Show Me the Money!

The State of Utah has come a long ways...

I remember as a college student doing an internship that required me to tabulate and record the voting records for a series of Senate Bills. Maybe this dates me (it was just in the late '90s), but none of the data was available electronically - not on the web or even available on a disk. I had to literally go up the Capitol and ask the grumpy old Senate receptionist lady for the record book and record the votes by hand (I did have a laptop so that helped somewhat).

Now look at us today! The State Legislature has an awesome searchable and (relatively) user-friendly website. And yesterday, our new 'Acting Governor' announced this new site - Transparent Utah. It's a gold mine of searchable budget related data. Ever wonder how much goes to education? roads? or the Health Department? You can see how much the state is spending by agency and department. It's not audited and much of the data is aggregated and not broken out by line item, but still what a great resource.

I much prefer this type of site to utahwastebuster, which was/is an effort by Representative John Dougall and Senator Steve Urquhart to uncover state spending waste. While I can appreciate the concern to prevent waste I felt that site was more about promoting personal agendas rather than actually solving significant waste issues. That site has not seen much traffic since the legislative session when it was initially promoted, and it doesn't appear any significant 'waste' was reported or investigated.

I come from the school of the thought that says give people access to the information and they'll find the issues, problems, and even good things being done in our governement. The premis of a wastebuster type site assumes not just waste but almost some type of criminal misdoing on the part of government employees. And I think conservatives make this mistake too often by assuming there is something criminal happening when in more cases than not, waste is simply the by-product of an ineffecient bureaucracy. That said, I think it would be appropriate for the State to actually have a whistleblower site/system to ferret out criminal acts. (Does anyone know if they already do - I would think so)

I believe transparency is a key element of a vibrant democracy. I'm pleased to see our elected officials acknowledge our right to know and have access to this type of information. So. All you government watchdog wannabes - get on there and dig to your heart's content. It's your government - make it better!

再见! (Goodbye) Jon. Hello Gary.

So with Governor Huntsman bolting the state for the lure of the orient we now have a new, yet familiar face in the Guv's office.

I think its great that Huntsman is opting for the Chinese Ambassadorship. I believe this is what he's wanted to do for some time. Had McCain won I have no doubt Huntsman would have lobbied for the same position. Interesting political dynamics though. With Huntsman often mentioned as a potential Prez challenger I guess the Obama Administration was thinking "keep you friends close, your enemies closer."

So I wish him good luck. His diplomatic approach to problems which may have recently caused him some minor heartburn with the conservative faction of the state, will now suit him very well in the art of international negotiation.

I wasn't always a fan, but the more I studied him and learned about where he was coming from I came to really respect him. I liked his approach. He avoided the negative and divisive language that can quickly muddle up complex issues such as; immigration and liquor laws. I think he often felt uncomfortable in political speak situations so I found his style refreshing. Because he wasn't a natural politician I think he gravitated towards his own style which is more statesmanship-like. I wish more officials would try to emulate his approach to the issues. The state would be better for it. Utah's citizenry would be less put-offish when it comes to politics if our leaders would take a cue from Jon.

So now, we look to Gary Herbert. I've had a couple of chances to meet with him. He's very personable, genuine, and pragmatic. My favorite meeting with him was at the Juab County Lincoln Day Dinner. It was held at a small senior citizen center in Nephi. Not a minute before we all dug into our dinners did the power go off in the entire place - not a single window to be found either! I guess it's a sign of our times, but soon enough everyone produced their cell phones and all the elected officials spoke by cell phone light. Gary didn't miss a beat.

It's those kinds of times, when you get to see people out of their comfort zones and guards down a bit that you learn about people's true colors. Gary came across very natural and seemed as if he was among friends. I think Utah is going to like him the more they get to know him.

Truth be told I really don't how he'll interact with the Legislature. He's got to run again in November 2010, so I suspect this next session everyone will be polite with neither the Legislature or the new Governor pushing too hard until they know who's going to be in the Guv's office on a more permanent basis.

So who else is in the mix for 2010? Former Senate President and current Senator John Valentine will run, Lane Beattie, also a former Senate President, and current CEO of the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce will likely run as well. If you know of others testing the waters let me know and we'll get the word out.

So, a very big Thank You to our outgoing Governor Huntsman, and a welcome and good luck to Gary Herbert.

How Should the Supreme Court Interpret the Constitution?

With Justice David Souter recently announcing his plans to retire there has been a lot of talk about who President Obama will nominate to take his place. In this context I found it very interesting to see the results of a new Foxnews poll.

The poll was conducted with 900 registered voters over two days (May 12-13). Potential Foxnews bias aside, after digging through the data (I used to work in market research and for a polling company so I'm kind of a geek about this stuff), I stumbled across this interesting gem.

Q36. How do you think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution?

1- No matter what the outcome, the court should follow what the Framers meant when they wrote the Constitution.

2- If necessary, the court should ignore what the Framers meant to reach the outcome it feels is appropriate for today.

3-In between/Combination.

The results surprised me - at first.

Follow what Framers Meant

Republicans: 78%

Democrats: 44%

Independents: 61%

Reach Outcome Appropriate for Today

Republicans: 13%
Democrats: 37%
Independents: 27%

In between/Combination
Republicans: 5%
Democrats: 10%
Independents: 8%

(balances for totals made up of those who said "don't know" or "refused")

Really interesting insight into how conservatives and Liberals view and approach the Constitution. I guess really I shouldn't be surprised, I've just never seen it spelled out as clearly as these data suggest.

I think as conservatives this data is useful in helping us approaching the other side when it comes to the Constitution and conservative ideals. Conservatives believe the principles of the Constitution are timeless. Progressives may believe the principles are timeless but that the context in which those principles are applied is more subjective to the issues and current thinking of the day.

Let's not get into 'Constitution bashing', name calling, and questioning the other side's patriotism. Instead, I think being aware of where Progressives are coming from can help us design methods, strategies and even the language we use to help them understand why it is so important to honor the Framers original intent.

How Tweet is That?

So the media is having a lot of fun at AG Shurtleff's Senate Campaign Twitter gaffe. If you haven't heard by now (which would be impossible because the media is just enjoying this too much), our good AG mistakenly sent out a series of tweets announcing he's in the race.

Having been part of a couple of high profile races I know these things are bound to happen. In some cases it's no so much who can out manuver who in a race but who will make the fewest mistakes. So is this really a mistake worth all the attention it's getting? Probably. Will it hurt Shurtleff's campaign? Not a bit.

Here's why:

First of all Shurtleff's plans to run have been anything but secret for some time now. If anything his mistake has been that of dragging out his 'announcement' for as long as he has. Kirk Jowers said it the best in a Desnews Article:

"Shurtleff has postponed this announcement so many times, he's starting to look like Fred Thompson," said Kirk Jowers, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. The actor-turned-politician kept putting off getting into the race for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, and once Thompson did get in the race, he didn't stay long. Jowers said there's a danger of voters losing interest in Shurtleff's candidacy.

I don't see Mark as a Fred Thompson once he's actually in the race. Shurtleff will now (finally) follow-up with his formal announcement and then kick off a series of events and meetings that will start building momentum.

Besides, it's not as if the AG misspelled the word "potato" or is it "potatoe?" like former VP Dan Quayle. As long as the campaign manages to steer clear of additional mishaps the tweet mistake is early enough in the race that no one will remember it. But if the campaign stumbles again it sets a tone that Shurtleff may not be a good manager or leader.

The last reason this doesn't hurt the campaign is the fact that Tim Bridgewater announced his candidacy (intentionally) via Twitter the same day. But who is getting all the attention? SHURTLEFF! Talk about taking the wind out of a guy's sails, the Bridgewater camp was perfectly poised to lead the news and dominate it for a few days. Dropping his bid for State GOP Chair to challenge Bennett? That's a big deal. But is anyone talking about that today? Nope.

Shurtleff is obviously going to be fine. His people (and maybe more specifically Mark himself) are going to need to be more disciplined because they've already shortened their slack in what could turnout to be a very competitive race all around.

Should be a fun one to watch.

Update: Hat tip to Paul Rolly of the Trib for this link to Redline.com (an very conservative blog) regarding a post questioning Shurtleff's conservative credentials. It brings up, Mark's positions on illegal immigration, the BSC, and some questionable fundraising issues. The guy is not even formally in the race and already it's getting vicious! See the post "Is Shurtleff Ready for Prime Time?" here.

Bridgewater to Challenge Bennett

The sharks are definitely starting to circle.

Just when Bennett appeared to have muscled out a potential challenger in Mike Lee (former legal counsel to Gov. Huntsman) another upstart from the Huntsman clan emerges. In a somewhat surprsing (to me at least) move Tim Bridgewater, a former Utah County Republican Party Chair and two time Congressional Candidate in the 2nd District has decided to forgo his bid for the State GOP spot and take on Senator Bennett.

With Mark Shurtleff all but decided to run as well this will be a very interesting mix of candidates. All experienced and capable men (I'm surprised we haven't seen a strong woman step forward for a Federal office in a while - come on ladies step it up!).

I can only suspect that during Tim's travels around the state in his GOP Chair bid folks encouraged him to get into the race. Shurtleff will be a formidable challenger certainly but he's got a record and will have his own set of skeletons to deal with (immigration and polygamy issues come first to mind).

If you are interested in where Tim is on the issues I found an old article from the Deseret News questionnaire they ask all the candidates to fill out - from his Congressional race back in 2004. You can see those responses here.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black...

As a former Congressional staffer I used to hear all the time from various State Legislators how horrible unfunded mandates from the Federal Government were and that the Fed's should just butt out of the State's business. That's all fine and well and I personally couldn't agree more. However, it was with a little guilty glee I have to admit I enjoyed a recent article in the Provo Daily Herald talking about the budget process in Cedar Hills.

You can read the full article "Cedar Hills mocks, challenges Legislature over Red Tape" here. Here are some highlights:

"City councils are burdened by two kinds of legislative nonsense, (Councilman) Perry said -- unfunded mandates, meaning the city is ordered to begin a program but not given money to pay for it; and red-tape in the form of bills that are "just meaningless, silly, or even condescending," Perry said.

"The requirement to adopt a 'preliminary budget' by a specific date is both meaningless and condescending," he said. "It is meaningless because we work on our annual budget over a period of months, usually starting in April."

Adopting the preliminary budget means nothing more than adopting the working draft by motion, "so it accomplishes nothing other than using time from city staff and adding an agenda item, thus taking time from our meeting," Perry said. "This requirement is condescending because it seems state legislators think they need to baby-sit municipal officials and set artificial and meaningless deadlines as if we otherwise wouldn't be working on our budget process."

While there are good state laws, "I would obviously prefer the state Legislature reduce their interference with municipal government, and especially eliminate micromanagement efforts, which offer absolutely no benefit."

Municipal elected officials and city staff "are infinitely more knowledgeable on the issues and workings of the city compared to state legislators, and thus are in a better position to decide how to manage the budget process, and most everything else regarding their city," Perry said. "Eric's motion was putting voice to the frustration we feel when faced with meaningless or counter-productive restrictions from the state."

Yes, even our own Legislature can put folks under its thumb sometimes - because it can.

S(h)ave that Mustache Mayor!

Update: the mustache loses by a hair (1254 shave to 966 save)

If you ever meet Murray Mayor Dan Snarr you won't won't forget him. Well his face at least - uh to be more specific - his mustache. It's a classic waxed at the ends circa 1890's beauty. In a charitable effort to support the Children's Miracle Network the mayor is putting the fate of his famous mustache on the (hair) cutting block. Folks can cast their jelly bean ballots in either 'Shave' or 'Save' jars at the local Costco.

Apparently people aren't big fans of the Mayor's facial hair as the 'shaves' have an early lead (but then I've always been cautious of early exit polls).
After sporting the 'stache for three years he says his wife is sick of "puckering up for a kiss and getting poked in the eye." Can you blame her really?

And, just to prove that there is literally a lobby group for anything and everything in America Snarr is getting pressure to save the pointy facial hair from the St. Louis-based American Mustache Institute who's purpose is to defend a man's right to sport a mustache. Remind me never to eat anything 'crumbly' with these guys.

With sympathies to the Mayor's wife I'm dropping my jelly bean in the SAVE! jar.

You can read the full AP article here.

They're Own Worst Enemy

Despite the media's feigned concern regarding the future of the Republican Party I'm not so sure it's the Republican's who will be in trouble in 2010. I think the opportunity for the GOP will be derived from one thing - Hubris. No no, not on the part of our beloved Grand Old Party but hubris on the side of the Democrats.

Consider the latest YouTube attack video put out by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It's for lack of a better word - lame (pathetic maybe?). It's a play on the Survivor reality show and ticks off about a dozen high profile Republicans under the guise of "who will survive to be the voice of the GOP"? Not only is the look low budget and shotty but the premise is just petty.

Is this really the best the DNC's got? I mean much past Obama and really what does the Democratic party have to stand on? The D's did not win in 2008 because of their 'principles' or 'ideals.' If the DNC strategists are really honest with themselves they'd come to the conclusion that they won primarily because of George Bush, and a young, talented, charismatic, rockstar of a guy at the head of the ticket - not on the issues.

Consider the following (Stats from CNN)

Obama wins the Electoral College in a landside: 365 to 173

...but the popular vote isn't as convincing:

Obama: 69,492,376 (53%)

McCain: 59,946,378 (46%)

Electoral College math aside, a swing of less than 5 million votes and the GOP has the hearts and mind of the people. That's not an insurmountable gap by any means.

My Takeaway:

In 2010 Bush will no longer be a factor and Obama will not be on the ticket. The Republican's will find a voice. It could be any one of those featured in the video, or a combination, or someone yet to emerge. The DNC is currently acting glib, cocky, and arrogant. Firing negative and petty shots at the GOP will get old in a hurry. Just like the hubris that was the thinking behind the Titanic, left unchecked this sort of attitude is going to catch up with the Left sooner rather than later...If the Democrats don't focus on their own message the Republicans will make significant mid-term gains.

Keynesian Theory Explained

This post is a bit 'wonkish' so proceed at your own risk.
Recently, at this year's Utah County convention Senator Bob Bennet made the observation that President Ronald Reagan was so bold and innovative in his approach to economics (Reagan had a degree in Econ) because he had studied pre-Keynes. Keynesian theory of spend your way out of recessions had not yet flooded American campuses during Reagan's college years. Keynes book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was first published in 1936.

It was an interesting observation.

The Utah Foundation recently published a policy brief on Keynesian theory in regards to the Keynesian response or explanation to what caused the current crisis and how Keynesian's suggest we get ourselves out of this mess. I like the Foundation's material and apparently they plan a series of similar briefs each focusing on a different economic theory to explain the current situation and how each theory would solve the crisis.

Here are the highlights on Keynes:

Causes of Current Recession

Paul Krugman, an advocate of Keynesian policy, indentifies the 2007 fall in China’s stock market, and the subsequent 416-point slide in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as the events which started the decline in investment ultimately leading to the current recession. Investors were shaken by the 2007 drop and began to panic over the number of risky mortgage-loan defaults that emerged with the collapse of the housing boom.


Keynesian solutions to current recession

As the recession continues to worsen, Krugman believes government spending is the only tool left available to stimulate the economy. Both consumer and investment confidence are down, the global effects of the economic downturn have lowered net exports, and monetary policy is not an option because interest rates are essentially already at 0%. This leaves government spending, which largely came in the form of the 2009 stimulus package.


I think its clear where President Obama's thinking comes from. It's early in the recovery(?) but it does appear things are improving. I think the jury is definitely still out as to whether this approach will work or not. But one thing is for sure - the price tag is beyond enormous. This is unchartered territory folks...

They don't call it 'World' Cup for nuth'n...

Soccer moms - don't let your babies grow up to be...soccer players.

Former GOP Congressman, Quarterback, and Presidential Candidate Jack Kemp died over the weekend after a months long battle with cancer.

The former football star was once quoted on the House Floor as saying:

"I think it is important for all those young out there — who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands — [that] a distinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport."

Thank you for your hard work and service Jack. Godspeed.