Party will take a position. I hope that when we do, it will get some coverage.

1,001 Stories of A Failed Utah Health System

2009-08-11T17:42:00.001-06:00

Here are just a few of the thousands of Utah health insurance stories that have been collected at:

http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare/

Craig - Salt Lake City, UT
My daughter developed an joint condition at an early age. She has attempted to get insurance, and because of her pre-existing condition, has been repeatedly refused coverage. Without health care reform, she faces a life of struggle and pain. Please have the heart and the balls to pass a system that follows the requirement "Everybody in, nobody out". The costs are lower and the resulting justice is now in our reach.

Matt - - Salt Lake City, UT
I'm self-employed and hopelessly under-insured. I worry that a major medical emergency would push me into bankruptcy.

Beatrix - Salt Lake City, UT
No one should have to worry about or avoid getting health care, I lived in the UK and had to go to hospital and was extremely confused and shocked that no one chased me for a payment, they just said have a nice day and let me walk out. This experience was such a relief and surprise, I really felt cared for not having to worry how I will pay at the door.

Wesley - Salt Lake City, UT
Over the past couple of years I've had some health problems that required several tests and doctor visits. I'm a single, employed person and have money put away for emergencies such as this...but not everybody can prioritize their budgets in this way due to circumstance. The costs were definitely a wake up call to me and it made me think about how impossible it must be for people who can't afford health care to find adequate care, and on top of that, be able to pay for it. This is a huge problem in this country and needs to be addressed now rather than deal with the approaching fallout that will ensue if we do nothing.

Gail - Salt Lake City, UT
My father is paying over $100,000 a year for nursing home care - and never made more than $20,000 a year in his life. He saved, invested, was careful - and now his end of life is very bitter because he hates where he has to live and sees all the fruits of his labors, which he wanted to share with his children and grandchildren, slip away.

Karolina - Salt Lake City, UT
I am a recent immigrant to the United States. In the end of 2009 I did not have a job yet, just some savings and a place to stay at my friends house. While I was looking for a job I thought it would be important to have some healthcare coverage and I researched what are the available government healthcare plans that I could qualify for. I contacted healthcare department of the local government. There was the only one in the state of Utah, Primary Care Network, but state official told me that the openings for the enrollment in that plan were currently closed, as it is open only once or twice a year when the coverage becomes available. I found a job within 2 months of my immigration from Ukraine and my employer provides my health insurance now. However, at that moment of my life when I just came to the US and did not have a job, even for 2 months, it was important for me to be safe and have a health plan. The only choice I had to go to the market and buy a plan that I could not afford at that time. It was not a very welcoming moment in my first few month in America. I think there should be something for at least legal immigrant to America that could support them at least during the first few months in the new country. Thank you for your work and wishing you all the best.

Joshua - Salt Lake City, UT
I have worked many part time jobs since graduating college and none of them provided health insurance. I have a few health issues that I kind of just deal with because I don't know how to see a doctor without paying a lot of money. I think this is probably the most important political issue because it really effects every one at one time or another.

Janet - Salt Lake City, UT
I was injured on the job at the hospital I'd worked for for 23 yrs, 'medically retired', had no insurance other than SSD, and though the ADA required that a new job be offered me, none was, so as my health declined, I found myself living on about $800 a month, had rent and living expenses to pay out of that, and ended up leaving the US to live in Thailand where health care is not only excellent, but cheap also. I pay out of pocket for everything, as Medicare/SSD will not pay out of the US for my health expenses. I've paid for 2 angioplasties, now need a total knee replacement and am still plagued with my original Worker's Comp back injury, but it is still better than paying 20% of all my medical bills in the US! I am ashamed of the health care in the US. And particularly after I'd worked IN a major hospital in Carmel California, very posh, I still feel angry that I was treated so unfairly by both the hospital and the system of Medicare. I wish President Obama all the best, and support him in his endeavor to improve a broken system which not only mistreats people but actually allows injured and sick people to fall through the cracks every single day. Where is compassion? Where is 'doing the right thing'? Good luck, get it done, perhaps I'll return one day to a country I can be proud of.

Allen - Salt Lake City, UT
I'm 45 years old, and have not had a physical exam in over 28 years. I have several serious symptoms of physical deterioration. I honestly feel like I am dying. I know the longer I wait the worse I will get. I can not afford any health care, and really never have. Frankly, I've quite accepted that I will not get any health care and just hope for the best. I plan on just ending my own life when and if the pain from the symptoms reach a level I can not take. I do not believe in this planet any longer and do not expect that my Government cares enough to help me or anyone like me. HEALTH CARE - WHAT EVER!!!!

Dominique - Salt Lake City, UT
Bankruptcy, lost teeth, inability to see doctor, children who have asthma but we can't get medication due to cost, serious illness that wasn't caught in time because of inability to have preventative, regular checkups. This is my family's history of medical care. Once, I worked 2 jobs and my spouse 1. The children were covered by THREE insurance companies. Neither would pay... all pointing the finger at the other two. We were eventually sued by the Utah Attorney General's office.

Zachary - Salt Lake City, UT
I nearly died because I couldn't afford to have an ambulance take me back to the hospital after being Prescribed Percocet which my body rejected outright. Luckily a vigilante paramedic friend understood the value of life over class struggle.

Dale - Salt Lake City, UT
I have a friend, in her 50's, a waitress in a small restaurant with no health care benefits. She can't afford to pay her own insurance premiums. She is very vulnerable to serious health problem.

Nancy - Salt Lake City, UT
Health Care Costs ARE too high. I have insurance and just what the insurance doesn't cover-I can't afford. Everytime I go to the Doctor or do anything medical I incur debt. I often op out of care because I know I can't afford the deductible and the remaining balances.

Gabe - Salt Lake City, UT
I had a head-on-head collision playing basketball and needed stitches. With a mild concussion I drove myself, bleeding to the closest InstaCare and was told I was not in the network and that I'd have to pay most of the cost out-of-pocket. So, instead I was sent across town to a clinic that didn't open for another 2 hours. How can that be a good system?

Wendy - Salt Lake City, UT
I have a number of stories that apply to our problems with all of the following...myself included. My mother had a pre-existing heart condition; therefore, she paid out of pocket for two open heart surgeries. Her monthly prescription bill was her second largest monthly bill. My husband died of cancer at 39, which could have been cured if caught early. His insurance would not pay for a second opinion and on the first scan they missed the tumor. I encouraged him to seek another opinion, but he choose not to due to the out-of-pocket cost. I am now paying individual health care and my deductible is so high it's pathetic. We need to ensure preventive health care and with the existing system some of us do not see a doctor until it is critical, and sometimes too late!

Rebecca - Salt Lake City, UT
It sucks when you decide you can't work certain jobs that you have a gift for, because they don't offer health insurance. Health insurance being offered only through certain jobs really limits your choices in life. Luckily, I am a really healthy person, but once I went to a clinic to get tested after three weeks of having mono, and they told me I had mono, there was nothing to do but wait it out, and gave me some pain medication so I could swallow water (mono gives you a bad sore throat). The 15-min. appointment, complete with blood test, cost $450. I was making around $1000 a month then, and had to pay cash, of course. If I had a huge medical problem I just don't know how I would have dealt with it. Also, no one should be afraid of losing their life savings because their health deteriorates. Everyone's health deteriorates as you get older! It seems like a conspiracy theory sometimes ... And it's so utterly dehumanizing to be denied basic life-giving services, organs, surgery, cancer treatment, etc., that is AVAILABLE to save your life, because you can't pay. It's inhumane. I think our broken health system reflects the inhumanity of our society, man's inhumanity to man. We are also helplessly trapped under health insurance companies, who raise their rates seemingly without oversight. They can raise their prices as high as they want and we'll pay it, because you can't put a price on life. It's worth any price. We have such a cruel system.

Jamie - Salt Lake City, UT
When I was a kid my father was laid off from work several times in the 1980's. I was only 10 to 15 years old during that time but I was aware of our lack of health insurance. I knew my parents were worried and scared someone might get sick. One serious illness or accident and my parents would of been bankrupt because of it. This past year my 26 year old brother has suffered from a serious psychological disorder and he is without health insurance. He can't keep a job and is too old to be covered by my parents. He can't keep a job because he can't get the help he needs. He deserves access to health care. He deserves to get the help he needs to live a healthy productive life, but as an able-bodied adult male there is not help for him.

Jude - Salt Lake City, UT
I am in the food service industry and have two employees in their late 20's who are healthy and have been married a few years. They work 2 jobs each. The husband, Bill (made up name) burned his hand at home last Winter. They have no health insurance. He didn't want to go to an emergency room for 2 reasons. He didn't want to be told he couldn't go to work as a lead cook in a busy kitchen. Also, he wouldn't go to the doctor because it would cost $100, they didn't have the money. Yet, he had muscle showing on the surface of his hand. There is no health care for under-employed people- and workers comp doesn't want any risk for marginal performers. These 2 are hard working, interested, kind human beings with no health care service. The $15 co-pay that goes with insured folks would be fine. What can we do for them? Can we all have the coverage that the Senators have?

Brenden - Salt Lake City, UT
I am a doctoral student at the University of Utah. Without health insurance subsidized by the Graduate School, I doubt that I would be able to pursue my Ph.D. I want to use my education to serve my community and to teach those who desire to be educated and active citizens. Doing so with a doctoral degree would be impossible were it not for affordable healthcare. I hope for a country where this is a possibility to anyone with the drive and capability; no one should be denied their aspirations due to insufficient health coverage.

Ryan - Salt Lake City, UT
In these changing times, many of the young are choosing the path of freelance work. Thus, we are not covered by an company's insurance policy. We deserve coverage just as much as anyone, yet usually are unable to afford any. This is why we need a national policy, health care coverage is really something that no one should have to stress and worry about.

Cathryn - Salt Lake City, UT
I am a sixty-two year-old female who, once retired, has had to go back to work in order to afford health care. Fortunately I am so far healthy and strong, but could not risk that changing without adequate health care coverage. My husband is twelve years older that I am and I had really hoped to be spending this time of my life enjoying my days with him, traveling, hiking, birding, and just relaxing after a life of working. But that will now have to wait at least three more years until I qualify for Medicare.

Nate - Salt Lake City, UT
I'm recently unemployed and as such, I can't even think about having health insurance. Because of the prohibitive costs of most treatments, I have to be extra careful not to injure myself. Luckily, I'm young and healthy; plus, my parents would be able to help me were something catastrophic to happen. Even when I was employed, I was paying $230 (and my employer paid more) every month out of my already meager community organizer salary for a very basic health insurance plan with a high deductible. I've heard the arguments about how profits can incentivize quality and innovation, but the idea that it's the insurance companies, not doctors, that are profiting off of situations like mine and others' worse than mine is simply obscene.

Erin - Salt Lake City, UT
I have Crohn's disease. Getting quality insurance and health care has been very difficult for me. While I'm finishing school, and without a full time job, I'm having trouble finding any insurance that I can afford that will cover my health expenses. Please reform health care and allow those who most need help to get the care they need.

Judy - Salt Lake City, UT
I am a mentor for pre-K teachers in our school district. These wonderful, hard working teachers do not get health care coverage. This is just a basic right that all people should have access to health care.

Brent - Salt Lake City, UT
When my health care bill per month is as much as my mortgage I know personally that it's time for a change. Having traveled and worked in Canada and other Commonwealth countries that have single payer health care I see no reason why we, the USA cannot afford to respect our citizens in the same way, the same citizens who have made this country a great and respected place to live and work. Please stop the lobbyist from blocking this new chapter in our history and pass a single payer health care system.

Larissa - Salt Lake City, UT
My mother suffers from diabetes. She doesn't make much money and she can't get benefits from her work. I want her to be able to visit the doctor whenever possible so that she can stay healthy and live as long as possible with this deadly disease.

Eric - Salt Lake City, UT
I am a student going to college right now and working a "part time" 35 hour a week job. My employer won't give me health benefits because I am "part time". I haven't been able to go to a doctor or any other type of health physician for four years now. This has also prevented me from doing some activities that I love doing because I am afraid that I would be hurt and not be able to pay for it. I suppose my situation is not as dire as most, but it still makes me feel more like a slave rather than a citizen of the United States.

Kathy - Salt Lake City, UT
May 20, '09 Because of my bronchial asthma and chronic bronchitis (COPD) I was dropped from my insurance I had in 1999. It was the company employer through which I had health insurance. So desperate were these executives to get rid of me from the insurance rolls that they even denied me the opportunity to purchase my insurance. If they'd given me that option I would have taken it because, obviously, I needed all the pulmonary medication I was taking. Without it I've been forced to self-medicate from over the counter. Since then I've been taking Bronkaid and Primatine to survive this "potentially death crisis." My struggles were worsened when these over-the-counter medications were removed from the store shelf and placed behind the pharmacy counter. Such is because now the government could make me a dope addict because of all the times I sign for the same OTC medication I once could buy without this encumbrance. This is my deprivation of health care story. It's not the worse one, I know, but regardless it's still among those of the other 47 million Americans with NO access to health care.

Stephen - Salt Lake City, UT
I currently work with an individual that is 67 years of age and I believe that in his later years in life, should be doing something that is fun and enjoyable during what could of been his retirement. Anyways a few years ago, He came down with a nondisclosed illness where he needed medical attention. He had the best of care all of the way up til he got the bill for the care that he desperately needed. Currently he said that he owes over $100,000 in health care costs and is working to get the insurance that he needs for future health issues that may come up as well as a job to pay down the bill of which he now owes. He is the nicest guy that anyone could ever get the pleasure to know and it is very unsettling to know that he will work the rest of his life to pay down something that he could not avoid. It would be really nice to see people like him as well as myself not have to be put in that situation. I feel that if people are sick or in need of urgent care, they should be entitled to have that care at a moments notice. It is not a luxury to have health care, it should be a right!

William - Salt Lake City, UT
As a physician, I work with uninsured patients who cannot get the care they need and the medications they need to avoid long term complications. I invite congress members to work with me for a day before they vote against reform

Jamie - Salt Lake City, UT
I was in a car accident nearly 2 years ago. I was hit by a cab and t-boned in my driver's door. I have not been able to receive adequate health care, because my settlement was so meager after I spent nearly $10,000 on Chiropractic and Physical Therapy. Now I have discs out of place in my neck & back...my Dr. wants me to have an MRI and possibly surgery. I am unable to even pay the co-pay for the MRI, let alone any surgery. Just think, I am considered a "lucky one" who has health insurance. I can't even afford co-pays on my monthly prescriptions or ongoing pain management. This is not right for a person who has worked since the age of 7 in this country. I am only 36 years old and feel like I am 89.

Peter - Salt Lake City, UT
Unfortunately my story may be a common one. I am 29 years old. I have a college degree and years of professional experience. Now I don't have a job. I was laid off March 26, 2009, after 2 years of service in my most recent position. I was given 2 weeks of severance pay. As my wife and I considered our finances and trimmed our budget way down - fewer groceries, less gas consumption, no entertainment etc - it was clear that our savings would only carry us for a few weeks longer. Immediately we began to feel some relief because of decisions made in the halls of Congress. Provisions of the ARRA allowed my wife and I to keep our health insurance at an affordable rate. Under the ARRA, involuntarily terminated COBRA participants receive a 65% subsidy of health insurance costs. My former employer was paying just over 75% of the cost before I was let go. Without a paycheck and without the employer's contribution we might have had to go uninsured for awhile. I am so grateful that we don't have to do that right now - it's enough to be unemployed. My wife and I are very grateful recipients of the COBRA subsidy. I am fearful of what our situation would be right now without these aids and mindful of those who have previously endured being unemployed without the COBRA subsidy

Jessica - Salt Lake City, UT
Dear President Obama, I met you during your primary campaign at a fundraiser in Florida at the home of Jim Clark. We spoke briefly about my the time I spent in Switzerland working for the International Olympic Committee. I wish I had had the opportunity to tell you this story in person, but I am happy to have the opportunity now. While working for the IOC, I traveled extensively all over the world, and I was covered not only by Swiss socialized healthcare, but by an additional private insurance held by the IOC. During an extended trip to China, I picked up a bacterial infection which attacked my kidneys. It started out seeming like a stomach bug, but after a few visits to the doctor, it was determined that the bacteria had affected my kidneys, and I had to check into the hospital. Upon my arrival at the hospital, I checked in at the front desk, and my healthcare coverage card was swiped--this contained all my medical records as well as my admission order, which meant I didn't have to fill out any paperwork. I was immediately taken to a specialist. It was ultimately determined that I had acute kidney failure. Following this diagnosis, I spent 9 days in ICU, had multiple blood tests daily, went through dialysis several times, was on a strong course of drugs including antibiotics and steroids, and had a couple of kidney biopsies. In short, the care my condition required was truly "intensive." I was followed by 3 specialists, all of whom knew my history and met with me on a daily basis. Ultimately my kidneys recovered and I have had no issues since this one traumatic incident, however waiting for my hospital bill to arrive caused no insignificant amount of stress. When the bill finally arrived, I discovered that the total bill for my time, including all the various specialists, procedures, etc amounted to about 7000CHF--approximately $5000 USD. This is the cost that would have been passed on to me under the Swiss system, but because of the IOC's additional private coverage, I didn't have to pay a dime. (I feel, however, that just about anyone would be willing to pay $5k for a 2 week hospital stay for a life-threatening condition!) My care was incredible, and the cost minimal. In contrast, I had to have an outpatient sinus surgery in the US upon my return. At the time, I was paying $500 per month for healthcare insurance, because I had been deemed "uninsurable" because of my previous kidney issues. The actual procedure took about 20 minutes, but I was required to be at the hospital 4 hours in advance, 2 hours of which was spent filling out 3 rounds of paper work. The next 2 hours, I was passed from person to person, all whom repeated the same questions ad nauseum. To say the least, my experience both comfort and care-wise was sub par (to say the least) in comparison with my experience with socialized health care. But beyond the level of care, what was the most shocking in comparing the 2 experiences was the cost. My outpatient surgery's total cost was $13000, $2000 of which I had to pay. I can't wait to simplify, nationalize, and (hopefully!) socialize our national healthcare. I am happy to support you in this endeavor in any way possible.

Melissa - Salt Lake City, UT
I have MS and I pay $250 a month from the $800 a month that I make just so I can have insurance in case anything goes wrong. And when something does go wrong I have to pay anywhere fro $40 to $100. I've had to go on medication studies because I can't afford the $1000 a month that the MS medication costs because most insurance companies don't cover the meds that actually work. medical costs are far above what is necessary, and the only people that profit from it are the drug reps, the insurance agencies and the doctors that drive their Audi's and Lexus' and Escalades, and hummers. Health care reform is necessary for those of us that really can't afford it.

Kendra - Salt Lake City, UT
I have suffered with severe pelvic & chronic pain for quite a while now. Medical costs become astronomical, and unless I am working a certain amount of hours a week, I can't get insurance through work, which proves a little difficult sometimes. Private health insurance is not an option, since I would have to pay $7200 + a year, for medical coverage alone.

Matheson: Committed to Passing Health Care Reform

2009-08-11T16:45:00.001-06:00

As someone whose family includes doctors who count many Utahns as patients and as a father who wants a healthy future for his children, I have a deep commitment to passing comprehensive, deficit-neutral health care reform. Such an overhaul should lower costs for Utah families and businesses, increase the quality of care provided and expand access for every American.

The president has said he will not sign a health care bill that 1) adds to the deficit and 2) fails to lower the excessive growth of long term health costs. I share those goals. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill recently considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee fails on both counts.

Skyrocketing health care costs are straining family budgets, threatening the survival of small businesses and exploding our national deficit. Even Utahns with good insurance coverage know they are paying more and more in premiums, deductibles, and co-payments and they are getting less and less. Over the past nine years, premiums have doubled -- rising at twice the rate of wages.

Health care spending now consumes 30 percent more of state and local budgets than it did 20 years ago -- leaving less money for things like schools and public safety and increasing pressure to raise taxes. Costs are staggering for companies in Utah such as 1-800-Contacts, who, despite the challenge, continues to do the right thing by providing insurance benefits to hundreds of Utah employees.

The same is true for our country as a whole. Health care costs are the number one driver of our long-term deficits, which is why achieving health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for our nation's long-term fiscal health.

The status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. Inaction is not an option.

But to preserve what is best about our system, we have to fix what is broken. If we don't contain explosive costs, everyone's insurance will be in jeopardy. Premiums will continue to rise, benefits will erode and the number of uninsured -- including the current 298,000 uninsured Utahns -- will swell.

There are health care reform bills being debated in a number of House and Senate committees. In my committee, House Energy and Commerce, I proposed substantive ideas about how to write bipartisan, common-sense, responsible health care reform legislation. Some of my changes were incorporated before the committee voted but several key concerns haven't yet been addressed.

My view is that in order to get real cost savings, we must reform the incentives of a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care. Utah has been at the forefront of health information technology innovation and the development of practices which improve the quality of care and reduce costs. National health care reform should build on Utah's example.

We also need to align incentives for doctors and hospitals so that they're reimbursed based on the quality of care they provide, not on how many tests or procedures they prescribe. A third of the $2 trillion spent on health care in this country goes toward administrative costs, not to patient care. We must cut down on fraud, waste and abuse and create a more efficient, less bureaucratic system.

There is broad consensus that Americans currently without insurance be provided an opportunity to receive affordable coverage -- not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because when people without insurance have to be treated in the emergency room, we all end up paying for it. Insurers should not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, should not be able to hike premiums when people become ill, and should invest in prevention and wellness programs.

Because the issue of health care reform is so complex and the imperative to get it right is so strong, I believe it is worth taking the necessary time to debate, amend, review and discuss with my constituents, any comprehensive bill. We can do this and bring affordability, stability and better health to all of us.

Rep. Jim Matheson , a Democrat, represents Utah's Second Congressional District.

This op-ed was published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

The truth shall set you free...NOT

2009-08-11T11:06:00.001-06:00

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32

I owe Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin a thank you card. Inspired by their mastery of the art of deception I felt it was my responsibility to let you know Congressman Boehner has drafted a healthcare reform bill guaranteeing everyone in America will have health insurance. This legislation will require the uninsured turn themselves in at their local police department. After being processed they will be hauled off to a remote location and shot by government "death squads". Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz have indicated they will co-sponsor this legislation, though they are considering offering an amendment that would provide a public option to those who due to poor aim or sheer luck survive.

If you don't believe me, page 666 of Boehner's legislation clearly states this is what the GOP is proposing. I have a copy of Boehner's legislation, which was given to me by an anonymous source on condition I don't reveal his name or share a copy with the public. Just take my word for it, if you are uninsured you should be very afraid and if represented by a Republican you should go to their next town hall meeting, accuse them of being a Nazi, and ask why they are supporting shooting uninsured people.

Wow, I never realized how much time could be saved on research this way. Thanks again Rush, Glenn and Sarah.

Herbert Rings the Bell

2009-08-05T12:18:00.001-06:00

Politics in Utah are changing dramatically as Utah’s current Governor Jon Huntsman plans to leave his current job for a new one as the United States Ambassador to China.

This has lead to a shake up at the top levels of Utah’s government.

Today Governor-in-waiting Gary Herbert announced that his choice for Lt. Governor will be attorney, former real estate developer, and State Senate Republican Assistant Whip Greg Bell.

Bell has been considered a moderating influence in Republican legislative circles. Of course, that is by comparison to the notoriously radical Senator Chris Buttars of West Jordan.

Bell has been elected as a leader for Senate Republicans who have failed our children by gutting Utah’s education spending, denied adequate health care for the poorest of our citizens, punished middle-income Utahns shifting taxes onto their backs, and been derelict in doing anything about some of the worst air pollution problems in the country.

Bell has been known as a champion of better ethics laws for Utah, but has been ineffective at passing anything substantial.

The current Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert is a well-known, long-time conservative real estate developer from Utah County. He is apparently using this choice for Lt. Governor as an attempt to appease political moderates and political reporters whom he will depend on to spread the news about his administration.

Herbert said, "I don't want a clone of myself. I don't want another Gary Herbert here.” But the similarities between Herbert and Bell are striking. Both share the same general political philosophy, both have served in local government, both have been real estate developers, both have represented areas that have no significant electoral competition, both share the same religious and ethnic backgrounds. It would be difficult for Herbert to find a closer match than Bell outside of Utah County. The differences appear to be mostly surface in matters of personality and educational attainment.

By making this choice, we will be watching for Herbert and Bell to go out of their way to please two top Republican opinion leaders: the social conservative Gayle Ruzicka and the business conservative Lane Beattie.

First, Herbert has offended Gayle Ruzicka and the Eagle Forum who made it clear that they strongly oppose the choice of Greg Bell. They have already made it clear Herbert/Bell will need to spend some political energy to make it up to the Eagle Forum. Indeed, at today’s presser, the duo went out of their way to affirm their anti-gay, family values credentials – something they would not likely have spoken about except to appease Ruzicka.

Likewise, we expect Herbert/Bell to allow much of the business agenda to be set by Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce President Lane Beattie who personally asked Herbert to seriously consider Natalie Gochnour, Beattie's top aide at the chamber, to be Herbert's lieutenant governor. Beattie announced that he would not seek the governor nomination in 2010, but made it clear that should Herbert "struggle" as governor in 2010 or 2011, or should Herbert be defeated next year, Beattie would still consider a run for governor in 2012 or beyond. There will undoubtedly be strong support for the labor bashing constitutional amendment that the Republican legislature put on the 2010 ballot.

Utah Democrats can only hope that Herbert/Bell find the ability to serve all Utahns -- and not just conservative Republicans. We will be watching who they appoint to serve (for instance there is only one recognizable Democrat on the State Board of Regents and more Utah County representatives seem on the way), what issues they choose to address (so far there is no real leadership to investigate and address the causes of the deaths of a mother and her two children in Logan’s canal collapse), and the competence of their management (the four-ten workweek may be saving some energy costs, but is it serving the citizens).

Matheson Statement on 2010

2009-07-29T17:09:00.001-06:00

Congressman Jim Matheson released the following statement today:

It’s an honor for me to represent Utah in the U.S. House of Representatives. The interest expressed in my future plans as far as running for the U.S. Senate or Governor of Utah is very flattering. At this time, I feel that I can be most effective pursuing an agenda that puts the people of Utah first by running for re-election for my current House seat next year. I enjoy a good working relationship with Senator Bob Bennett. My decision today does not preclude me from interest in running for statewide office in the future. I will be following the reapportionment of the state after the 2010 Census and the redistricting process very carefully in this regard.

Hispanic Caucus on Sotomayor Vote

2009-07-28T18:36:00.001-06:00

Richard Jaramillo, Chair of the Utah State Hispanic Democratic Caucus, released this statement today on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation:

The decision of Utah’s Senators Hatch and Bennett to vote against the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor appears to be entirely about partisan politics and political survival.

From his questions at the confirmation hearing, Senator Hatch evidently considers “judicial activism” to be any opinion that runs counter to his conservative ideology.

As for Senator Bennett, his primary challenge clearly has him rushing to vote in line with the far right-wing of the GOP.

Judge Sotomayor will make a fine Supreme Court Justice and the only “regret” Senators Hatch and Bennett should have is their refusal to join a bipartisan confirmation of the Court’s first Hispanic Justice.

American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary unanimously voted to give Judge Sonia Sotomayor the ABA's highest possible rating of fitness for Supreme Court nominees: well qualified. The ABA conducted a thorough, non-partisan, non-ideological peer review using long-established standards that measure a nominee’s integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.

The ABA report to the United States Senate says that the groups of attorneys who reviewed her decisions found that, “Judge Sotomayor’s opinions show an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy based on the judge’s personal views. Her opinions are narrow in scope, address only the issues presented, do not revisit settled areas of law, and are devoid of broad or sweeping pronouncements.”

The ABA report also reported that with regard to the “wise Latina woman” comments, they, “found an absence of any such bias in the nominee’s extensive work. Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly agree that she is an absolutely fair judge. None (including those many lawyers who lost cases before her) reported to the Standing Committee that they have ever discerned any racial, gender, cultural or other bias in her opinions or any aspect of her judicial performance.”

New study raises warning about warming in near future

2009-07-27T16:05:00.001-06:00

In spite of the fact 10 of the hottest years on record occurred between 1997 and 2008, temperatures have moderated somewhat since 1998. In fact, 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, though still the ninth warmest year recorded. Global warming skeptics have been pointing to these numbers and claiming things are cooling off. But as a new study points out, global average temperatures have remained relatively high in spite of the low level of recent solar activity. The sun is due to enter a period of heightened activity now.

According to one article on the soon to be released study:

It shows that the relative stability in global temperatures observed in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

In other words, even though temperatures have remained flat or trended slightly downward recently, this slight "cooling trend" may very well reverse itself in a big way as the sun becomes more active again in the immediate future.

There is the possibility the sun's activity will be below the normal high levels experienced during typical solar maximums. If this turns out to be true and temperatures climb considerably anyway as predicted in the study cited above and about to be released in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the thin silver lining to all of this may be we can finally put any debate regarding global warming to rest.

GOP Focuses Effort To Kill Health Bills

2009-07-21T14:55:00.001-06:00

Washington Post reports that “Lacking unity on an alternative agenda to Obama's health-care plans, Republicans have instead focused on a strategy of rallying public opposition,” and that “The RNC started running ads blasting the Democratic proposals, and William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, implored Republicans to "go for the kill."’

Until this moment, it has been difficult to gauge the GOP’s recklessness in dealing with our nation’s healthcare. At long last, it is obvious that they have no sense of decency, no sense of their obligation to the American people.

The impact of fixing our healthcare cannot be overstated. It literally means saving lives, reducing bankruptcy and homelessness, dignity for people with disabilities, improving the quality of all our lives, removing healthcare costs from the equation of how to make a business profitable, and allowing people to use their talents in the most productive way rather than having to take a job solely for the healthcare benefits.

That the GOP would work to undermine these goals rather than to improve them is beyond acceptable behavior.

There is clearly considerable work to be done to create legislation that will carry enough votes to become law. There are not enough votes to pass the current proposals without some modification.

Utah’s Senators Hatch and Bennett have tried to work on this issue in the past, but now seem AWOL. Unfortunately, Bennett’s current electoral pandering to the far right of the Utah GOP has taken him out of the conversation to push what he has previously supported in his legislation with Senator Ron Wyden. And, unfortunately, Senator Hatch’s partner on healthcare matters, Senator Ted Kennedy, is not available due to his own health crisis.

Sadly, on this issue Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz are simply in the Party of No. They have put ideology above finding a practical solution to a dire problem. For this reason alone, no one should reward them with a vote next election day.

Utah’s Congressman Jim Matheson and the coalition of House members called the Blue Dogs is making just such an attempt to create a mainstream proposal that can garner the required votes.

They presented ten changes to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman:

Provide affordability credits on a sliding scale from 100-300% of the federal poverty level
Adjust the value and cost of subsidy levels
Public option must negotiate rates with providers, provide greater clarity on opt-out, compete on a level playing field and be available only as a fallback
Establish consumer-driven, state-based co-ops
Create state-based exchanges with a federal fallback
Maintain current state-federal partnership with Medicaid, while implementing reforms that increase its value and effectiveness
Realign incentives to reward high quality, efficient health care; include value-based purchasing, value index, innovation center for Medicare and Medicaid and other delivery system reforms
Increase small business exemption and adjust for inflation
Address end-of-life care
Effectively bend the cost curve, per the Congressional Budget Office

Beyond this list, Matheson said he has a number of additional ideas for reform that he will offer in committee. He has additional concerns about how health care reform will be paid for and he repeated his belief that whatever is adopted not increase the federal deficit.

These actions are heroic to find a solution that doesn’t up-end what Americans have come to expect from their healthcare system while moving to something better, and more sustainable.

Without the work of Matheson and the Blue Dogs, healthcare reform might very well fail. As long as they keep working on it, there is a good chance for passage of important legislation.

Moon landing: A lesson in what is possible

2009-07-20T10:55:00.001-06:00

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." President John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962

Forty years ago today we met President Kennedy's challenge to reach the moon, landing there three years ahead of his deadline. It was not at all obvious to anyone inside or outside of the space program it could be done when JFK made clear landing on the moon would be one of our top national priorities, but Americans did not recoil at the goal of landing a man on the moon in spite of the unknowns.

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the moon landing at a time some are doubting our nation's ability to respond to global warming, healthcare reform and other pressing concerns. The Apollo 11 mission is a demonstration of just how much and how quickly America can make things happen when we commit ourselves to the effort. In arguments over improvements to our nation's technology and infrastructure or reform, we should never let those whose main point is "it can't be done" win the day. As the American people and our astronauts demonstrated 40 years ago today, what we can do is only limited by the laws of physics and our imagination.

What is all this talk about choice?

2009-07-14T13:46:00.001-06:00

In today's New York Times political blog, The Caucus, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is spouting off again about how Americans want "to preserve the choice and quality that our current system provides." Which Americans is he talking about?

I have been fortunate to occasionally enjoy some great health insurance over the years. That said, I never got to choose the plan and I never got to choose the doctors covered by the plan. Either my employer or my wife's employer picked the insurance company and picked the plan from that company's menu of options. They never consulted either my wife or I before doing so.

My wife is diabetic, so finding a good doctor is especially important to her. She does her homework when it comes to the doctors available under whatever plan we have to deal with. Unfortunately, like many businesses my wife's employer not only changes plans every year or two but frequently insurance companies as well. After finding a doctor she likes she frequently must switch doctors in January as the new policy her employer has chosen kicks in. Where is the choice Senator McConnell is praising in this scenario?

If we should ever be forced to shop for insurance in the individual market, my wife would have no choice whatsoever. As someone with juvenile diabetes no insurance company would give her a second look. If she ever suffered a serious illness related to her diabetes you, kind reader, would be forced to pick up the tab for her treatment through your taxes, higher premiums, or most likely both because we almost certainly could not afford to pay the medical bills out of pocket. I guess Senator McConnell would argue this is something you would gladly pay by choice anyway.

As most workers can't choose their insurance company, can't choose the doctors that company covers, and can't get individual health insurance unless they are basically 100% free of any pre-existing condition, the only choice I can think of Senator McConnell could possibly be talking about is the ability of the health insurance companies and our employers to make all our choices for us. Again, which Americans want to preserve this kind of choice Senator McConnell?

Mark Shurtleff as healthcare reform poster child

2009-07-10T10:41:00.001-06:00

The Salt Lake Tribune reports Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a state employee enjoying some of the best healthcare benefits available, has somewhere between $50,000 and $130,000 in outstanding medical bills as a result of surgeries related to a motorcycle accident. If ever anyone needed proof health insurance in America has ceased to offer families protection from medical related bankruptcy, Mark Shurtleff is it.

Given Shurtleff's historic support for the payday lending industry, it is tempting to suggest he take out a payday loan to cover his medical expenses. However, unlike millions of fellow uninsured and under-insured Americans, Mark Shurtleff does have a six figure salary and somewhere between $366,000 and $815,000 in assets he can fall back on according to a financial report he recently filed as a candidate for the US Senate. This provides him the luxury of avoiding both payday lenders and the kind of sympathy for working families that might motivate him to provide a healthcare reform plan of his own.

Through a spokesman Shurtleff told the Tribune he remains steadfastly opposed to a public health insurance option for businesses and the public. Shurtleff has spent much of his adult life receiving insurance from the government either through the military, Salt Lake County government, or the State of Utah. Still, he does not see the fact the state purchases about the best coverage available for him, his family, and other state employees as being inconsistent with this position. Nor apparently does it give the AG pause that even with his gold plated policy he is still carrying a medical debt that would bankrupt many middle income families and virtually every low income family out there.

In light of Shurtleff's personal experience, the voters should expect some empathy - a much maligned word on the right lately. If not a public option, then what? What is Shurtleff's answer to Utah families lucky enough to have insurance but still facing annual increases in premiums and co-pays that out pace inflation? What is his answer to those both with and without insurance that must choose between years of debt or bankruptcy when faced with a motorcycle accident or worse?

It is no longer enough to simply criticize proposals currently on the table. The time to start providing serious solutions has come. What say you Mr. Shurtleff?

Healthcare Reform: What is it?

2009-07-07T09:50:00.001-06:00

While the political world is fighting about healthcare reform, the public seems largely in the dark about what is actually being proposed.

It is no wonder that the public isn’t in on the details.

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Face the Nation this weekend announced that they agree on 90% of what needs to be done, but are still fighting over three issues. They then talk about the three issues that are under dispute.

President Obama needs the plan to pass Congress, so he is letting them develop it with minimal guidelines. Most of his comments are seeking to reassure the public that if they are happy with the insurance they have, they can keep it.

The big boys all seem intent on NOT talking about what they ARE doing.

So, here is a run down of the main proposals (much of it provided by Democracy Corps):

This plan prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage when someone gets sick and requires them to cover preventive care.
It creates a health insurance exchange where individuals can comparison shop among different private plans or a public insurance option. (GOP & Dems are arguing over the public option.)
The plan requires all Americans to have health insurance while subsidizing the cost for those with low and moderate incomes. (Some dispute, but mostly agreement.)
It requires all companies to provide health insurance
for their employees or contribute to a fund that will help pay for their coverage with small businesses getting help covering some of the cost. (There is disagreement over the mandate for small business.)
The plan will be paid for by reducing Medicaid and Medicare spending by 400 billion dollars over the next ten years and implementing some new taxes that might include a small sales tax on goods except for food, higher taxes on those making over 200,000 dollars OR new taxes on alcohol or sugary drinks. (This is the area where much of the fighting will take place. As you can see, there is no consensus about the funding.)

Some of positive changes reform will bring:

Never losing health insurance when you lose a job or get sick.
Power shifted from insurance companies to people, who no longer face higher rates or lost coverage for a pre-existing condition, getting sick or getting older.
Reduced costs for you and your family, business and country.
Guarantees that quality, affordable coverage will be there for you no matter what happens, giving you the peace of mind that even if times get tough, you will always have access to quality health care at a price you can afford.

The reform is monumental because at heart it is about taking power away from the insurance companies and giving it to people. The control and power that insurance companies have over people, their ability to refuse care because of pre-existing conditions and use the fine print to drop people when they
get sick is the part of the status quo that voters most want to change.

Some of these changes will lead to lower costs:

Competition created by a health insurance exchange where individuals and small businesses can shop for competing private plans or choose a public one (the public plan may be like Medicare or it may be a co-op or mutual insurance company owned by the policy holders like a credit union).
Paying first-dollar for preventive care and supporting wellness.
Preventing insurance companies from raising rates when people age or get sick.

Seniors who are already covered by Medicare should also know that there are benefits for them.

Under this plan seniors would still receive Medicare coverage, just as they do now with no reductions in benefits.
If nothing is done to decrease healthcare costs across the board there will have to be cuts in services, or increased premiums and taxes.
The plan would also provide seniors with better prescription drug coverage by eliminating the so-called "donut hole" - the gap in Medicare coverage that forces millions of seniors to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for prescription drugs.

Continuing as things are now is not sustainable:

Keeping the status quo means the insurance companies are still in charge, jacking up rates and denying coverage.
It means more people losing insurance or enslaved to their job, prices skyrocketing for families and businesses and our companies less competitive.

We need change so that people no longer lose coverage, get dropped for a pre-existing conditions, and see lower costs.

This was originally written for Utah Policy Daily.

UTA: Average Utah Family will not pay Federal Income Tax in 2010

2009-07-06T16:34:00.001-06:00

The Deseret News reports on a Utah Taxpayer’s Association study- Utahns to get federal tax refund in 2010:

For all the complaining some GOP Utah politicians do about federal taxation, a new study finds an amazing fact:

The typical Utah family — which will make just over $63,000 for 2009 — will actually get a federal tax refund in April 2010.

That's right, that typical family — a married couple with three children — will get $356 back from the federal government, not paying any federal income tax at all, the Utah Taxpayers Association says in a new study on tax burdens in the Beehive State.

And for heavily Republican Utah, the check comes because of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats' federal stimulus package, which also includes a middle America tax cut via the Making Work Pay tax credit.

Obama Coverage Not Liberal Media Bias, Just Good Business

2009-07-06T13:38:00.001-06:00

The corporate news media's bias isn't toward ideology...it is toward making money. If they couldn't make a ton of money off of President Obama, they wouldn't be covering him nearly as much as they do. -- Comment from BradKT on Politico’s story on the ratings bonanza for coverage of President Obama

What do they cite:

Last week’s healthcare forum on ABC brought in more viewers at 10 PM than the network had had in six weeks. While the forum didn’t win the ratings battle the night it aired, “Nightline” beat out both of its top competitors: “The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien” and “The Late Show With David Letterman.”
Both parts of NBC’s “Inside the Obama White House” cracked the weekly Top 10. The second night’s segment even delivered NBC’s highest rating over the previous six months among 18-to-49-year-olds in that time slot.
When Obama appeared on “The Tonight Show” in March, the show had its highest rating for a Friday episode in the 17 years with Jay Leno at the helm. “The Tonight Show” numbers, 126 percent above average, also helped boost the shows that followed: “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” and “Last Call With Carson Daly.”
An Obama interview led to a spike in ratings with “Face the Nation” bringing in its largest audience in four years and tying the perennial leader “Meet the Press” in the important 25-to-54 age group.
When Obama appeared on the November 16 “60 Minutes”, it drew 25.1 million viewers and, at the time, it was the season’s most-watched broadcast. Not only did “60 Minutes” win the week, but the post-election interview with Steve Kroft drew the show’s biggest audience in nine years.

Wow, talk about stimulus. The interest in the new president won’t continue forever, but it is nice while it lasts. And it shows why the Obama Administration is trying to accomplish so much this year while a conversation with the American people continues.

There is another huge spillover benefit: Networks airing Obama specials can squeeze every drop out of them for morning shows, nightly newscasts, cable and online.

But as one wag noted: Obama’s not Simon Cowell. He doesn’t do those types of numbers. Indeed, ABC’s airing of the Neighborhood Ball, which included the Obamas’ first dance on Inauguration night, was beaten soundly by the only ratings juggernaut that may be more powerful than Obama: “American Idol.”

Beware of simple solutions to complex problems

2009-07-01T09:22:00.001-06:00

Campaign financing is the most heavily regulated industry in America per dollar of financial activity. Private financing of campaigns creates an ethical schism that pits the concept of a “public office is a public trust” against “those who pay the piper call the tune.”

Yesterday’s Salt Lake Tribune editorial “Lawmakers for Sale” correctly points out that Utah has not found an appropriate balance of those concerns. Unfortunately, it concluded with the silly prescription that, “Limiting donations by individuals or corporations to $1,000 for each candidate, political party or political action committee per election cycle seems reasonable.”

There is nothing reasonable about a $1,000 across the board limit for each of these entities. They each have different functions with different resulting costs. We have seen what happens when these limits are set too low. There simply becomes an unending morass of entities created to funnel funds into the important contests. This results in making campaign finances less transparent. Or in the alternative it reduces public discourse because these entities cannot afford the tools of communication.

The more difficult the regulatory scheme the less likely citizens are to participate since the knowledge barrier to keep on the right side of the law is raised too high leaving only the professionals to participate in the contest.

Such limits are slightly effective only with five other major reforms: 1) An aggressive watch-dog agency like the Federal Election Commission; 2) A limit on total political contributions for an individual entity. So, for Utah that would mean creating and funding a State Election Commission and capping any entity from giving more than $20,000 total to all candidates, parties and PACs; 3) A method for coordinating expenditures that allows these entities to take advantage of economies of scale through joint purchasing (i.e. the FEC allows unlimited transfers between party committees and some coordination for candidate services and allows for the limits to be relaxed for “building funds”); 4) A prohibition against giving in the name of another; and, 5) An exemption for certain “grassroots” activities that encourage public participation (i.e. at the federal level there are exemptions for house parties, internet communications, friend-to-friend mail campaigns, slate cards, lawnsigns, bumperstickers, and a host of other activities).

Utah campaign finance laws cry out for some limits to prevent corruption of public officials. But a $1,000 limit for all entities is far too low for some of these entities like statewide campaigns and state party committees and Utah lacks an appropriate regulator with sufficient resources to fairly enforce such limits in a timely manner.

Before limits are contemplated, Utah first needs an independent State Election Commission and an independent Ethics Commission to oversee all public officials and candidates(these could be one and the same). Then, with experience and professional guidance, we can craft rules that work for Utah.

This was originally written for Utah Policy Daily.

Salt Lake County: Look around the Attic

2009-06-30T12:10:00.001-06:00

We had the pleasure of visiting with Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon last evening. He described Salt Lake County’s main budget problem is that with interest rates so low county investments likely will yield $9.4 million less than expected this year. Similar shortfalls are predicted in 2010.

It strikes us that this is the same problem that every retiree in the state is coping with: lower yield on their savings resulting in reduced income. There are really only two solutions for the healthy and only one for those not fortunate to enjoy good health – cut costs or go to work and earn more from another source.

Mayor Corroon has suggested that the economy is not healthy, other sources are not available, and that only one responsible option exists -- to cut costs (and some of those cuts may hurt).

We also had the pleasure of discussing this issue with Council Chair Joe Hatch. The Democrats on the Council believe that by asking for a small sacrifice from a large number will cause less pain in the long and short term. The Council Democrats are asking for less than $1 per month from the typical homeowner.

The Council is rightly concerned about another steep drop in revenue from property taxes if housing prices have declined dramatically. This could push any future tax increases to levels far beyond what the public is able or willing to absorb. Regular small increases are more feasible than large occasional increases – just ask any Davis County Commissioner. The Council’s concerns are legitimate and a strong reason for the good management of Utah’s second largest governing entity.

Salt Lake County has already absorbed some painful cuts like the suspension of hiring and matching contributions to retirement programs. We appreciate the sacrifice. But, sadly, the times call for more – and over time perhaps much more.

We are sorry to see Democrats publicly at odds with one another. But we agree that the debate is a good one and waged by responsible people who are concerned about the public well-being.

The options on the table are either additional cuts in services or a small increase in taxes . . . or perhaps we do what retirees across our state are doing -- clean out the attic and put our personal effects up for sale on e-bay (just kidding, of course, the county already auctions off surplus property).

Healthcare Reform: Public plan is essential

2009-06-27T01:52:00.002-06:00

With a health care system in crisis, it is up to us to understand the issues and what is at stake: The 47 million uninsured, the minimum 20 million underinsured, our rank of 37th in the world in overall quality of care while we spend 82 percent more than other industrialized nations, businesses crumbling under the weight of providing health benefits, disparities in quality and cost, medical bankruptcies. All are driving a commitment to reform.

And yet, the usual forces are lining up in opposition. The insurance companies, which don't want to compete against a public plan, have conceded that they can forego preexisting condition qualifiers and premium penalties for health conditions. But they agreed to this in 1993, and now, 16 years later, we see no change. They clearly have a vested interest in swarming the halls of Congress with lobbyists to make sure that they're not threatened with serious change or competition.

The American Medical Association, which represents barely one-fourth of physicians and is heavily weighted to specialists, has long expressed opposition to a public plan. However, a year ago, the Annals of Internal Medicine reported Aaron Carroll's study that found that 59 percent of doctors said they support a national health insurance program.

Co-author Dr. Ronald Ackerman states, "As doctors we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments and restrictions on patient care."

Last week a New York Times /CBS poll found that 72 percent of the public support a government-administered insurance plan that would compete for customers with private insurance. On the brink of making decisions about "real change," we must define why a public plan matters.

First, a public plan will provide coverage for the 47 million uninsured people in America. The cost burden of paying for charity care in place of being reimbursed for the uninsured will be eliminated by a public plan.

Second, with the other federal plans in place, there will be enough bargaining clout to significantly impact pharmaceutical as well as other costs.

Third, a public plan with adequate size and influence could implement recommendations from the newly established Comparative Effectiveness Board to improve quality and cost.

We know from research out of Dartmouth that high cost does not equal high quality. Practices vary across the country, with some areas provide better quality for lower cost. This kind of disparity represents opportunities for cost savings by reproducing the best care provided.

Fourth, perhaps the most vital function that a public plan could have would be as a platform to reform the way that doctors get paid. The fee-for-service model in which doctors get paid more for doing more drives up cost and lowers quality.

The payment system needs to be structured to pay for quality health care, not quantity. Until payment reform is accomplished there will not be a sustainable, coherent system.

While President Obama is advocating for a plan that protects choice and fosters competition, let's not fall prey to the fear tactics of Harry and Louise and those who try to scare us into believing that this is the road to socialism.

We, the people, elected Obama to deliver us from the crushing weight of our broken health care system. The people want it fixed. Doctors want it fixed. Now is the time for us to stand up and refuse to let power politics deliver plans that amount to putting Band-Aids on a hemorrhaging, fractured system.

Julie Day is a practicing primary care physician with the University of Utah Community Clinics and serves as the medical director of quality improvement for the clinics.

This op-ed was published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Matheson statement on Waxman/Markey Energy Bill

2009-06-26T18:29:00.002-06:00

The two great energy issues our generation faces right now are domestic energy security and climate change. These issues deserve our active attention, and they deserve action. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today does not appropriately address these issues.

Some continue to argue that climate change is not happening. In fact, scientific consensus has clearly been established that climate change is a very real, significant problem and we need to determine an effective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. However, this legislation has problems.

The early-year carbon reduction targets assume an aggressive pace of new technological development that may be unachievable. These targets received little attention in the debates that have taken place on this bill.

I remain concerned that this energy bill will result in unfair regional wealth transfers. The one-size-fits all renewable electricity standard is not the right approach to address climate change. It is an add-on without a purpose. Data shows that the renewable targets in this bill are only slightly better than business-as-usual. So why are we bothering to dictate these standards when we should encourage the 15 states that currently do not have renewable energy targets to find something workable for their communities?

The bill’s distribution of emission allowances also creates regional inequities. The “50-50” formula in the bill gives extra, unneeded allowances to utilities with lower fossil fuels resources, and less to utilities with greater reliance on fossil fuel resources. Those regions that receive excessive allowances would sell those allowances to other regions of the country that received less.

With respect to carbon markets, this bill overreaches and will effectively destroy the derivatives market. Many people seem to confuse the different types of markets that exist. The futures market contains listed derivatives—these are standardized exchange-traded agreements. There is also a market for cleared derivatives, which are standard contracts that are privately negotiated but booked with a clearinghouse as a counterparty. And finally, you have the over-the-counter derivatives market where people negotiate deals to fit the needs of everyone ranging from utilities, to airlines, to banks, and finally, regular investors. This is a very complicated financial system and while it is clear that we are not appropriately regulating this market today, we should also avoid gutting the market altogether. I think there is a reasonable way to structure the new carbon market and to address deficiencies in the commodity markets. The provisions in the bill are not the right approach, and these provisions of the bill were never really debated in a House committee hearing.

There are also some changes made to the offsets section which are troubling to me. I have been supportive of the effort to build a strong, accountable offsets program and I am sorry to see that this bill allows USDA to try to establish a much looser, less effective program. This is short-sighted because unless offsets signify real, verifiable carbon reductions, they will be worthless. This is problematic because buying and using offsets is much cheaper for businesses than it is to buy allowances.

I have been advocating for the inclusion of transmission language in order to build much-needed infrastructure. However, this bill only addresses the Western Interconnection, not the whole country. That doesn’t get at the underlying problem which is the lack of electricity transmission capacity across the nation. I wish this bill had taken an approach similar to the one the Senate is considering.

Finally, the issue of energy independence calls for additional items that are not included in today’s bill. In the long run, technological advances will provide new options to help this country gain a more secure, stable energy profile. In the interim, we need policies that keep all options on the table for the development and use of conventional energy sources.

As a result of all of these concerns, I will vote against this legislation. However, I will continue to work on the important issues of climate change and energy independence.

Healthcare Reform: Time to Act is Now

2009-06-25T11:50:00.001-06:00

This op-ed by then State Party Vice Chair Rob Miller was published in the Davis Clipper:

Our country faces the significant challenges of fighting two wars, nuclear proliferation, a fiscal crisis, rising debt, dependence on foreign oil, rising energy costs, and a failing healthcare system. We have a simple choice: Do we confront our problems head-on or do we continue to ignore them?

America spends nearly fifty percent more per person on healthcare than any other country. Healthcare premiums have doubled over the last decade. Medicare and Medicaid pose one of the greatest threats to our federal deficit.

We cannot accept a future where more and more Americans choose to die or forego healthcare because they can’t pay for it, where American business is not competitive with their foreign counterparts, where American business cannot afford to hire American workers, and where our American government goes broke shifting the burden to our children.

In Utah, nearly one-third (32.2%) of us went without health insurance for a significant period during the past two years and 84% of them were employed. Families’ benefits are eroding because they can’t keep up with higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Seniors are choosing to cut their medications due to the high cost of prescription drugs. People are staying in jobs they hate and are unproductive because their current job has healthcare benefits. And parents are skipping a doctor’s visit for their children because it’s just too expensive.

Healthcare costs are the single largest reason for bankruptcy. More than half of filers are financially ruined by medical bills including many who had previously enjoyed a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, a good education, a decent job, and good health insurance. No matter how well off we are, we are all two illnesses away from bankruptcy.

Skyrocketing healthcare costs are robbing us of the choices we value most: How do I keep my family healthy? What can I do for a living? Where do I have to live? Can I still see my doctor? Can I afford the treatment the doctor recommends?

To put it plainly: our healthcare system is broken.

Washington was beholden to special interests with politicians failing to make tough choices, imperiling our economy, our security, and our health. Thankfully, change has come to Washington.

President Obama is working in an open, inclusive, and transparent manner with members of Congress, hospitals, doctors, businesses and unions and seeking their best ideas regardless of their political background.

The President and Utah Democrats are committed to reform that builds on the existing American system and strengthens it, not radical reform replacing our system with something foreign. President Obama has consistently said that if a family likes what they have, they will be able to keep it.

President Obama has laid out three principles for reform: reducing rising health care costs for families, businesses and government; allowing all patients choice in their own coverage and their own doctor; and ensuring that quality, affordable health care is available to all Americans.

Working together, we can reduce long-term growth of health insurance costs, guarantee choice of doctors, invest in prevention and wellness, end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, and ensure every American receives the healthcare they need. This reform will lead to faster economic growth, higher take-home pay for workers, greater employment opportunities, a more level playing field between small and large businesses, and deficit control.

The time to act is now.

Healthcare Reform: Fear is No Longer Acceptable

2009-06-25T11:49:00.001-06:00

In a free market economy the duty of the enterprise is to maximize returns to its shareholders.

An insurer charges premiums and makes its return after costs and claims are paid. Thus, to the extent an insurer can avoid insuring sick people, deny coverage, reduce or delay payments or transfer costs, it optimizes its returns. This leaves the uninsured sick to sign direct contracts with providers that put the entirety of their personal savings and homes at risk before care is provided.

The net of our current "free market" system is a tacit agreement between insurers and care providers. The insurers take the premiums and profits from statistically healthier groups while providers financially squeeze the uninsured and underinsured remainder into poverty or bankruptcy. The result is that nearly two-thirds of U.S. bankruptcies are health care-related.

Such a market allocation would ordinarily violate restraint of trade laws. Yet, our very laws and regulations are used as a shield to protect insurers and providers when coverage is denied and exhorbitant individual payment later extracted.

For example, in this past Utah legislative session, laws were passed with respect to insurance coverage requirements and exclusions for selected illnesses, thus legislatively allocating and regulating risk. In addition, the rules on patient record confidentiality allow insurers to obtain access to confidential patient information providing a basis for coverage exclusion. Yet, when coverage denial is challenged, these very "confidentiality" rules are used as a shield to deny accountability.

Insurance companies and providers maintain this protected position and cash flow by employing lobbyists and forging laws and regulations protective of their selective and limited coverage and maintenance of profitability. Insurers prefer the current system protected by existing law and regulation. This system allows insurers to take premiums from select groups such as the young and healthy while denying coverage to groups such as older and more at-risk individuals and the sick and infirm.

Insurers prefer the current U.S. employer-based system as it provides statistical assurance that covered groups will be relatively healthy. People with jobs are, by definition, not too ill to work nor incapacitated or suffering from the stress of no job and no income. The only fair health care regulatory system would spread the risk of illness across an entire population and a lifetime.

It is absurd that a working individual pay for health insurance coverage for 25 or 30 years, lose a job and, because of job loss, lose health insurance. An additional and significant intangible but real cost to our current health care system is the fear that now permeates our society -- a fear that we are weary of.

We are weary of the fear that job loss will lead to loss of health coverage and possibly to bankruptcy, weary of the fear of going to a doctor because, if found ill, subsequent coverage will be denied, weary of the fear in the eyes of young parents with a sick child not knowing if taking care of their child will mean that they can't pay the rent, weary of the fear that a lifetime of work and savings can be lost in a single illness.

These fears are no longer acceptable.

The only way to establish coverage fairness and health care assurance is community-wide rating that effectively spreads risk across the entire population and the entirety of life and ends the practice of denying individual health care coverage.

We have government regulation now. Let's move to a comprehensive system that benefits all and not the select few.

Andrew Buffmire has been an executive with two Fortune 500 companies and a senior executive with four wireless technology startups. He was an assistant attorney general over trade regulation and antitrust in the Utah Attorney General's Office and the primary author of the Utah Antitrust Act. He is a graduate of the London School of Economics.

This op-ed was published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Utah Democrats stand in solidarity alongside the Iranian dissidents, showing their support for a democratic Iran by wearing green

2009-06-20T20:17:00.015-06:00

Earlier today, at the 2009 Utah State Democratic Party Organizing Convention, a large portion of attendees wore green wrist/arm bands, as well as green clothing, in order to stand in solidarity alongside the Iranian dissidents currently being violently oppressed by their own government, and thus to show their support for a democratic Iran.

The Utah Democratic Party appreciates and echoes President Obama's following message on the matter:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

Wayne Holland wins State Party Chair race

2009-06-20T14:20:00.014-06:00

Wayne Holland, Jr. has just recently been announced as the winner of the Utah State Democratic Party Chair race. Thus, he will serve out a third term as the Party's Chair for the next two years. Wayne appreciates all the supporters who have made his re-election happen. Wayne congratulates Jeff Bell for running a great campaign, and thanks him for the competition, so that now the Party can examine some of the things it has done wrong in the past and to fix them so to improve the Party for the next two years and beyond. Wayne invites Jeff and all of his supporters to join him in helping improve the Party, so that much of the change desired can be made a reality. From this Democrat, and on behalf of all at State Party Headquarters, thank you very much to everyone who attended this year's organizing convention. Thank you in particular to all the volunteers who made this all possible. We look forward to working with, and serving, all of you even harder in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.

Voting soon to begin as speeches near end

2009-06-20T11:50:00.015-06:00

Registration has closed and most of the Party's candidates and leaders have had their time on the stage. The energy in the auditorium has been electrifying. Throughout the program, the auditorium has filled up with more and more wonderful Democrats. It is this kind of passion and involvement that will help us win the Governorship in 2010, and beat Bob Bennett for the U.S. Senate, among other races. The audience has just finished hearing from the various convention committees and listening to what they have to report, as well as watching a few great DNC videos, and nominating the candidates for the State Party Leadership. Right now the candidates for Chair, Jeff Bell and Wayne Holland, are making their cases to the delegates. In a moment, the convention will recess for balloting to elect the next Utah State Democratic Party Chair. Results will be announced here and on Twitter (https://twitter.com/UtahDemocrats) as soon as they are available. Stay tuned in, stay involved!

Above:
Congressman Jim Matheson at the podium

Below:
SL County Mayor Peter Corroon speaking

Registration is in full swing!

2009-06-20T08:50:00.017-06:00

Registration at the 2009 Utah State Democratic Party Organizing Convention has begun and is in full swing! Caucus meetings have already begun. If you haven't joined us at Murray High school yet (5440 S State Street in Murray), don't hesitate; there is still plenty of time to come meet Democrats from around the state, including Congressman Jim Matheson, SL County Mayor Peter Corroon, U.S. Senate Candidate Sam Granato, and Candidates for State Party Chair Wayne Holland and Jeff Bell!

Call to Order is at 11:00 A.M., in which candidate presentations, reports, speeches, and nominations will take place. Recess for balloting to elect the new State Party Chair is at 12:55 P.M. Resolutions will then be considered, including resolutions supporting the Fair Boundaries campaign (http://www.fairboundaries.org), supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, and honoring the life and career of Former Congressman Bill Orton. Results of the election will then be revealed, shortly before 2 P.M. and adjournment.

For more information, visit: http://www.utdemocrats.org/articles/view/138983

Follow us throughout the convention on Twitter: https://twitter.com/UtahDemocrats

Follow the Convention on Twitter

2009-06-19T10:11:00.001-06:00

There are a lot of Democrats who regularly use Twitter as a social networking tool.

A number of them will be using the hashtag #utpol, which covers a broad spectrum of Utah political issues. We also encourage them to use the hashtag #utdem on items specifically pertaining to the Utah State Democratic Organizing Convention so that people who want can follow this specific event.

If you are new to hashtags, simply add “#utdem” to any message you send on Twitter. People can then follow feed of many different commenters based on a search of #utdem at Twitter. We’ll also include the feed on this blog page.

Democrats Convention Going Green

2009-06-19T10:05:00.001-06:00

A theme seems to be spontaneously emerging for the state convention attendees: going green. Not eco-conscious green, but literally, the color green.

As the people of Iran take to the streets, rallies have sprung up across the globe in solidarity with Iranians protesting the results of last week’s election. Green has emerged as the symbol for the protesters, many of whom support the Green Party of Iran led by opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi.

A number of delegates have told us they will be wearing green to show their support for those engaged in the struggle for a democratic Iran.

Presidential Proclamation: Father’s Day 2009

2009-06-19T10:04:00.001-06:00

The journey of fatherhood provides unique and lasting joys. Cradling a baby in his arms, a father experiences the miracle of life and an unbreakable bond. Fathers imagine a world of possibilities awaiting their children and contemplate the privilege of helping them reach that expanse of opportunity. As kids grow and mature, they look to their dad for a special kind of love and support. Providing these necessities can bring great happiness.

Fatherhood also brings great responsibilities. Fathers have an obligation to help rear the children they bring into the world. Children deserve this care, and families need each father's active participation.

Fathers must help teach right from wrong and instill in their kids the values that sustain them for a lifetime. As they encounter new and challenging experiences, children need guidance and counsel. Fathers need to talk with their kids to help them through difficult times. Parents must also help their children make the right choices by serving as strong role models. Honest and hard-working fathers are an irreplaceable influence upon their children.

Communities must do more to counsel fathers. Family and friends, and faith-based and community organizations, can speak directly with men about the sacrifices and rewards of having a child. These groups can support men as they take on the great challenges of child-rearing. Through honest and open dialogue, more men can choose to become model parents and know the wonders of fatherhood.

On Father's Day, we pay tribute to the loving and caring fathers who are strengthening their families and country. We also honor those surrogate fathers who raise, mentor, or care for someone else's child. Thousands of young children benefit from the influence of great men, and we salute their willingness to give and continue giving. We also express special gratitude to fathers who serve in the United States Armed Forces for the sacrifices they and their families make every day. All of these individuals are making great contributions, and children across the country are better off for their care.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C. 109), do hereby proclaim June 21, 2009, as Father's Day. I direct the appropriate officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on this day. I urge all Americans to express their love, respect, and admiration to their fathers, and I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA

Juneteenth

2009-06-19T10:01:00.001-06:00

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and DNC Black Caucus Chair Virgie M. Rollins issued the following statement commemorating Juneteenth:

“On this day in 1865, emancipation finally made it west, freeing the last slaves in Texas. So today, we commemorate the end of slavery in America and honor all those throughout our history who have fought for freedom, equality and justice by celebrating Juneteenth.

“As we take time to honor this occasion, we also stop to consider the remarkable path African Americans have forged, from slavery to the White House. With the first African American President of the United States, we usher in an era of endless opportunity. A new generation of Americans will be raised with no limits to their dreams – something their predecessors, who fought for equality as slaves in the fields of Texas and Freedom Riders in the streets of Alabama, may have never been able to imagine.

“But while we have come a long way, we still have further to go. We at the DNC join President Obama and the African American community in the fight to ensure equality in education, employment, and health care for all Americans.”

Don’t bother trying to find him, Herbert’s not there

2009-06-17T15:21:00.001-06:00

The headline at the Deseret News caught my eye, “Herbert skeptical but concerned.” The article seemed to be an apologia, or defense, of Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert’s retreat from Huntsman published in the Salt Lake Tribune that he is not convinced of the need to address climate change, “Help me understand the science if, in fact, the science is conclusive."

When Energy Secretary Steven Chu tried to answer his question, the governor-in-waiting was not there. The Tribune reports, “The lieutenant governor's absence was "purely coincidental," said his chief of staff, Joe Demma, a case of "bad timing" that required Herbert to leave for another meeting.”

Joe Cannon’s Deseret News did not report Herbert’s absence at the moment that his question was being answered, and instead only reported people trying to be kind and not contradict the newbie. Herbert did not return the kindness accusing others of being two-faced to the public by saying that “other governors attending the meeting told him privately they agreed with him.”

Additionally, the Deseret News did not report on the answer to Herbert’s question by the people at the conference, either. Instead, leaving the reader to believe that the question was left unanswered, and that Herbert would have to “organize his own conference in Utah so scientists on both sides of the issue can make their arguments.”

The Governor-to-be should have taken advantage of the talent that was in Utah at a conference on the issue.

Speaking of being AWOL, Herbert currently has a duty to oversee the State Election Department. There have been a number of reports on problems there, but the latest one is not mostly of their making – but is one that soon-to-be Gov. Herbert could fix.

Unfortunately, like most state employees, they only work four days per week. And, it caused another kerfuffle last Friday when they were out. Sadly, a not unusual occurrence for Herbert’s Department.

The cause for concern was that HB346 requires candidates and officeholders to report contributions within 30 days of receipt. The law went into effect on May 12 and so Friday, June 12 was to be the first "reporting date".

Unfortunately, the Elections Department didn’t remind the effected group about the law. But Chris Bleak in the Speaker’s office caused a notice to be sent to legislators late Thursday evening reminding them of their duty. When lawmakers tried to find out how to comply the next day, of course, no one was around to at the Elections Department answer their questions.

Now, Utah election laws try to anticipate this problem in Section 20A-1-401 by saying that if “a specified date or event falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the following business day shall be used.” Looks like its time to amend that law to include any other day the office may not be open for business.

LaVarr Webb at Utah Policy Daily suggested that the new governor reverse the four day work week and/or that the legislature being an in-depth study. State Rep. Craig Frank at Under the Dome pointed out that his committee (Gov’t Ops Interim) would be taking up the issue.

So, here is a note specifically to Rep. Frank: I listened to the committee hearing and the glowing reports on the four day week – with all the caveats – and heard that there needs to be some solicitation of customer feedback. If you do solicit feedback from customers, it should to be on a department by department basis. While the extended hours may work well for vehicle registration, it does not work at the Elections Department (nor would it work for Legislative staff who do work on Friday). I deeply appreciate that the employees at Elections are friendly and try to be helpful, but it is amazing how many times I find myself calling them on a Friday only to realize they are not going to be there. I find that I have to take extraordinary measures to organize around election’s staff availability. It has not been a welcome change.

I have been told that, “The world is run by those who show up.” Apparently, Utah is exceptional.

Utah GOP votes to protect Big Tobacco

2009-06-12T11:04:00.001-06:00

Yesterday, Congress did something many thought impossible. They acted in a bipartisan manner overcoming heavy lobbyist pressure to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to examine what goes into tobacco products, ban those ingredients deemed dangerous to health, and limit marketing and sales.

The measure, HR1256, was nearly two decades in the making and passed the House in April with a vote of 307-97 and passed the Senate yesterday with a vote of 79-17.

According to the Associated Press, President Barack Obama hailed the moment, saying it "truly defines changes in Washington."

The initial major push for FDA oversight of tobacco came from Dr. David A Kessler, a former staffer for Sen. Orrin Hatch who was appointed as the FDA Commissioner in 1990 by Pres. George HW Bush and was reappointed by Pres. Clinton.

In an ironic turn of events among the distinct minority of members of Congress opposing this public health measure we find Sen. Hatch and his Utah GOP colleagues Sen. Bob Bennett, Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Rep. Rob Bishop. For the record, Congressman Matheson voted with the majority for FDA oversight of tobacco.

The measure puts special emphasis on dissuading young people from taking up smoking for the first time by prohibiting the use of candied and flavored cigarettes popular among young people and severely restricting advertisements and promotions targeted toward youth.

It bans use of words such as "mild" or "light" that give the impression that the brand is safer. It requires stronger warning labels.

The FDA would also require tobacco companies to reveal the contents of their products and they'd have to seek approval for marketing new products. It gives the FDA power to order changes to ingredients, including tar and nicotine, to protect public health.

There has been much made in the punditocracy about the connection between Southern Republicans and Republicans from the “Mormon Triangle” of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. The Southern faction did indeed vote against this measure along with the Utah GOP. But, it is interesting to note that the rest of the “Triangle” did not join in: all of Idaho’s congressional delegation supported the act, as did Wyoming’s Senators, and for additional emphasis GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

We know where the Utah public stands on this issue. What is the Utah GOP getting in return for its failure to protect public health?

Redistricting: Speaker Clark’s irresponsible position

2009-06-11T14:02:00.001-06:00

Starting today legislators from around the country are meeting in San Francisco to hear the latest about redistricting from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Sadly, Utah House Speaker Dave Clark chairs NCSL’s redistricting efforts. His solution is to be more like Utah -- avoid accountability and confound the public about what is really happening. Values and principles are to be avoided at all costs. Stick with minimal court mandates.

According to City Weekly, House Speaker Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara is no fan of the Fair Boundaries citizen’s initiative to bring some sanity to Utah’s redistricting process. His complaints: 1) it would invite lawsuits; and, 2) redistricting has less to do with politics than population shifts.

The current legislative process hews to no values and, therefore, no accountability beyond the broad rules set forth by the Supreme Court. The Fair Boundaries initiative does provide values and, hence, accountability.

This might indeed lead to lawsuits, but I doubt it. The initiative provides for such careful documentation that the reasons decisions are made are transparent; legislative counsel is to be an integral part of the process; and, there is a process for the legislators to over-ride the commission. A process of accountability could have consequences that includes lawsuits. It could also include legislators being voted out of office if they do not support a commission that acts fairly or fail to oppose a commission that abuses its power. The State Constitution requires that ultimately it is the legislature, and not the commission, that makes the final decision. With a commission, the pressure is on.

Think of it: Accountability. Values. Rules made in law instead of by the courts. Checks and balances. Communities and people prioritized over politics.

As to Clark’s second point, he has it wrong. Redistricting should have less to do with politics than population shifts – but that is not the way it works in Utah where politics is triumphant.

We have heard this before. In 2001, the Republicans insisted that population shifts had forced them to do what they did – politics played no part.

Bulls**t!!!

It wasn’t population shifts that hurt Democrats during the 2001 round of redistricting. It was the politics.

The Democratic Party submitted a plan in full compliance with the law and population shifts that would not have changed the historical partisan vote in any State House or Senate district by more than one percent. It only combined two members of the State House – one Republican with one Democrat – in Salt Lake County to create a new seat in Washington County.

The State House districts with the three largest population deficits were all held by Republicans: Afton Bradshaw, Lamont Tyler and Greg Curtis. The top four State Senate districts with the slowest growth were all held by Republicans, too: Lyle Hillyard, Pete Knudson, Scott Jenkins and David Steele.

As we noted in our plan, the Democratic Party could have drawn districts where Democrats would have been competitive in 36 of the 75 House districts and 14 of the 29 Senate districts. Political reality prevented us from even presenting this option.

The only place we suggested big changes was in the congressional maps to reverse the gerrymander that had taken place in 1991. It too would not likely have changed the party division for Utah’s Congressional delegation. But it was logical and respected communities. In our plan for Congress every county, save Salt Lake, was kept whole and every city and town within Salt Lake County was kept whole.

CD01: Counties – Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Morgan, Rich, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Wasatch and Weber.

CD02: Cities & Towns – Alta, Cottonwood Heights, Holladay, Kearns, Magna, Midvale, Millcreek, Murray, Sandy, Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Taylorsville and White City.

CD03: Cities & Towns – Bluffdale, Draper, Herriman, Riverton, South Jordan and West Jordan; Counties – Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Utah, Washington and Wayne.

Speaker Clark’s opposition to Fair Boundaries is about avoiding accountability and obfuscating the oversized role politics plays in the redistricting process.

Housing: One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small

2009-06-10T14:12:00.001-06:00

The credit bubble creates too much new housing stock and then government rebates help sell it off. First, too much. Then, too little. Will it ever get to be just right?

Yesterday, the Deseret News reported the end of the state's three month old "Home Run" housing grant program of $6,000 each to Utahns purchasing newly constructed, never-occupied, single-family homes. Demand has exceeded expectations to the point that the Utah Housing Corp., which administers the grants, anticipates the $10 million one-time federal stimulus money funding the program will be gone by week's end. And when they're gone, they're gone.

This program was funded by the Obama fiscal stimulus bill. It was part of $90 million given to Gov. Jon Huntsman to use at his own discretion. Other funds went to USTAR and film subsidies. This was clearly a gift to Ivory Homes and other developers who overbuilt during the easy credit heyday.

According to the article, most of the grant money has gone to assist the lower- and middle-income Utahns.

But the valid criticism remains that it subsidizes homebuilders at the expense of ordinary Utahns attempting to sell their existing homes without the help of the government. The federal government's tax credit for first-time buyers, which can be as much as $8,000, does not distinguish between new and existing housing. But it too will be over in December.

One commenter on the D News article wrote that the credit bubble and the recent government rebates have fueled “hallucinogenic home prices” that will leave a strong hangover in next year’s market. The best housing prices may be yet to come – even without the rebates.

Perhaps, Obama/Huntsman have engineered a soft-landing for the housing market, helped a number of low- and middle-income Utahns get affordable housing, aided in a quicker recovery for the construction trades, and may have benefitted existing homeowners by preventing a total collapse of the housing market (it’s hard to prove a negative). All good things. But we need to remember two things: 1) it came with a cost to taxpayers; and, 2)many developers profited beyond what they should have.

There is a way that developers can repay this debt to taxpayers: Stop opposing impact fees from local communities. It is time that you start paying your own way instead of putting an unbearable load on the backs of our existing communities. The new “free market” norm needs to include all the costs. Legislators, City Councils, and voters should demand this whether the developers approve or not.

Yes, these fees increase costs for new housing, but they conserve and upgrade existing housing and infrastructure avoiding the moronic situation we Utahns see annually where we raise taxes to build new schools while closing those in older neighborhoods. Existing homes would sell better, fewer new roads would be needed, commute times would be shorter, less California-like sprawl and the mind numbing sameness of the strip mall culture, more energy efficiency, more conservation of materials – in short, a virtuous cycle to replace the vicious cycle we now face.

With a nod to Jefferson Airplane, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens when “the pill” doesn’t do anything at all.

h/t Voice of Utah

Healthcare Reform: The devil is in the . . . talking points?

2009-06-10T10:37:00.001-06:00

Monday Sen. Orrin Hatch went on FOX News to attack healthcare reform legislation. He was on message using Frank Luntz talking points. The problem is those talking points do not address the legislation that is actually proposed.

According to Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress.org, contrary to Hatch’s insistence that the bill would put a bureaucrat “between you and your doctor,” Section 2 of the draft legislation explicitly states that “a strong doctor-patient relationship is essential to the practice of medicine, and patients have a right to an effective doctor patient relationship.”

Apparently the details don’t matter – only the talking points do.

Carrie Budoff Brown at Politico shows Democrats fire back with a memo from Paul Begala. His talking points speak a little more to the actual legislation proposed, but it is more of a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. Luntz.

To sum up the talking points memos:

Advice to Republicans -- Obstruct health reform by ignoring what Obama is actually offering, and instead, attack what you wish the Democrats were proposing.

Advice to Democrats -- Push back hard against Republican Orwellian rhetoric. Because they know they cannot win the argument honestly, Republicans are resorting to mendacity.

Advice to voters -- Take seriously former Senate Leader George Mitchell as quoted in the opening of Begala’s talking points memo: “The only people who give any credence to Republican Senators’ rhetoric is Democratic Senators.”

GOP Idea: The Cassandra Committee

2009-06-09T13:16:00.001-06:00

According to Reuters news service, the Obama administration is set to announce next week a comprehensive package of fiscal system reforms in response to the worst financial crisis in generations.

A centerpiece of the proposal is to establish a "systemic risk regulator" that would monitor and intervene to address potential financial dangers in the economy.

The Party of “No” wants to get into the game with some proposals of their own. Which is a good thing, but their solution is a study group.

Reuters reports that the GOP draft package opposes giving systemic risk authority to the Federal Reserve. Instead, the Republicans call for creating a board of regulators and outside experts, chaired by the Treasury secretary, to study systemic risk and report quarterly. The board would have no enforcement or supervisory powers.

Republicans are good at coming up with misleading names like the Clear Skies Act or the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. One thing they won’t do is name it what it really is. This proposed group should be named the Cassandra Committee.

In Greek mythology, Cassandra was given the gift of prophesy and the curse that no one would believe her.

The American Enterprise Institute points to Hyman P. Minsky (1919-96), a theorist of the human foundations of credit over-expansions and busts. His work is regularly rediscovered in times of financial crisis. Minksy writing in 1986, "As a previous financial crisis recedes in time, it is quite natural for central bankers, government officials, bankers, businessmen, and even economists to believe that a new era has arrived. Cassandra-like warnings that nothing basic has changed . . . are naturally ignored."

The Cassandra Committee can have a quarterly campfire sing-a-long to Everlast who summed it up in a song lyric: Baby don't cry/ praise the most high/ I tell you no lie/ we're all gonna die.

In an unrelated story at Politico, the headline reads, “Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush.” Is it any wonder?

What Americans Really Think

2009-06-09T09:54:00.001-06:00

Starting on Sunday, the Western Governor’s Association is meeting in Park City. Expected at the meeting are eleven Western Governors and three Western Canadian Premiers and 500 attendees including Obama Administration officials, other VIPs and industry and non-governmental leaders from the West, across the country and around the world.

Water, renewable energy and climate change are the chief topics.

But for twenty minutes on Sunday, between 3:00 and 3:20 p.m. in the Impressionist Ballroom, Frank Luntz, President of The Word Doctors, will tell them “What Americans Really Think.”

Detail: An examination of American public opinion and "words that work" on key issues -- with an emphasis on the opinions of residents from Western states.

Apparently, there’s not much to it.

Who da bum?

2009-06-05T11:35:00.001-06:00

Sen. Bob Bennett misses the point of Utahns concerns when he tries to burnish his “conservative” credentials in his Romney-Bennett dynastic television advertising campaign. He is quick becoming the very definition of which Katon Dawson speaks.

From Politico: Katon Dawson, former South Carolina Republican Party chairman predicts the economic downturn will continue to generate voter anger through the election cycle. “If there’s going to be a ‘throw the bums out’ mentality in 2010, the race is on to define who the bum is.”

When Dr. Scott Leckman ran against Bennett in 1998, his best applause line concerned children’s issues of education, healthcare, and deficit spending. Leckman said, “Bob Bennett wouldn’t know a kid issue unless the kid owned a bank.”

The problem for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff’s attempt to overthrow Bennett is that Shurtleff is a very damaged messenger on economic issues. His coziness with payday lenders, no-bid contracts to outside legal firms that hire his family members, and “meeting(s)” with alleged Ponzi schemers is evidence of his complicity with heart of this fiscal crisis.

Lt. Governor Gary Herbert is quickly falling into the bum trap, too – talking out of both sides of his mouth. According to the Trib, “he made one thing clear: while he doesn't approve of the massive federal stimulus package, he isn't going to turn away any money when he takes office.” Likewise, he painfully admits that he will have to move into free government housing (i.e. the governor's mansion), and despite damning all things federal – even shunning the White House on his first visit -- he solicited campaign cash from the Washington DC moneymen and lobbyists during a Tuesday fundraiser.

Who da bum? There is a case to be made for Bennett, Shurtleff and Herbert.

No Utah Lt. Governor has ever been elected Governor

2009-06-03T15:42:00.001-06:00

Conventional wisdom among the punditocracy holds that being selected as the next Lieutenant Governor is a good stepping stone to becoming Utah’s Governor. It was stated well in these excerpts from today’s Utah Policy:

The job of lieutenant governor is sometimes considered a second-class job, not worthy of a top-level politician.

But those ambitious people are forgetting one important thing about the LG job – it’s a fast track to the governorship. That ain’t bad.

But whatever else the LG’s job is, it’s clearly the best way to win the governorship as soon as the incumbent steps down.

[Herbert’s] choice, assuming it is someone younger than himself with a little ambition, will instantly be the odds-on favorite to become Utah’s next governor.

They may chafe at being No. 2, but the ultimate prize may be well worth it.

But the greater likelihood is that the next LG will be positioned better than anyone in the state to become governor. That makes LG a very attractive position.

So, I decided to check. How many Utah Lt. Governor’s were eventually elected as Governor in their own right? Turns out the answer is: none.

The history of Utah Lt. Governors is short. The office was created in 1976. There have only been six of them: Clyde Miller, David Monson, Val Oveson, Olene Walker, Gayle McKechnie and Gary Herbert.

Of course, Olene Walker -- and soon presumably Gary Herbert -- succeeded to the office of Governor. But, as we saw, Olene did not get her party’s nomination to seek her own term. Just because he has more time to establish himself, Gary should not think he has it in the bag, either.

Turns out this is not that unusual. Five Vice Presidents of the United States assumed the office of President, but did not get elected as President when they sought the office themselves: John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, and Gerald Ford. Four did successfully pull it off: Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. A 55.6% failure rate.

It is not much better for sitting Vice Presidents seeking election as the President. Four succeeded, but three of them were prior to popular elections: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H W Bush. Six failed: John Breckenridge, Henry Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and the special case of Richard Nixon – where he failed as a sitting VP, but came back later to win. So, we have a 60% failure or 54.5% failure depending on whether you count Nixon once or twice.

Vice President John Nance Garner (1933-1941) once famously described the vice presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss." If so, what is the worth of the lieutenant governor’s office? A timely question for ambitious Utah politicians hoping for a call from the current occupant of the office.

Sam Granato for United States Senate

2009-06-01T15:47:00.001-06:00

At an exciting event earlier today, Sam Granato announced his candidacy for the United States Senate.

The event was well attended including members of his family, friends like Frank and Barbara Layden (pictured below), business associates, elected officials, former elected officials at the state and local level like George and MaryAnn Mantes, Bev Cooper, and Scott Howell (pictured below), representatives of Utah labor organizations, party officials and activists. While the crowd definitely leaned Democratic, there were recognizable Republicans in what showed to be a good cross section of the Utah public.

Sam showed to be a good public speaker. He was stopped several times by applause. It was well attended by the news media.

For those who don’t know Sam much, you will. In fact, you should invite him to meet with groups throughout the state and host private events with your friends to get to know him. Here is some information:

BIOGRAPHY

After completing a degree in Business Management from Southern Utah State University, Sam returned to Salt Lake City to work for his father in the family business, Frank Granato Importing Company, in 1973. With the passing of his father in 1991, Sam took over as president of the company. Under his leadership the business has successfully expanded, adding a full service bakery and operating in three locations with plans for expansion.

Sam has served the community for the past thirty years in several capacities including past President of the Utah Footprinters Association, past member and Chairman of the Board of Beehive Credit Union, past member of the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund, past member of the Board of Directors of the Utah Arthritis Foundation, past member and chairman of the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Urban Central Region of Intermountain Health Care, and as chairman of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission.

Both Sam personally and Frank Granato Importing, at Sam’s direction, have actively supported a number of charities over the years including Catholic Community Services, the Madelaine School Choir, The Boy Scouts of America, the Girls Scouts of America, The Humane Society and the University of Utah.

Sam is an active member of the LDS Church and has served in several leadership and service positions including the Boy Scouts of America.

He has been married to Ann for thirty four years and has four children and seven grandchildren.

Here are some excerpts from his address:

CALL TO ACTION

I have made the decision to seek this office because I feel that over the last two decades the public has been systematically shut out from the decisions that affect our lives. A famous quote states, “Decisions are made by those who show up.” Now is the time for each one of us to take that challenge to heart and SHOW UP! Silent majorities will not overcome the great challenges this nation is facing. We either work together to solve the problems or we lose.

EXPERIENCE ON HEALTHCARE

I realize that I am not your typical politician, and frankly, that will be a good thing. As a small business owner for the past forty years, I have had a very unique opportunity to understand the intricacies of healthcare as an employer, an IHC board member, as past chairman of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, and as a father and grandfather. With success in November 2010, Utahan’s will benefit from the practical experience, knowledge, and compassion I bring on a subject that touches all of us.

EXPERIENCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

As a business owner, as former chairman for Beehive Credit Union and as a former member of the Utah Micro loan fund, I have seen how honest banking measures can lift the dreams of families in Utah with proper oversight and regulation. This experience qualifies me to help guide the economy in the direction Utah needs it to go.

EXPERIENCE AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

As a party to the restructuring of Utah’s liquor laws, I have proved that I am capable of listening to differing opinions and forming a consensus.

Reflection of loosening social morals in a mostly white state

2009-05-29T20:09:00.002-06:00

The morals of the author of this article are certainly in question:

More socially accepted, multiracial people outpace Hispanics to become fastest-growing group

WASHINGTON (AP) — Multiracial Americans have become the fastest growing demographic group, wielding an impact on minority growth that challenges traditional notions of race.

The number of multiracial people rose 3.4 percent last year to about 5.2 million, according to the latest census estimates. First given the option in 2000, Americans who check more than one box for race on census surveys have jumped by 33 percent and now make up 5 percent of the minority population — with millions more believed to be uncounted.

Demographers attributed the recent population growth to more social acceptance and slowing immigration. They cited in particular the high public profiles of Tiger Woods and President Barack Obama, a self-described "mutt," who are having an effect on those who might self-identify as multiracial.

Population figures as of July 2008 show that California, Texas, New York and Florida had the most multiracial people, due partly to higher numbers of second- and later-generation immigrants who are more likely to "marry out."

Measured by percentages, Hawaii ranked first with nearly 1 in 5 residents who were multiracial, followed by Alaska and Oklahoma, both at roughly 4 percent.

Utah had the highest growth rate of multiracial people in 2008 compared to the previous year, a reflection of loosening social morals in a mostly white state.