Categories
politics State

High Priced Entertainment

I have to say that SUPERDELL events sound very entertaining.

Fear not, my fundraising events will be worth their ticket if merely for entertainment value to the sceptics:). We are going to have some serious fun in Utah. I’m already working on my first event. I’m looking for acrobatic aircraft, base jumpers, powered skydiving pilots, helicopters, race cars, monster trucks, pyrotechnics . . .

For anyone who would go for the entertainment value, just remember the cost of admission is going to fund a political campaign so you’ll probably get an earful from the radio and an eyeful from the TV for your investment. And these would come from a candidate who has not said one word about an issue in his campaign.

Categories
culture

Ridiculous

Last week his boss had his career sunk by revelations of participation in prostitution. Now the new Governor of New York starts his term by confessing his past affairs. I’m not here to criticize Gov. Paterson – his affairs hold no interest for me (especially since he’s not my governor). What I think is ridiculous is our cultural obsession with this topic.

The reason he is making this confession is that he knows that it won’t hurt him politically unless someone else reports it first. The newspapers cover this on the front page when it really deserves nothing more than to be buried in the archives for historic reference. This front page coverage serves to reinforce the perception that every marriage encounters infidelity and therefore it’s not a big deal. Is this the message we want to send to the rising generation?

Categories
National politics

Anti Universal Coverage

This came along before I started reading the Cato blog regularly but I am definitely a member of The Anti-Universal Coverage Club.

  1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.
  2. “Universal coverage” could be achieved only by forcing everyone to buy health insurance or by having government provide health insurance to all, neither of which is desirable.
  3. In a free society, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.
  4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”

That does not mean that I am opposed to everyone having access to health care, but a mandate that every person buy insurance or that the government will pay for insurance (by taxing “the rich” naturally) is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Categories
National politics technology

Open Congress

It becomes more and more clear each day how powerful the internet can be as a tool to improve our political process by enabling citizens to be informed. A great example of that is OpenCongress.org. The purpose of the site is to provide information on bills and members of congress. It only took me about two minutes to find 9 feeds on the site that any serious political blogger should have (of course the 9 feeds vary depending on where you live). For each member of the House or the Senate there are feeds for every roll-call vote (voice votes can”t be accurately tracked), for blog entries related to that person, and for news stories related to that person. The nine feeds are those three feeds for each of your senators and your representative. Everyone who is serious about politics should be aware of the members of congress who they have the chance to elect. For the Utah 2nd Congressional District those feeds are:

I have long admired the way Misty Fowler has widgets showing the recent votes of her representative and senators in her sidebar. I don’t know if I will display this kind of thing in my sidebar, but I will definitely be following them in my feed reader. Now I wish I had a site like OpenCongress at the state level.

Categories
culture politics

Personal Political Perspectives

I’ve posted a couple of stories where people have given personal perspectives about politics that I thought were well considered. I recently discovered that NPR has a project called Get My Vote that is meant to allow people to share exactly these kinds o f personal perspectives.

NPR and public media want to hear about the concerns and convictions that motivate you in this election. Politics, as we say, is personal. Tell us about the issues that have touched your life. How have your experiences shaped your political beliefs and goals? What could someone do or say to get your vote?

I plan to look through things that are being posted over there to get a feel for what people are saying. If I get the chance I hope to share more stories of well considered personal perspectives.

Well considered is being defined as not blindly echoing a party line, but thoughtful and articulate in support of their position. Whether I agree with the position is not a requirement, although I honestly believe that there is less variance among thoughtful people (as opposed to reactionary ideologues) than the red/blue divide of media politics that we are constantly exposed to.

Categories
National politics

Remarkable Consensus

I was pleased to read from Phil Kerpen on Earmarks:

An amendment to the budget sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been collecting some unlikely cosponsors over the past couple of days, including both Democratic presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The amendment would establish a bold loophole-free ban on earmarks for one year. After the election, the new president and congressional majority would face a choice of bringing back earmarks under some reformed process or extending the temporary ban. Either result would be a major improvement. . . The loophole-free moratorium embodied in the DeMint-McCain amendment would actually end earmarking for at least one year.

Not mentioned there is that this amendment is being opposed by the Senate leadership of both parties. What would draw all the presidential candidates together in opposition to the leadership of both parties? My suspicion was that all the presidential candidates are facing an election but the party leaders in the Senate are not. The reason that would make a difference would be explained by the majority of Americans favoring an end to earmarking.

My confidence in that hypothesis fell when I discovered that Mitch McConnell (the minority leader) is facing re-election (although his 30 point win in his last election might mean that he’s not very worried about his re-election chances). Despite my lowered confidence, that is the best theory I have right now.

Whatever the reason for this consensus, I hope that the amendment passes and is signed by the president.

Categories
culture politics

Liberal No More

What happens when a lifetime of experience gets processed in a period of introspection and begins to overwhelm a long held youthful idealism? David Mamet comes up with this:

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

There is so much more good stuff in this article. Thanks to David Boaz for citing this – he also has more worth reading on the subject. I just could not pass up that description of how central direction can often disrupt a system that it is meant to organize.

Categories
National politics State

Important Changes

In a meeting with LaVarr Webb this morning two topics really stuck with me that seem to illustrate the most important political problems that we face as a nation. The particular issues we talked about were at the level of our state government, but both issues apply equally well to our federal government and often in more local government settings as well.

The first of these two topics that we talked about was the need for ethics reform – specifically gifts to legislators. Webb has close experience with politicians at the legislature over many years and he talked about how those legislators are often frustrated that people view or suspect them as being corrupt. He said that in his experience they rarely are corrupt but he believes that they can and should address this issue because our state legislature does not have strong safeguards in place against corruption in the event that someone were corrupt. I immediately thought about the Change Congress movement being pushed by Larry Lessig. Lessig articulates the problem as being one caused not by bad people but by “good people working in a bad system.” I believe that his primary method for changing the system is applicable to all such cases. We should persuade our candidates to commit to:

    • Not take lobbyist or PAC money
    • Ban earmarks (this problem seems most acute at the federal level)
    • Support public financing of campaigns.

As citizens we can request that our candidates make these commitments. This can be a filter by which we can determine for ourselves which candidates are serious about changing the bad system. Personally, I will never support a candidate who will not commit to these principles over a candidate who has made this commitment. (And I will ask any candidate I hope to support to make this kind of commitment.)

We later got onto the issues of the violation of the principles of federalism. This is when government tramples the rights of individuals or lower levels of government. This happens so frequently in small ways that many people think it is how the system is supposed to work. Here the solution is that citizens must insist at each level of government that individual liberty and the sovereignty of lower levels of government be carefully protected. Obviously there are some cases where the good of the whole overrides the choice of a part but everyone should be as careful to guard against running over their neighbors with the ideas that they favor as they are at complaining when they feel imposed upon by the ideas of others (and sometimes we need to be more vocal when we feel that we are being bullied by the enforced ideals of others).

Categories
politics

Passing in the Dark

I thought it was interesting to read that Randy, at the Utah Conservative Democrat Blog, is seeing progressives among the Republicans and some rather undemocratic things among the Democrats and has begun considering the possibility of turning into a Utah Progressive Republican. This comes at the same time as I look at the big-government conservatives all over the Utah Republican party and the rising profile of blue dog Democrats and I am becoming convinced that the last thing Utah needs is another Republican.

On the federal level I am convinced that whatever party the president is from should not control both houses of Congress (possibly should not control either house) – especially for any sustained period of time (meaning not more than two years).

Categories
Local politics State

Another City Overrulled

Why did State lawmakers mandate a FrontRunner stop for Bluffdale? In some ways this sounds like the decision by UDOT to toss the Lehi City proposal for the Mountain View Corridor.

SB286, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, exempts UTA from complying with city ordinances – as long as that city lies in a first-class county and the rail spans at least two counties. . . Killpack acknowledged his bill targeted Bluffdale.

I do see some glaring differences though. In the MVC case it was an acknowledged fact that there had to be a route through Lehi as part of the Mountain View Corridor project – the only real question was what was the best way to fill that need. I do not see that same basic agreement existing in the FrontRunner case.

As far as I know, Bluffdale was not blocking the rail route, only the stop. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be cheaper for UTA to build the line without the station – not moving the station elsewhere, just build one fewer stations on the line if Bluffdale does not want a commuter rail stop in their city. Does anyone know of a reason why they have to have that stop for FrontRunner?