Categories
politics State

Despicable

I’ve come out in support of vouchers, but not very supportive of the often weak efforts of the pro-voucher groups. Not supportive and downright disgusted are two different things. This makes me downright disgusted. So far the misleading email has not been conclusively tied to any official pro-voucher group but I don’t trust them enough to abandon that possibility. I would like to think that this is the work of a weasel who thought he’d do his part to help the cause – if so then someone needs to track him down and shout “Hey, you’re not helping!!”

At the risk of having someone throw eggs at my house I just have to consider the slim chance of reverse-psychology logic leading voucher supporters to pull this trick to manufacture yet another black eye for their inept opponents.

Isn’t politics lovely?

Categories
culture politics State

Bureaucracy in Action

This is what happens when we expect government bureaucracy to manage something rather than leaving things in the hands of individuals.

Loving couple. Loving home. Steady jobs. No criminal history. Kids like them and the birth mother wants it.

Despite all that, Michael Valez and Michael Oberg are wading upriver through the state child protection system to be able to take care of four kids belonging to Valez’s niece. . .

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge’s directive that Valez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

The rules governing DCFS are quite reasonable – I don’t think that they should be running around placing kids in unstable situations such as with a couple that has decided that they should move in together to save rent. On the other hand we are faced with the question – who is responsible for raising these kids? Is it the state (DCFS) or the mother? I would argue that too often the state is given precedence over the parents and it is only rarely justified. I think that cases like this, where DCFS is actively trying to help the mother to prepare herself to resume raising the children (as they ought to), should make it that much easier to admit that primary responsibility lies with the mother and therefore her wishes, not to mention the wishes of the children, should take precedence over “the rules.” (Maybe if there was a criminal history to consider I would change my mind.)

Luckily reason has prevailed (so far) –

On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children.

“The judge said, ‘I see absolutely no reason why the kids can’t stay where they’re at,'” Valez said.

If only this were the case all the time.

Categories
politics State

Voucher Related Tidbits

The closer we get to November the more likely we are to see commentary related to vouchers. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of it was as well thought out as Conner Boyack’s Weighing in on the Utah Voucher Program – but I won’t hold my breath. Connor seems to be trying in a single post to sum up the entire voucher debate – which is an impressive task. Perhaps one reason that I like Connor’s thoughts is that his conclusion is quite similar to mine – the voucher bills might be flawed (as most bills are) but I believe they will prove to be a positive move for education in Utah.

Though I support vouchers I can’t say that I support all the political maneuvering of voucher supporters (not that I favor political maneuvering of voucher opponents). I find it disturbing to hear reports of potential political retaliation (in reference to this article). Vouchers should stand or fall on their merits – there should be no stooping to coercive tactics to bolster political support.

Categories
politics State

Vouchers vs Credits For School Choice

I enjoyed reading Scott’s thoughts on Funding School Choice. (The series that lead to his post can be found at the National Review Online – parts 1, 2, 3, 4) I am wondering if we have much to gain right now by discussing a new funding option for school choice. I would like to have seen this discussed earlier, or it might be good to open discussions again after the November vote.

The idea of tax credits to fund parental choice in education seems to have some positive attributes – like not having the money go to the government and then get redistributed. On the other hand, as Scott notes, this does not help those who pay little in taxes which is where vouchers have more merit. I would love to hear some perspective from other people (especially from some voucher opponents) on the relative merits of tax credits for education.

Categories
National politics State

Near-Sighted Legislation

The senate is scheduled to vote today on whether to debate the bill to make two new seats in the House of Representatives and give them to give Utah and D.C. My opinion on this can be found in an editorial at National Review Online (no, I didn’t write it, but it expresses the same position I hold). The one new thing I learned from that article was that the bill does not specify that Utah gets the second seat, but that it would go to “the state that stands next in line to receive a seat through the normal process of apportionment.” (currently Utah) I guess I did know that, but I did not realize the wording.

When I wrote about this issue in July I made much the same argument as NRO and stated that Utah had nothing to gain by pushing for a new representative with so little time before the next census. Representative Chris Cannon (R-Ut) points out that we do have something to gain – money. Sending a new representative earlier gives earlier seniority and allows for more pork money to be sent home from Washington. Unfortunately sending pork money home is exactly the way to buy votes for re-election.

I’m sure this sounds un-American of me but if the purpose of a representative is to send more pork home then we should reduce the size of the house to 250 or less rather than increase its size by 2. What we need in this country is not more money being passed around after filtering through the capitol. This only ties us to greater dependence on the federal government and gives more power to what was supposed to be a relatively weak central governing body.

UPDATE: The bill failed. But Senator Hatch promises to keep pushing for it until we pass his flag burning amendment. If we got him a recording contract in Nashville would he retire from the Senate?

Categories
National politics State

New Attorney General

I guess this means that I should abandon that thin sliver of hope that some post-hypnotic suggestion would cause Bush to name Senator Hatch as the new Attorney General and give us an easy way to put him out to pasture.

Categories
culture life politics State

Prosecuting Religious Beliefs

On Friday I saw the news from the first day of the Warren Jeffs trial. Connected to the particular story that I read was audio of Jeffs teaching youth classes in his polygamous community. I was curious to hear the words and voice of a man as twisted as Jeffs has been portrayed in the media. I was surprised to find a man whose voice and tone were so mild an unpretentious. I had expected someone more commanding and authoritative, but I found someone who was earnest and soft-spoken. (This should not be taken as an endorsement for any of the doctrines of his church.)

As I learned more of the details of the case being prosecuted I was surprised to learn that polygamy was not even an issue in this case. The bride was 14 at the time she married her 19 year old cousin as his first wife. One of my brothers is almost that much older than his wife, so the age difference is of little concern. Nor have I seen any indications that the husband took a second wife at any point. I started to wonder if the prosecution is wasting time on a case that they expect to lose.

This realization got me thinking about the slippery slope we get on the moment that we start legislating against belief and not actions. I am convinced that Warren Jeffs honestly believes in the doctrines of his church – after all, he grew up with that belief system. I think of Alma 1: 17-18

. . . now the law could have no power on any man because of his belief. And they durst not steal for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

We can’t try to stamp out a belief in the practice of polygamy. We can enforce the laws against the practice of polygamy, but this trial is set up as an attempt to dampen the beliefs of those who engage in polygamy – that is not something that the law is equipped to do, nor is it something that the law should attempt to do.

Categories
life Local politics State

Active Citizenship

When I think of ways that people can be active citizens in their political community the easiest action to consider is running for office. I know there are other ways to participate, but that’s the most prominent that I can think of. I was pleased today to see another great example of active citizenship. Pete Ashdown posted a letter to mayoral candidates by Tony Weller. Tony expresses his concerns and asks for feedback from the candidates in order to make an informed choice when he votes for his new mayor. He even invites the candidates to explain why they disagree with him when their position differs from his. For Tony, the key issues are related to local businesses and the vitality of downtown Salt Lake. I think any reasonable person who read the letter would have to concede that it is well thought out and respectful, just like political dialog ought to be.

The results of this kind of effort can be very rewarding. I am interested in the transportation situation currently and as Lehi continues to grow. That interest caused me to contact one of our candidates for city council to ask her for her perspective on that issue. She subsequently arranged to meet with me to discuss the issue. I’ll have to wait until the meeting to know how her position compares to mine, but because I took the time to ask I will not be voting blindly on this issue. That being said, I am starting to think that I might get even more information by querying all the candidates generally, such as Tony Weller did, rather than relying on meeting as many candidates as possible.

Categories
life Local politics State

Moving Language

I attended another rally sponsored by C.O.S.T. to talk about the Mountain View Corridor (MVC). Any regular reader here will know that I am very much in favor of the positions advocated by C.O.S.T. and that I have very defined positions about the correct course of action where the MVC project is concerned.

As a known sympathizer with C.O.S.T., I am sorry to report that the rally tonight was probably not helpful to what they are trying to accomplish. The problem was that the tone and language of the rally were too negative. I could see the reactions of many of the people in attendance who went from interested to apathetic.

Interestingly, I had read earlier about how words can spin an argument one way or another. C.O.S.T. stands for Citizens Organized for Smarter Transportation. This sends a positive, issue oriented message. The rally was billed as a “protest rally” which has a negative spin. Unfortunately the rally had a negative orientation as well and the positive message about better alternatives was lost.

The positive side of their argument, which has attracted me, is that there are better alternatives to fix the traffic problem than what UDOT is proposing. These alternatives can alleviate traffic more effectively than the UDOT proposals. They are in favor of a transit system and commercial development that would reduce the need for commuting by providing good jobs closer to home.

The attitude that should be taken is, “let’s work with UDOT to help them see the error of their plans.” Unfortunately the tone of the meeting was, “fight UDOT – they’re trying to destroy our city.”

There are real problems to be addressed with the current UDOT proposals, but instead os spending time showing pictures of dead animals while talking about trash and roadkill, the meeting should have spent more time talking about more substantive concerns such as the possibility that the 2100 North freeway would further impede North/South traffic through Lehi when the city is already divided by I-15 cutting through it. Instead of talking about the height of the proposed freeway there should have been more emphasis on the traffic mess that will result where the Mountain View Corridor reconnects with I-15 just like the connection between I-215 and I-15. During the heavy traffic periods those interchanges come to a standstill – so much for the benefit of another freeway.

I want to see more talking about changing our city to reduce the need to commute. We should be talking about improving the city for the future so that we don’t have to spend our time sounding like poor, picked-on little citizens in this forgotten hamlet being ignored by the big, bad, bureaucratic government agency.

Categories
politics State

A New Senator for a New Century

I have been very interested in the senate race in Utah where Senator Hatch is running for his sixth term in the US Senate. I spent a lot of time last year hoping that some of the challengers in the Republican party would be able to unseat Senator Hatch in the Republican primary vote. Sadly, these challengers had basically fallen away before the primary even arrived and Hatch is still the Republican nominee.

I think my position with regard to Senator Hatch are fairly plain. I think I should explain why. While I agree with some of what the senator has done over his three decades in office, I do not believe that he is doing a good job of representing Utah in the last few years. His votes seem to be driven more by his party affiliation than his state affiliation. He appears to have a lack of understanding with regard to some legislation regarding intellectual property and emerging technologies. I honestly doubt that his views and votes are based on a lack of understanding as much as they are based on voting in favor of whoever has money tied up in the issue. In addition to all of that, Senator Hatch has continued to waste time and energy on a flag burning amendment that is no longer relevant. Perhaps when he began pushing this legislation, early in his 30 year tenure, it was an issue worth fighting, but the problem has proven to be a thing of the past. Even among protesters there is not enough flag burning taking place to warrant a constitutional amendment. Changing the constitution is a process which is difficult by design, but each time we make the attempt we run the risk of diminishing the original document. For that reason we should be very careful when deciding to amend our constitution.

In the other corner, the Democratic nominee for Hatch’s seat is Pete Ashdown. Pete is a political newcomer, but he has a few things in his favor. Pete understands about technology and will not be fooled by money or terminology with regard to those types of legislation. Pete understands that the old way of running politics by the money should be a thing of the past. We have the ability to increase communication, transparency, and accountability in our nation by making use of technology. Pete is doing that in his campaign. His status as a Democrat has more to do with necessity than ideology. In fact he complains about the lack of transparency among Democrats as much as he does among Republicans. I believe that Pete will strive to represent anyone who cares to communicate with him rather than representing anyone who can out-pay the competition. Whether Pete wins this race or not, I hope that his ideas will catch on throughout our political system and change how our political leaders represent, interact with, and answer to their constituents.

To learn a little more about Pete, visit his website at http://www.peteashdown.org/. You can also listen to his interview on RadioWest. I will post links to Senator Hatch’s website and interview with RadioWest after that interview takes place (not sure when that will be).