The Obama problem

Obama has spent the last few days and weeks attempting to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright (an ironic name given his political leanings). Better writers than I, including Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell, have done excellent jobs in pointing out Obama's consistently inconsistent stance on the Reverend Wright and the troubles Obama has run into in embracing and then distancing himself from his reverend of 20 years.

The problem that I wanted to reference relates to an old political adage. The saying goes, you move to the extreme during primaries and then back to the middle for the general election. Obama's problem is that he's had to move himself from the extreme far left (a la Reverend Wright's positions on America, whites, and terrorism) more toward the middle just to be accepted by his own party. When the general election comes around, he'll have a hard time taking any positions that resound with the majority of Americans.

The solution to his problem (which remains a problem for the rest of us) is handed to him on a silver platter by the left-leaning "mainstream media." They don't seem to care that this guy has been attending a racist's sermons for 20 years, nor do they seem to care that this guy's soundbites come more from Karl Marx than any original thinking. Obama has been given a free pass by all mainstream media outlets. They really don't care what this guy says, as long as it causes them to swoon they will endorse him and fall all over themselves attempting to look like the more tolerant entity.

The irony is that, right after 9-11 liberals constantly harped on their new mantra "to criticize the U.S. does not make one un-patriotic." While I agree with that statement, liberals would often use it to avoid being criticized on any ground by labeling the critics as right-wing nuts who believe America is infallible.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Liberals will jump all over any individual who criticizes Obama's policies, lack of substance, and associations by making blanket statements about the critic being racist or intolerant. Whereas before they could criticize the U.S. without reproach, now they denounce anyone who criticizes Obama as improper.

The inconsistencies, and unwillingness to allow Obama to be truly vetted is the biggest cause for concern for any American, whether they love America or wish that God would damn it. Unfortunately, the latter group welcomes this lack of media scrutiny with open arms.

Automatic delegates in the Salt Lake County Republican Party

I attended my neighborhood caucus meeting and came away somewhat dismayed. While we engaged in the usual aspects of this meeting (election of precinct officers, delegates, etc.) we also opened the floor and had a few discussions regarding various issues concerning our party. By far, the most important issue to those there that night was the issue of automatic delegates.

I, personally, am torn on the issue of automatic delegates.

I think that having elected officials serve as delegates, without taking away from the delegates who are apportioned throughout the county's precincts makes sense. Obviously, if the County Chair is elected by the members of the county party, he has gained the approval of the people he serves. This does not place him above the rest of us, but solidifies his support of the members of the party. The same goes for other elected officials within the party.

However, on the other hand, the fact that a county chair has been elected does not mean that he will be re-elected. If he is unpopular and facing a tough opponent at the organizing convention, why does he get to vote for himself without winning support at his local caucus.

The most frustrating part about this debate is that there are few who fully understand every facet of the issue. For instance, at my caucus meeting there was some question as to who becomes automatic delegates. Obviously there are elected officials who gain that status, but there were those present who questioned whether the "cronies" of the elected officials don't also gain status of automatic delegate. Then there was a question raised regarding what happens when some delegates don't show up to convention and whether they are replaced by friends of "those in power."

All of this serves to prove my main point. One thing I think we struggle with in our county party is transparency. The issue of automatic delegates has been around for years and years. Each year there is a push to make some headway in the matter, and each year, those interested go home disappointed. From my experience as a delegate, this is generally what happens:

The delegates show up to convention ready to tackle the election of candidates. There are groups hell-bent on getting the issue of automatic delegates resolved, but they remain a minority. The rest of the delegates really don't seem to either know enough about the issue to have an opinion, or they just don't care about it.

Since the main reason why everyone is there is to elect candidates, the voting gets pushed to the front of the agenda. Once the voting has taken place, most delegates leave. Before the issues of the inner-workings of the party can be addressed, debated, and determined, someone calls for a quorum count or moves to adjourn and the meeting is suspended or ended.

Some believe that this is a concerted effort by those in power to retain their positions as automatic delegates. Others claim it is a lack of support for those against the automatic delegates that causes this issue to remain in the background.

Regardless, it seems that this issue keeps making noise and keeps surfacing giving the Republican Party in Salt Lake County and the state a black eye. So, considering that we have central committee meetings, executive committee meetings, organizing conventions and nominating conventions where this issue is discussed, why has no one with authority come out and explained exactly what happens with automatic delegates or replacement delegates (for those slots where no one shows at convention)? Further, why has no one stepped forward with a clear and convincing explanation as to why the automatic and replacement delegates should continue the way that they do?

What harm can come from having a clear, civil debate on this issue? If there is fear that the issue will b muddled in the debate, why not strike the first blow and explain the whole process?

Talk about compassion

“Look, I got two daughters—9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” —Barack Obama

Stories have surfaced regarding Barack Obama's extremely liberal stances on most issues. Apparently his staffers had a hard time getting him to moderate his stances in order to make him more electable. I think that this quote (thanks Patriot Post!) demonstrates exactly how liberal, and dangerous, this guy is.

Most people think of a baby as a wonderful thing in this life. Barack Obama sees a new life as a punishment!!

The thing that makes Barack Hussein Obama most dangerous is that, like the Clintons last decade, the rules do not apply to him. He can talk out of both sides of his mouth and the media fall over themselves trying to demonstrate how his double-standards merely show how much a man-of-the-people he is.

Honestly, if anyone other than Barack had said something so banal, so stupid, so immoral, the media would have ended that person's presidential bid. Also, if John McCain had attended a church at any point in his life where the pastor made such racist and anti-American comments as Obama's preacher, John McCain's bid for the presidency would be over.

For those of you who happen to stumble onto this blog, be very wary of Obama. He puts on a good show full of style and grand rhetoric. But he does not lack substance as some have accused. Rather, he has substance that is so offensive to most Americans, that he must keep it hidden until after he (heaven forbid) gets elected, otherwise his candidacy would be over by now.

The media is too busy demonstrating to everyone that they are tolerant and not racist to give this guy a real hard look and uncover some of his appaling stances on the issues. It's scary when an individual gets a free pass from the media throughout the primary process.

Continued Erosion of the 4th Amendment

One of the defining principles of freedom is limiting government. For the past year or so, I started my career as an attorney after having spent a year as a law clerk to a state court judge in Alaska. That year in Alaska was eye-opening for many reasons, not the least of which was the constant barrage of attacks on our 4th Amendment rights.

Most police officers are doing their best to fulfill a needed and very dangerous role in our society. However, there are those who overstep their bounds in order to investigate a "hunch" that they have. I don't doubt that most of these "hunches" turn out to be wrong and the officer has engaged in an extra-constitutional action by causing an innocent person to be subjected to a 4th Amendment search and seizure.

The loss in applying the exclusionary rule to evidence seized in a manner outside of the 4th Amendment is not that occasionally an innocent man might go free. The danger lies in the principle that without the 4th Amendment (or at least if the constant dilution continues) we are faced with a police force to whom the law does not apply.

Unfortunately, as highlighted here the erosion continues and people are uncertain of their rights and their ability to refuse entry into their home to the officers. Some may call it a slipperty slope, but considering what is constantly proposed in all 51 legislatures in this nation, it is only a matter of time before we find ourselves subject to more and more police control in our lives.

Sweet Justice

The Democrats' fast and easy manipulation of elections after the votes are cast and counted is now being used against one of their own. See Hope Yen's article fromt he Associated Press as reproduced on deseretnews.com here

For those who still believe that Bush somehow stole the election in 2000, it remains a mystery how, recount after recount, only one candidate continued to receive more and more votes. The only logical conclusion is that with each recount, votes were somehow manipulated into being in favor of Al Gore. The funny thing is that the Democrats were adamant about continuing the recounts and would have been (were it not for the Supreme Court ending the madness) up until the point where the ballots were manipulated enough to give Al Gore more votes than Pres. Bush. But, once that happened, any attempt to have the votes recounted again would have been vehemenently denounced by the same Democrats.

Still, if nothing else, this attempt to have the delegates seated from a flawed election for the Democratic party in Florida and Michigan shows exactly how desperate Hillary Clinton is at this point in time. These maneuvers, coupled with the sudden media divorce from the recent love-fest for Obama, may just push Clinton into a win on March 4.

Regardless, whether Obama wins the nomination and faces the moderate, but experienced McCain, or Clinton manages to steal this one from Obama (and faces the disappointment of all those voters who are "all whooped up" for Obama) things are starting to look good for McCain. While some may argue that what looks good for McCain does not necessarily look good for the Republican Party, I can only imagine what the Court could look like were Obama or Clinton to be elected.

So, while we may not be fond of McCain, as our standard bearer, he will likely do more good than harm to conservative principles.

“The fact that the market is not doing what we wish it would do is no reason to automatically assume that the government would do better. There are too many examples of government interventions that made things worse, the Great Depression of the 1930s being the most tragic. Those on the left love to believe that the stock market crash of 1929 showed the failure of the free market and that the New Deal interventions in the 1930s saved the day. But the stock market crash of 1987 was just as big and Ronald Reagan resisted loud calls for him to intervene. The result was not another Great Depression but the beginning of a decades-long period of prosperity. Before Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt came along, there was no expectation that the federal government would intervene when the stock market crashed or when there was a downturn in the economy. Previous stock market crashes and previous downturns in the economy worked themselves out faster and less painfully than the Great Depression of the 1930s, just as the 1987 crisis did. The track record of government intervention is far less impressive than its rhetoric.”—Thomas Sowell (Thanks to the Patriot Post)

This, if nothing else, is the second best reason (the first being constitutional grounds) to avoid allowing the federal government to get involved in any sort of national health care system. The Democrats are always clamoring for more government. What remains to be seen is anything that the government does well.

Yet another example of Reaganism vs. FDRism and a clear win by Reaganism.

Compassionate Conservatism

As much as Pres. Bush likes to soften the media's viewpoint of conservatism, here, in the words of the Great Communicator, is true compassionate conservatism. (Thanks to the Patriot Post!)

“I’m sure everyone feels sorry for the individual who has fallen by the wayside or who can’t keep up in our competitive society, but my own compassion goes beyond that to the millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning, send the kids to school, go to work, try and keep up the payments on their house, pay exorbitant taxes to make possible compassion for the less fortunate, and as a result have to sacrifice many of their own desires and dreams and hopes. Government owes them something better than always finding a new way to make them share the fruit of their toils with others.”—Ronald Reagan

Great Quote III

“[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788

Thanks to Utah Policy Daily.

The issue of federalism was, unfortunately, discarded as an issue back in the 1930s. That was the last time any government program was discarded as extra-constitutional. We haven't really looked back since and now we have a government that ever increases its role in our lives. Politicians are quick to describe how their proposed government programs will help us with the problems that allegedly run rampant in our lives.

In truth, the government has never done anything effectively or efficiently, other than take our money - and even that is hardly efficient. Take a look at FEMA. Liberals, especially, decry the way in which that government agency handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was abysmal, but instead of questioning whether it could be handled through different channels, Democrats responded the only way they know how, criticize Republican-appointees, blame the Republican administration, and set out to throw more money at the ineffective government program.

What we should be getting back to is the basic question of whether the federal government has the authority to conduct the actions we wish to attribute to it. If we focus on the enumerated powers, and abide by the 10th Amendment, I think we would find more money in our pockets and problems with solutions that make sense for our individual communities. After all, how is someone in Washington D.C. going to know better than someone here, locally, how to act where the Constituion allows, solve problems where the government can help, and stay out of the way when things are going well?

The federal government has run rampant. It needs to be stopped and we need to restore the power of the federal government to the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. Without that, we will find ourselves increasingly regulated to the point where we no longer have control over much of what goes on in our lives.

Great Quote II

“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” —Judge Gideon Tucker

Take a look at what our Legislature is doing. HB 10 states that if you do not identify yourself to a police officer, then you can be charged and found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Granted, in order for an officer to be able to charge you under the statute, he has to have reasonable articulable suspicion that some criminal activity is afoot. However, it is rare for an officer not to have some reasonable articulable suspicion when he's had a couple of weeks to prepare to testify at trial.

Then there's SB14 whereby the Legislature wants to prohibit smoking in cars while a child is there. While it is a noble cause that Senator Scott McCoy is attempting to fight, the means of reaching into a privately owned vehicle and regulating activities that happen there do not justify the end of attempting to protect children from their parents. I will say that this bill has a better approach than, say, a bill that attempts to do the same thing only in a private residence. The trouble is that once government has established a precedent of regulating such activities, there is little left to stand in the way of overstepping the bounds and reaching into a private residence.

Great Quote

This came from The Patriot Post.

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” —Ronald Reagan

Unfortunately, on a national level, there is this push for what liberals call bi-partisanship. In reality, it is a push for conservatives to compromise their standards while liberals continue to break down the structure of this country to make room for socialist programs. More and more Republicans are buying into that idea, and we have found our party being pushed to the middle in the hopes of appeasing more people.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, it is that when the national party has a leader who is sincerely invested in true conservative ideals, and has the ability to communicate those ideals to the people, it only makes sense for the people to vote to implement those conservative principles.

Extra-constitutional

I got this from Utah Policy Daily's website.

"Jan. 11, 1944: President Roosevelt in his State of the Union speech to Congress proposes a National Service Act and a new set of rights that included: a right to a job, a right of decent income to farmers, a right to a decent home, a right to medical care, etc. (Source: Perspicuity)"

Even if you believe people are entitled to these things, there is no authority for the federal government to get involved on any of these fronts. The federal government does not create authority (as President Roosevelt purported to do here), rather, it is granted authority by the people via the Constitution. There is no authority in the Constitution to guarantee these rights. It just does not exist.

This was one of the biggest steps in creating extra-constitutional movements by the president and congress. It has all been downhill since then. What a sad day for our country.

Public School Funding

Here's a general question that no one seems to be able to answer. If Utah spends more than $5,000 on educating a child currently enrolled in public school, and that student opts out of public school to attend private school, and Utahns pass referrendum 1 this fall, what happens to the money that is collected from taxpayers but not used on that child's public education?

After all, even if the child receives the largest amount available under the proposed voucher system, that still leaves more than $2000 that is not being used by that student but still collected from the taxpayers. What happens to that money? I can't imagine that it would no longer be collected. So, if it is collected and not used for the education of that child, where does it go?

Taxes

According to this story, Utah redistributes the least amount of money to "poor families with children."

This is a study of per capita spending and doesn't tell us how many in each state receive that funding. So, in reality, Utah could spend more per person than the other 49 states by having fewer people who fit into the category of "poor families with children" and spreading any money collected from taxpayers over that smaller group.

According to the computations by the Utah Taxpayers Association of Utah's tax burden (seen here) is at 16% (5th highest in the nation).

I would wager a guess that if Utah were to take much more from its taxpayers, the number of people who would qualify as "poor families with children" would increase decisively.

I'm all for giving to one another. It is the only way to become truly rich. I just don't know why the government should be involved.

I would guess that one of the reasons for such low governmental redistribution of money is that we, as a people, are generally much more giving than any other state. Certainly the LDS Church plays a significant role in that area. However, I have seen more people of all faiths, creeds, and walks of life willing to help a neighbor more often in Utah than anywhere else. Giving to others is a worthwhile venture and anyone who is willing to make a donation of time or money to another receives dividends that cannot be measured.

Having your money taken from you is rarely met with the same dividends or received with the same appreciation.

Utah's tax collectors may not dole out the most money per capita in spite of collecting the 5th highest percentage in the nation, but Utah's streets are not littered with those who have gone without. We must be doing something right.

Cell phones and drunk driving

Rocky Anderson has taken a great approach to a growing problem. He has sponsored this site as a way for residents of Salt Lake City to pledge to hang up while they are driving. More power to him.

The thing I like the most about this approach is that it is voluntary. While Rocky's preferred approach would undoubtedly be to legislate this issue, fortunately the state legislature tied Rocky's hands by passing HB 423 during the 2006 session.

HB 423 prohibits any municipality or county government from banning the use of cell phones within its borders. I applaud this legislation because it prevents a situation where someone driving in South Salt Lake City and driving on a cell phone from being ticketed for carrying on that conversation as the driver crosses into Salt Lake City. Not only is this legislation to prevent further legislation, the inconsistencies from city to city would cause headaches galore.

However, there is another reason why I like this bill. We already have laws preventing us from driving erratically. If you are driving down the road and you swerve between two lanes without signaling or break other traffic laws, you are subject to being pulled over and ticketed. It does not, nor should it matter whether that is because you are talking on your cell phone, attending to a baby in the backseat, doing your makeup, or eating your lunch. If there are laws already in existence banning an action, why create a law that punishes someone for doing something that MIGHT lead to that action?

Studies have shown that driving while on a cell phone may distract some people so that an affected person's reaction times are similar to those of a drunk driver. I have yet to see what the comparison is between the reaction time of a drunk driver and that of someone driving while doing their makeup, attending to someone else in the car, carrying on a discussion with someone else in the car, or eating while driving. If those prove to cause a driver's reaction time to become similar to that of a drunk driver should we pass legislation to ban those from happening in the car too?

At what point is there too much legislation?

Unlike the physiology of alcohol in the system, the effect of talking on the cell phone while driving may not be an impairment whatsoever. For me personally, even talking to someone in the car with me can cause me distraction when I am driving in the city. In those situations, the conversation usually suffers to the point that it isn't worth continuing until after we are out of the car or until we are driving on a stretch of highway with few cars. That is my choice, and it should remain a choice. Others certainly have better and different skills than me and I would hesitate to decrease their freedom because of my different abilities.

I like the pledge offered to those driving on Salt Lake's streets. It places before us the greater issue of safe driving and pushes us to avoid driving while distracted. The voluntariness of this program asks us to evaluate our own driving habits and determine whether we should also hang up and drive. We don't need the state or city to do our thinking for us, but we should have leaders who present us with issues and suggest solutions that we may adopt in our lifestyles without the solution being legislated upon us.

Immigration in America

At the heart of the debate as to what to do about the illegal immigration problem is the question of why people want to come to this country so desperately that they'd leave life as they know it behind in pursuit of the unknown. The likely reason is because life as they know it isn't worth sticking around for.

Immigrants come to America for the opportunities this land provides. Perhaps, in a way, the opportunities provided are too great in that the likelihood of finding a better life here is so high that immigrants don't want to wait to be sifted through the legal process.

Underneath this premise, however, is the truth that immigrants are good for America. There is certainly the argument that we all come from families who were, at some point, immigrants (except, perhaps American Indians). Much could also be said regarding how much America has benefited from allowing immigrants into this great land. But what, if anything, do immigrants offer now?

While I disagree with the argument that immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want, I do believe that immigrants take jobs at a lower cost than most Americans would. This is evident given that an immigrant (whether here legally or not) is much more willing to take a job at $7/hour than the average American because for those of us accustomed to life here, $7/hour isn't very much money at all. However, if an immigrant comes here from a life where he made $7/day or even $7/week, then suddenly $7/hour means the guy is quite wealthy.

But who can live off of $7/hour, one might ask. I can't imagine making $7/ hour now. I've got school loans to pay off, debts to family and other creditors, as well as a standard of living to which I've grown accustomed. However, if I have created a life where I'm used to living off of $7 a day or a week, and suddenly I am making that much in an hour, I can afford to increase my standard of living while still saving money to help out friends and family and to save for a rainy day.

That's great, but as an American, what good does that do me? Well, just as I benefit from outsourcing to other countries, I also benefit from in-sourcing less expensive labor. If dry-walling an entire house costs me $500 in labor with a crew made up mostly of immigrants who are willing to work for lower wages, then I benefit when the same work would cost me two or three times that much with an American crew.

Does that make me less of a patriot? Not at all. I am a firm believer in the American dream. Neither of my parents graduated from college in spite of their incredible intelligence. However, through some hard work, support, and determination from both my parents and us kids individually, my parents can now boast that all six of their kids are at least college graduates. While my Mom and Dad provided a good home and a lot of support, we kids were also able to draw on scholarships and programs to help us afford getting through that door to a better life. I want to ensure that those who are so willing to come to America are afforded the same opportunities that I was and that each generation of a family becomes better than the last.

While the initial generaion "pays its dues" in making a fraction of the wages that an American worker might demand, the sons and daughters of that immigrant generation will grow in a much different world where they will be given more opportunities and have the ability and the skills necessary to make more money.

Immigration also provides America with less expensive "unskilled" labor. It also provides, however, an influx of international "skilled" labor. During my two year LDS Church mission in France, I often ran into doctors, PhDs, researchers and scientists who dreamed of coming to America. Why? Because, with the free market system that defines America, they can make a lot more money and feel that their efforts and contributions are more justly rewarded.

America has always benefited from allowing immigrants to come here. America is immigration. The opportunities presented here far out-shine most other legal opportunities presented in other countries. They need us and we need them.

There are not only economic benefits that come from immigration. We also benefit socially from allowing these other cultures to influence our way of thinking. I doubt you'll be very well employed south of the border as a collector for a credit card company or as a divorce attorney. Jerry Springer and Montel Williams would have a hard time broadcasting in Spanish because questions of paternity arise in many other nations at a frequency far below the levels we see here in America.

As Dinesh D'Souza explained in his book, Letters to a Young Conservative,
"[I]mmigrants are frequently the solution to [America's] cultural and moral decline. Immigrants often have very strong family values, as shown by low divorce and illegitimacy rates. Immigrants have a strong work ethic and practice the virtues of frugality and deferred gratification." One might even suggest that America's culture would benefit from opening our borders even more to allow immigrants into this nation.

Regardless of how many immigrants we let into this great country, we must establish some order in which they enter so as to avoid allowing those we know who want to do harm to this nation and its people from entering in. Successful measures have been taken along various points of the border to build fences and walls so as to stem the tide of people pouring over the borders. Furthering those efforts would provide the stability needed to ensure that we know who is entering this country.

However, no wall high enough or long enough will keep those out who are determined to come here unless there the process for coming here legally is streamlined. What is the process and how do we streamline it? I don't know. But when an immigrant here is told that the process to bring friends and family here won't even begin until five years or more after the paperwork is filed, the fence on the border will be tested to its limits.

America and Americans benefit from immigrants and immigrants benefit from coming here. We need to do what we can to ensure that those who come here do so safely and orderly to protect them and to protect us. Once they are here, neighborhoods and communities should create programs to facilitate assimilation and to create collaborative feelings among neighbors old and new. Perhaps my vision of immigration is a little from Kumbayah-land, but it certainly beats the alternative where we lose the opportunity to benefit from immigrants and immigrants cannot take full advantage of the opportunities in this land that make it great.

Money in Education

Your money won't buy you happiness - at least that's what my Mom always tells me.

Yet in education, money is everything. Much is made of how many dollars the state spends in per pupil expenditures. Last week a newsstory reported that we had slipped back into the 51st spot on a list of 51. We apparently spend about $5200 per student which is $1000 less than Arizona - which is in the 50th spot. The article also highlights the $216.6 million increase in spending on education thanks to this year's legislature but laments that even such an increase in spending will do little to move us from last place.

So, the question becomes, when is more money ever going to be enough?

The traditional method of funding education has done little to help us out. The reasons may range from lack of funding oversight (I've heard several anecdotes about administrators making a very large sum of money while teachers struggle to stay above the poverty level)to simply being impossible given our propensity for large families and a small tax base. Regardless, the point is traditional methods of funding education are not working and likely will not work without a revolutionary change in the funding process. So, why not give vouchers a try?

Vouchers may not be the perfect system, but the two laws that implement this voucher program certainly give us a chance to try a different approach to education funding. It gives parents an option to try to get a better return for their money while leaving classrooms fully funded. I've yet to hear an argument against vouchers that was anything more than conjecture and speculation.

If our current system isn't working, how is putting more money through the system going to make it better?

RCIP Meet the Candidates Night (Friday Night!)

Salt Lake County Republican Party Delegates:

The County Party’s Organizing Convention will be held on Saturday, May 5th. At this convention you will be electing new County Party Officers. To give you an opportunity to speak with and listen to the candidates for these positions, Republicans for Civil and Informed Participation (RCIP) cordially invites you to attend the following:

Meet the Candidates Night
6:30 pm
Friday
April 27, 2007
Council Chambers, Salt Lake County Complex
2001 South State Street

For more information, please visit the RCIP website at www.danishgrove.net/rcip or contact us via email at nicegop@yahoo.com.

Micah Bruner, Vice Chair
Republicans for Civil and Informed Participation

Vouchers

I love the idea of a good referendum. What better way to include the ultimate check and balance than by allowing the consent of the governed to be withdrawn by the governed. While we live in a democratic republic, there should always be a manner whereby we can directly question the actions taken by our legislature. The republic aspect of our government allows for the practical approach to concentrating power in the hands of a few who can dedicate their time and efforts to learning the specific details of an issue and to vote according to their view of what will be best for those whom they represent.

Still, to simply rely on "the government" to tell us everything that we should be doing (see San Franciscos ban on plastic grocery bags) we should have a method whereby we can rebut our legislators' thought process. The referendum retains power in the hands of the people of this country. That is where it originates and that is where it should remain.

Once the process is initiated, however, we take upon ourselves the responsibility of carefully reviewing and researching the question before us. The legislators who voted on it initially certainly put in the time and effort to understand this voucher system. We owe it to ourselves to do the same.

That having been said, I have to ask the question, where is the harm done by the twin bills that enacted the voucher program? The two bills allow for those who, with an extra $500 - $3000, can send their child to a charter or private school while keeping the amount of money in the child's former public-school classroom unchanged. Isn't it at least worth a look?

We have spent billions of dollars attempting to cover the amount it costs us to educate our children. Each increase is followed by a call for more increases. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, isn't it worthwhile to at least attempt something other than that which we have been doing for the past couple of decades? The old adage comes to mind referring to a definition of insanity.

Rather than buying into the myth that more money will solve all our problems, why not try a different approach now when we have the money to buffer the current funding system from ultimate failure? Plus, if this system does suffer some catastrophic failure, are we really worse off? Would starting fresh not allow us to readjust where the money is spent. I constantly hear anectdotes about how much money school district administrators make. Perhaps revamping the entire system would be a good idea.

Still, the way in which the twin voucher bills are designed, now is a good time to try a different approach to funding schools. If the referendum sponsors comply with the requirements to get this issue directly before voters, great! I just question how violently most people oppose this new idea that could very well lead us down a path to solving our education funding woes at a time when we can afford to look at other options.

So, if the voucher process goes forward (and the requisite number of signatures are obtained) then the system is put into work. However, I admonish all to carefully review the voucher program and ask if it wouldn't be better to give this a try now when we can afford it than to have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of vouchers. Otherwise, we exchange the legislature for the NEA and other "special interests" who have the money to engage in a slander campaign.

So, if we have a referendum on the balance, let's do what the process was intended to do. If we don't trust the legislature with this vote, we shouldn't trust the NEA, UEA, or any of the pro-voucher interest groups with the task of doing the studying and research of this issue.

45 Days of Glory

As a Republican and a conservative, I am often underappreciative of what having a 45-day legislative session really means.

I was once in a conversation with former Rep. Lorraine Pace. I asked her if it wasn't a little unfair that the session was only 45 days considering that it kept a lot of people from serving. Many individuals really are kept from being able to serve because they cannot take a 45 day leave of absence from their jobs to conduct the state's business. I was surprised when she stated that while some may not be able to serve, it is far better to have those who do serve return to their homes and live under the laws they spent 45 days creating.

I couldn't agree more.

Looking at Congress, there is nothing I would love more than to see these 535 individuals actually attempt to live life as an average citizen under the laws that they spent the majority of the year promulgating. As it is, the members of Congress generally spend most of their time living in the federal city making laws that attempt to control the lives of the more than 300 million people who live in this great country.

Even more, the 45-day session limits the reach into our lives that our legislators attempt to extend. In the general election last November, the citizens of Alaska approved a proposition to limit the legislative session to 90 days. It had been as long as 120 days. The debate that surrounded the citizens' initiative boiled down to those who thought the government needed more time to "better serve" the citizens of the state and those who thought that the less time the legislators spent trying to justify the time they were spending in Juneau, the more free from unnecessary laws the citizens of Alaska would be.

The same truth holds true here in Utah. With only 45 days to accomplish much in the way of general state business, there is not a lot of time to waste on bills that are otherwise unnecessary.
The idea of having legislators removed from society is not only dangerous because they often would not feel the effect of their legislative actions, but it will also lead to the idea that we need the government to help us in our day-to-day lives. A California legislator's proposed bill to criminalize spanking one's own kids and a New York legislator's proposed bill to make it illegal to operate an iPod in a cross-walk are perfect examples of the statist thinking that results from having a full-time legislature. Instead of focusing on the important state business, frivolous nanny bills are passed because those elected as full-time legislators find themselves vested with some authority to run the lives of their constituents.

Our legislators (whether you like them or not) are hard working individuals who spend a lot of their time working to better our state. However, by limiting our session to 45 days, we are insulating ourselves from creating a Frankenstein that suddenly takes over our lives. While we will never be rid of statist thinking (see SB17) the short 45-day full session of our legislature will certainly keep us from becoming subject to absurd laws such as those that plague us from our nation's capital.

A Hollywood Republican

Can there be such a thing? I've found that too often conservatives and Republicans are portrayed as those ignorant of how life truly works. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The West Wing are all premised on the idea that Republicans are ignoramuses who have their heads too deep in the sand to "get it." Most liberals can't fathom that conservatives are intelligent individuals who truly believe that the best way for Americans to function is with as little governmental intervention as possible.

This article highlights Hollywood writers' inability to write dialogue for a true conservative. Perhaps more telling is the author's inability to understand that most conservatives haven't adopted their ideals simply because they haven't seen the light. Instead, we are conservative because we have researched and thought about pertinent issues and have concluded that the conservative viewpoint is the best viewpoint.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20013253,00.html

Sec. Leavitt announces his candidacy...

for Vice President.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5248184

I don't pretend to know anything about Washington politics, but from what I've read about Leavitt, he has to be hoping to be picked up as the number 2 man on a ticket. Regardless, ideas like this will get him noticed by all of the candidates on this side of the aisle.

And why not? He's a former governor with executive experience. Now that he's had experience as Secretary of HHS, he has some Washington experience as well. This could certainly be his path to the top.