Categories
politics State

Guilty by Association

KSL has a John Swallow headline that deserves to be examined. The article provides details but the headline alone is sufficient to draw a final conclusion to the John Swallow saga from a public interest perspective (in other words, this isn’t about drawing a final conclusion from a civil or criminal perspective, but from from the perspective of whether Swallow should have been able to serve out his term in office).

The headline is: New warrants show Swallow campaign hid donations from IRS

Some comments at KSL show some people reading that as saying that Swallow received campaign donations from the IRS that he hid. The truth is that these were donations from the payday lending industry that weren’t disclosed to the IRS.

Does this make Swallow a criminal?

Let’s assume for a minute that Swallow himself was unaware of this deception on the part of his campaign. In that case Swallow wouldn’t be considered a criminal. I don’t make that assumption because I consider it likely (in fact the likelihood of that assumption proving true is remote). I make that assumption because it illustrates the more important point that people who would engage in such activities are the kind of people with which John Swallow surrounded himself.

That fact alone should be sufficient reason for a man of integrity to leave his public office (or at the very least distance himself from such associates) which is why I confidently stated 8 months ago that he should step down.

Update: Holly Richardson just wrote about the House Investigation Committee findings that were reported just before Christmas and not only was the scope of wrongdoing greater than I was previously aware, but (unsurprisingly) their findings explicitly indicate that Swallow was directly involved in all of it.

Categories
culture politics thoughts

A Cat Is Not A Dog

I know this seems like a painfully obvious and completely unnecessary statement to make but imagine with me for a moment what would happen if a society decided to remove the distinction between two things that are fundamentally different by nature.

If the government said that a cat and a dog were the same thing it could punish people who wanted to distinguish between the two types of animals but doing so wouldn’t make them the same thing. If they declared that the words “cat” and “dog” were just  synonyms for the same things or outlawed the use of the word “cat” and if for two or three generations nobody was allowed to say, or teach, or publicly acknowledge that cats and dogs were different, few people in the society would be able to consistently identify what defines a cat as distinct from a dog, but if you put any cat next to any dog virtually everyone in that society would still be able to recognize that those animals are distinctly different. (And even if they couldn’t distinguish them, a cat would still not be a dog.)

If a government decided to grant privileges to dog owners or to enact some kind of requirements for dog owners and then someone (whether a cat owner, a dog owner, or someone who owned neither) decided that those privileges or requirements should also apply to cat owners the proper approach would be for them to get the laws changed either by making equivalent laws for cat owners, or to change the wording of the existing laws to apply to pet owners (or “cat owners and dog owners” if they need to be more specific). The wrong approach would be to declare legally that cats and dogs are the same and consequently anyone who kept a domesticated feline was as much a dog owner as anyone who kept a domesticated canine.

Categories
culture Education politics State

Funding Education

Senator Pat Jones has an idea about how to bring in more money for our public education system in Utah. I appreciate what she is trying to accomplish and laud her efforts to make a difference but as someone who definitely qualifies as having a large family (this bill will hit me twice as hard as at least half the households in the state) – in other words as someone whom this bill targets for funding – I have to say that there are a few problems with the logic behind this effort.

Categories
culture National politics

Fighting the Right Fight for Marriage


Photo by paws22

With declarations of inevitability by the advocates for same-sex marriage coupled with accusations of bigotry leveled against those who wish to defend marriage as an institution that necessarily includes participation by people of differing genders it can be daunting to stand up in defense of heterosexual marriage. I was impressed with the way Jeffrey Thayne presented a defense of marriage being a necessarily heterosexual institution that showed that such a position need not be based on bigotry. His description of a companionate view of marriage versus a conjugal view of marriage got me wondering – what are we fighting for if we oppose the idea of gay marriage?

Categories
politics State

Facts Aren’t Always Impartial

I was listening to Doug Wright this morning talking about the John Swallow situation and I found myself laughing at the linguistic gymnastics he was engaged in trying to discuss the situation without suggesting that impeachment might be the proper course of action to untangle the mess that Mr. Swallow has created.

I can’t decide whether the verbal somersaults were a result of Mr. Wright trying to appear unbiased while secretly agreeing with the Eagle Forum that impeachment should be reserved as a tool we use after we know an official is guilty of serious crimes such as the FBI might investigate or if it was simply a result of Mr. Wright not understanding that being personally impartial does not require the pretense that the facts of the situation be impartial – as if there are facts in favor of Mr. Swallow the way there are so many facts that clearly demonstrate that a legislative investigation is already warranted. Of course there are many unproven allegations out there but there are enough allegations backed up with enough evidence to clearly warrant an investigation by the House.

Here is my unbiased (and unvarnished) opinion. Unless the House is able to investigate and prove that the many emails, recordings, and receipts that we already have in relation to Mr. Swallow’s interactions with Mr. Jensen and Mr. Johnson were fabricated then Mr. Swallow has clearly violated the public trust and should not hold any position of public trust – even if everything he did was technically legal as Mr. Swallow obviously believes (which is why he insists on directing our focus to the existing investigations by the FBI – which necessarily cannot address the issue of public trust).

Categories
politics State

Impeachment isn’t the same as Removal from Office

I don’t know if John Swallow’s attorneys are honest (like many people) in mistakenly conflating the opening of impeachment proceedings with the potential outcome of conviction and removal from office or if they are simply perpetuating that misconception in the hopes of protecting their client. Either way, it is once again time to try to clear up that misconception.

The attitude from Mr. Swallow’s attorneys is quite clear in their letter:

“This discussion about impeachment is based on innuendo and unsupported allegations in the press from indicted and convicted felons and a few political enemies of Mr. Swallow,” attorneys Rod Snow and Jennifer James said.

I would expect exactly that attitude from any attorney regarding their own client. The problem is that it misrepresents the situation. Some of the allegations do come from indicted and convicted felons but beyond those indicted and convicted felons the allegations are also coming from many others – not just “a few political enemies.” They may choose to describe everyone who has made allegations as a political enemy but the number of people making allegations can hardly be quantified as “few.”

Categories
culture Local politics State

Thoughts on Caucus System Reform

Curt Bentley has an excellent post in which he discusses the issue of reforming the caucus system. I really appreciate the methodical approach he has taken to examine the issue. I completely agree with each of his guiding principles and while I suspect I am more comfortable with the caucus system in its current form than he seems to be, I also want to see it strengthened through some reforms that will make it better at promoting voter participation and issue-centric campaigns. I agree with his assessment of what the caucus system does well and with his conclusion that dumping the caucus system entirely is not the way to go. As for his assessment of what the caucus system doesn’t do well, I have some thoughts I’d like to share and I sincerely hope that Curt and others will share their feedback on those thoughts.

Categories
politics State

Don’t Be Fooled


Photo by Alan Parkinson

When the news began about accusations against John Swallow his first response was to dismiss the allegations based on the tainted source from which they sprang and then duck his head and send out lots of emails about what “he” was doing for the state. When the volume and variety of allegations increased Mr. Swallow adopted a new standard answer which sounds reasonable on the surface but is likewise meant to distract from the issue arising from the multitude of allegations. His standard andwer is that he has done nothing illegal and therefore he will not resign. Holly Richardson does a great job of explaining the standard which governs the impeachment process and that standard is “high crimes and misdemeanors” not “committing illegal acts.” In doing so she illuminated the way that Mr. Swallow is using his standard answer to deflate the very appropriate calls for impeachment by playing on a general misunderstanding of what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Let me start by making this very clear. We tend to think of high crimes being obviously criminal like murder but the fact is that obviously criminal acts such as that are felonies and felons are not even allowed to vote, let alone hold office. Lesser criminal acts are classified as misdemeanors so having ruled those out we can understand that “high crimes” are acts which may not even be actionable in the criminal system. As Holly points out, they are issues such as “breaches of ethical conduct, misuse of power, and neglect of duty.”

Categories
Local politics State

Strengthening Our Caucus System

Caucus meeting
Image by Cherie Priest

I really appreciated Paul Mero’s take on efforts to change our caucus and convention system. Unlike Mr. Mero, I’m not well enough connected to be invited to take part in private meetings regarding how to change Utah’s caucus and convention system. On that particular issue that is the largest of our differences.

Like Mr. Mero I have been annoyed at the misinformation that I have seen spread by and among delegates with extreme positions on a number of issues – HB 166 among them. Like Mr. Mero, I have tried to pay attention to the efforts to change the caucus/convention system but I have not found those proposed changes to warrant any particular support from me. The core of where my views align with those expressed by Mr. Mero are summed up in the following quote:

Yes, I’m sure some delegates have stated that they don’t want increased participation in the political process. But, to be fair, most of those voices are more concerned about how blissfully ignorant most Utahns are about the world around them than those voices are about consuming political power. So, yes, these delegates do believe they are better informed and for good reason – most of them are! Not all of them have the right answers, for sure. But it’s a bit disingenuous of my friend to chastise any serious citizen for wanting her candidate to be elected or her policy to become law – for heaven’s sake, that’s exactly what everyone wants!…

If reformers want their candidates elected to office, they should make a case that appeals to the most responsible citizens who take time to engage in a democratic process that has served this state since its founding.

Categories
culture politics

Causes and Symptoms


Photo by Center for American Progress

In the practice of medicine we have come a long way from the days when doctors could do little more than treat the symptoms their patients were experiencing and hope that they were physically strong enough to recover from the underlying condition that was producing the symptoms. There are still times when doctors are limited to treating symptoms – such as when a condition has not been diagnosed yet or when it is so far advanced that it is beyond the reach of our available medical care – but generally in modern times our doctors seek to treat the underlying cause of a problem rather than the symptoms. We need to do more of that in the healthcare industry – especially as it relates to our most pressing chronic condition in the industry: uncontrolled costs.

The first step in treating an underlying problem is to correctly identify it. As is often the case with health problems, our healthcare industry is suffering from multiple underlying problems which interact with each other in ways that magnify their combined effects and often make an accurate diagnosis difficult to make. Thankfully we have had people interested enough in this issue for long enough to have made some headway in identifying at least some of the more pronounced underlying problems. These include the cost of new medicines and health care technologies, weakening of market influences in our health care decisions, misaligned incentives in the system, and inefficiencies in the practice of medicine (like misdiagnoses, inaccurate record keeping, reliance on emergency care by some patients, and problematic record sharing between parties).

I can’t claim to have solutions to all of these underlying problems, nor can I be sure that these represent a complete set of the real problems driving our symptom of skyrocketing costs. On the other hand, I am confident that the way we will solve the problems in our healthcare industry will follow the same pattern that people used to solve the problems that the practice of healthcare has become so adept at addressing. It will require many individuals and groups tackling the problems from a variaty of perspectives and experiementing with a variety of solutions. It won’t be done simply by turning the problem over to government and expecting them to insist on providers not charging outrageous amounts for the care we wish to receive (which is essaentially the premise behind the Affordable Care Act).

While I am anything but optomistic about the eventual benefits of the Affordable Care Act, I am encouraged at many other examples of private organizations taking steps to identify and address various of the systemic problems that afflict our health care system. Some of the initiatives I know of which give me hope is the innovative ways that some companies try to reduce health care costs without reducing employee benefits (Walmart, for example), the growing prevalence of individuals having high deductible insurance plans coupled with health savings accounts (which helps to introduce stronger market forces and healthier incentives into the health care system), efforts to bring more transparency to health care from groups like Pricing Healthcare, experiments in combining data-mining with hands-on care to reduce the costs associated with statistical outliers, and the rise of Direct Primary Care Practices and retail clinics.

We are nowhere near solving this problem and we need much more in the way of innovation and fresh perspectives but we have reason to hope that this problem will be cured in time.