May 21, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics

Report on Speaker Lockhart’s Comments at Utah State University [Contributor]

May 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

BluePrint_RhettWilkinson_ustRhett Wilkinson is a lead project manager for The Exoro Group, a public affairs firm in Salt Lake City. A senior in journalism and political science at Utah State University, he has previously interned in Utah Congressional and Gubernatorial offices and for the Deseret News. Opinions are his own.

 

Utah Speaker of the House Becky Lockhart, the first woman in the position in the state’s history, visited Utah State University in late April. She was hosted by the USU Institute of Government and Politics.  Here is a brief summary overview of the topics she discussed at my alma mater.

Using an example of how “cool” her mother thought she was for owning a VCR, Lockhart outlined the meticulous nature of policy-making in spite of rapid communication as a result of the growth of technology.  Lockhart suggested that political opinions of the Utah Republican Party’s leading policy experts and lawmakers are not as homogeneous as some may think—leading USU’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences dean to wonder if the structure of the state’s government should be fundamentally reformed.

Renegade Republicans?

Lockhart commented on the political diversity of the Utah GOP when asked about the challenges of working with a heavily Republican state legislature (61 Republicans and 14 Democrats in the State House, and 24 Republicans and 5 Democrats in the State Senate). It consists of “classic Republicans” (“which in Utah is pretty conservative,” she said), the “libertarian wing,” the “right-wing type,” and then “people who run as Republicans, because Republicans get elected here who are probably Democrats philosophically,” Lockhart said.

That diversity is positive, she said.

“If they are the same, that’s more of a challenge,” Lockhart said, adding that Utah is a “melting pot” for business, education and other enterprises. “Knowing the challenges we deal with is more healthy than thinking otherwise.”

Lockhart was introduced by USU Dean John Allen. In comments after Lockhart spoke, Allen said that as during his time as a University of Nebraska administrator he collaborated with members of the non-bicameral Nebraska state legislature, the only such kind in the nation. The political makeup of Utah that fosters false assumptions about its homogeneity encourages an intriguing question of looking at Nebraska’s model, he said.

Classroom clarification

Former Associated Students of Utah State University President Erik Mikkelsen started the question-and-answer period by remarking that while the state’s strong economy resulted from a strong educational system, that same body is now one of the worst in the nation. Prefacing his question that the issue must be addressed through funding and innovation, he asked Lockhart how the state plans to continue to help. He suggested Prosperity 2020.

“It’s a big, audacious goal,” Lockhart replied. “To be honest, I don’t think we can make it. Maybe by 2028.”

She also expressed displeasure with constituents who ask her what she will do about Common Core.

“We have an independently elected school board and locally elected school boards,” she said. “I say, if you don’t like the decisions they are making, don’t come in and ask me to override it. Change the body—take responsibility.”

Immigration ills

Another question was about how elements of party politicking affects immigration policy. A bipartisan group of senators recently proposed federal immigration legislation.

Lockhart said that following years of debate, she is now leaning just to see a resolution happen—especially after the Supreme Court has stated in recent years that it is a job for the federal government. Her own daughter has a friend who learned she was in the U.S. illegally after applying for college.

“She thinks she’s American, but she’s not—at least not officially,” she said. “So until we have enough people in policy power and formulate solutions, this will be a continual problem.

“We might be getting there.”

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , ,

Poll Results from “Insiders” on the Utah Nomination System

May 10, 2013 by 1 Comment

A couple of days back, I presented a very brief summary of the debate occurring in the Utah Republican and Democratic Parties about the efforts of an outside group, the County My Vote committee, to influence how Utah’s parties conduct their nomination system. You can read it here.

I posted a poll of my readers asking what they thought should happen. Should the system change? Should the parties give up control of the process? Etc.

You might call these people the “Publius Online insiders.”

Not surprisingly, most of them were Republicans. I can’t help it if Democrats opted not to vote.  ;-)

Here are the results of the completely non-scientific poll:

Should the parties control their nominations

What changes would you support

Party affiliation

Are you feeling left out?

You can still vote in my completely unscientific poll below:

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

LaVarr Webb’s insiders weigh in on Utah’s nomination system [POLL]

May 8, 2013 by 5 Comments
Crowds of people fill out precinct forms, paw over piles of political pamphlets and get informed at a Republican caucus meeting at the North Davis Preparatory Academy in Layton Tuesday, March 23, 2010. Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

Crowds of people fill out precinct forms, paw over piles of political pamphlets and get informed at a Republican caucus meeting at the North Davis Preparatory Academy in Layton Tuesday, March 23, 2010.
Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

Don’t forget to vote in the poll at the bottom of this post!

If you’ve been following inside politics around Utah of late, then you know that the talk among the party insiders–in both the Republican and Democratic Parties–has largely centered around whether Utah’s caucus system needs an update, should be jettisoned to make way for an open primary, or otherwise modified. (If you’re interested in how the Utah caucus system works, check out this interesting document by Dana Dickson that spells out the details. It can also be found embedded at the bottom of this post).

Yes, I know, this has not been the sole issue of discussion.  Party leadership elections are fast approaching , as well. The caucus is near and dear to many Utah politos’ hearts, though, and it has been the route many of them took to get elected. Further, many feel like the caucus allows and encourages unparalleled access to the political process and to elected officials, to say nothing of allowing candidates with little financial backing an opportunity for public office on a level with better funded candidates.

For examples, look no further than Senator Mike Lee. In 2010, then-candidate Mike Lee saw then-Senator Bob Bennett knocked out at the Republican State Convention by delegates who tied Bennett to the government’s massive Wall Street bailout (remember TARP?).  Lee then faced off against Tim Bridgewater in the Republican Primary, securing the nomination. He easily won election in November.

In fact, many of those discontent with the current system look to the 2010 convention as a reason for opening up the Republican Primary and/or ending the caucus system. Proponents of change argue that then-Senator Bob Bennett would easily have won an open primary in Utah, but extremist Republicans, in control of the convention, denied him the right to be on the ballot.

LaVarr Webb, publisher of Utah Policy and leading member of the group seeking to change the Utah caucus system

LaVarr Webb, publisher of Utah Policy and leading member of the group seeking to change the Utah caucus system

One of those behind the effort to change the Republican (and maybe the Democratic) caucus system is LaVarr Webb, publisher of the Utah Policy, (tagline: “Where political junkies get their daily fix”). He sent a letter on April 12, 2013 from his group, the “Count My Vote” executive committee,  and addressed to Republican and Democratic Party leaders.  The letter ostensibly seeks to help more people get involved, but alarmingly appears to all but threaten if party leaders don’t bring about changes to the nomination system.

After acknowledging some of the qualities in the nomination system that I noted above, the letter goes on to threaten a statewide referendum by  ”Count My Vote”  if the system is not changed by the political parties.  I quote in part:

We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large, statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination process

To avoid the state referendum, Webb says that the parties must

  1. Allow more people to participate in caucus meetings than just those who are available at a specified time. Just because you are sick or have children is no reason to be denied a vote in delegate and party leadership selection.
  2. Raise the threshold necessary to avoid a primary and eliminate multiple rounds of voting. In other words, any candidate who receives a marginal level of support (Webb suggest 20 or 25% of delegate vote) has the opportunity to face a primary election.
  3. Make the changes statutory. In other words, once the parties have made the changes, hand them over to the state legislature so that the nomination process is out of the hands of the political parties.   This last one makes about as much sense as asking your parents to pick out your spouse for you.

Read the full letter here or scroll down to see it embedded.

Ironically, it may be that those who consume Webb’s political content–his Utah Policy Daily–don’t necessarily agree with him.  A recent poll on his site on whether Utah’s Democratic Party will change its nominating system came out looking less than shiny for a direct primary.

UPD Caucus Poll 5-6-13

What do you think? Should Utah’s parties change their nomination process?

 

LaVarr Webb’s letter to the Utah Republican and Democratic Parties

Webb m e m o r a n d u m 4-12-13

ABCs of the Utah Caucus System

 

Utah Caucus ABC s

Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Politics, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Time for more government oversight of abortion practices

May 6, 2013 by 3 Comments

Because I believe that the scope of government should be limited, I believe that less governmental regulation is, generally better. It raises the cost of doing business and–when it isn’t saving lives–it just sucks money out of the economy.

Congress–and the Utah Legislature–should have a very good reason before creating a new regulations that will require government employees to regulate and inspect some private sector activity.  Sufficient numbers of, and adequately trained, police, educators, and food quality inspectors are one thing; the proliferation of the nanny state is quite another.

But what is one  government regulation I would quite gladly support? The regulation of abortion, especially those such as the abortions allegedly carried out by Kermit Gosnell over his thirty year practice as a “doctor.”

As was described in an op-ed for the Washington Post:

In what can only be described as a “house of horrors,” abortion provider Kermit Gosnell stands trial in Philadelphia, charged with the grotesque murder of at least seven infants, allegedly born alive after botched abortions only to be brutally killed moments later.

ap_abortion_clinic_investigation_39870873-4_3_r536_c534That’s right. I’m not just railing against abortion–which I wholeheartedly oppose on the grounds that a woman’s right to choose begins and ends with the choice to engage in consensual sexual relations (which does not include rape and incest)–but against the murder of babies born alive and killed just moments later, often in the most calloused of ways.

It’s not like Gosnell is recent news, either. Gosnell has been hurting women, and killing babies, since the early 1970s when he was involved in the “Mother’s Day Massacre.”

It was called the Mother’s Day Massacre—the brainchild of Harvey Karman, an eccentric California man without medical training who had served 2½ years in prison for performing illegal abortions in the 1950s. Karman teamed with a young Philadelphia doctor who offered to perform abortions on 15 impoverished women, each between four and six months pregnant, who were bused to the Philadelphia clinic from Chicago on Mother’s Day 1972.

What the women didn’t know was that they were guinea pigs for a device Karman had invented, which he called the “super coil.” He had tested it only on wartime rape victims in Bangladesh, where he had traveled under the sponsorship of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Complication rates were high, and little wonder. A colleague of Karman’s Philadelphia collaborator described the contraption as “basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball. . . . They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman’s uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, . . . the gel would melt and these . . . things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus.”

As in Bangladesh, the Philadelphia experiment was a failure. Nine of the 15 women suffered serious complications. One needed a hysterectomy.

It was this kind of back-alley danger that was supposed to be ended by Roe v. Wade, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.  And yet, here we are, thirty years later, and Gosnell is still killing babies and their mothers with his barbaric methods.

Which is why I support more regulation of abortions, including Senator Mike Lee‘s efforts today to move the Senate into action against the kind of horrific clinics Gosnell has run for almost three decades.

Official portrait of United States Senator Mik...

Official portrait of United States Senator Mike Lee. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a resolution supported by Senators. Toomey (PA), Rubio (FL), Cruz (TX), Inhofe (OK), Scott (SC), Blunt (MO), Burr (NC), Vitter (LA), Johanns (NE), and Boozman (AR) Senator Mike Lee is calling for the Senate to take the moral high ground. Said Senator Lee:

The Senate should formally recognize that this is a problem in our country and we have a responsibility to investigate the causes, review the effects of certain public policies, and determine what we can do to prevent any woman from being subjected to these reprehensible practices again.

Further, Lee’s press release says that

[t]he resolution also recognizes that “there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at 20 weeks after fertilization, or earlier,” and resolves that “there is a compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children beginning at least from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.”

Occasionally, or maybe more than occasionally, I see politicians that take on causes that are either pandering to their political base or that have no more chance of success than Don Quixote tilting at windmills.  I know that there are those who will see Lee’s actions as just that.

In Gosnell, though, we face a very real monster, not a mere facade for fodder to the base. We see horrors that should disturb all Americans, whether they oppose or support abortion. Killing babies, not to mention hurting women and girls in clinics that are unsanitary and staffed by untrained employees, is both disgusting and disturbing. It should give all Americans pause, to say the least. More, though, it should make them angry: angry that a calloused and unfeeling creature like Gosnell has been hurting women for nearly thirty years, angry that our government has done so little to prevent it.

It’s taken too long, and too many have been hurt. It’s time for the United States Senate to take up the issue. One of the major justifications for Roe v. Wade was that it would bring abortions out of the back-alleys and make it safe. In Kermit Gosnell, though, we see that a generation has passed and, though sanctioned by the law, the practice is no more safe, moral, or justified.

It’s time for greater government oversight of abortion. It’s time for the US Senate to look into how abortion is conducted in this country.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Abortion Tagged With: , , , ,

The Center for Reproductive Rights makes Obama look conservative

May 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Irony.

One minute a federal judge is telling the Food and Drug Administration that it has to allow Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, to be sold over-the-counter to women as young as 15, and in the next, the Obama Administration is appealing the ruling, arguing the contraceptive is too untested to be allowed to teens without a prescription.

Again, this is Obama’s Justice Department were talking about here, not George W. Bush’s. It almost makes my head spin.

Predictably, it doesn’t score points with the far left. Quoting from the Washington Post:

“We are deeply disappointed that just days after President Obama proclaimed his commitment to women’s reproductive rights, his administration has decided once again to deprive women of their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions,” Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup, [...], said in a statement.

Odd name, that: Center for Reproductive Rights. There’s not a lot on their site about the promotion of “reproductive” rights, actually. Most of it’s all about the “termination” of any kind of reproduction. In fact, in their list of issues, “Safe & Healthy Pregnancy” is the fifty of seven issues, and the only one that actually leads to anything “reproductive.” Even there, though, they argue that life begins at birth, spinning the abortion debate by claiming that there is a “emerging trend to extend a right to life before birth, and in particular from conception.” Never mind that science shows that babies in utero experience the whole range of emotions that while still in the womb…heck, I got that from Wikipedia. I don’t need “international human rights consensus” to define life for me.

These people should call themselves the Center for Abortion Rights. At least it would be accurate, even if no less malicious.

But I digress. The point is, these people and I disagree on the point when a woman’s right to choose to give birth begins and ends–and that point is when she chooses to engage in consensual sexual relations (as I have argued before). These people–cut from the same selfish cloth as the abortionists at Planned Parenthood who would be glad to allow the “termination” of the lives of babies that survive an abortion (and that’s on the record, folks. You can watch the video below)–want an unrestricted right to end any kind of “reproduction.”

And that includes allowing teens to get hands on insufficiently tested drugs without consulting a physician. You know it’s worth taking a look at when the most liberal administration in two decades is concerned about the potential effect the drug will have on teens.

Planned Parenthood on what should happen when a baby is born alive after a botched abortion.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Abortion, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , ,

Vaniloquence…?

April 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment

AMP_4201I’ll get right to the point: there’s a new blog in town, and I recommend you check it out:

VANILOQUENCE

It’s the newly inaugurated site of local (to Salt Lake City) journalist Chris Vanocur. He defines “Vaniloquence” as a  ”Vain or foolish talk,” but the blog is anything but. It may show a lighter side the news man, but it’s still interesting and might be  worth the read.

Check it out.

So far (Vanocur unveiled it just a few days ago), the posts range from the meanderings of someone exploring their site analytics for the first time to the more serious with a look at the Holocaust. I’m already curious what we might find on there tomorrow.

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day (I know…I’ve missed a few days). Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter V, as in Vaniloquence or Vanocur.

Filed Under: Media Bias Tagged With: , , ,

Spending, not guns, on our minds

April 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

barack_obama_gun_control_ap_328A funny thing happened to President Obama on his way to increasing federal regulation of firearms. Members of Congress noticed that gun control wasn’t a top priority for their constituents and handed the President his first major legislative loss.

Instead, Americans are still more concerned about the economy and the state of our fiscal house. From the “Editor-in-chief” over at Gallup:

Only 4% of Americans say that gun violence or gun issues constitute the most important problem facing the country today, based on our April 4-7 monthly update of the “most important problem” measure. This puts guns in the same 4% category as immigration issues, education, and the situation with North Korea.

To be clear, the 4% of Americans for whom gun violence is a top issue were no where to be found before Newport, Connecticut happened. Prior to the Sandy Hook massacre, gun violence didn’t register on the scale.

At all.

Instead, Americans’ top five issues are, in order:

  1. The economy (in general)
  2. Unemployment/jobs
  3. Dissatisfaction with government  (whatever this means)
  4. Federal budget deficit/federal debt, and
  5. Healthcare (which is declining in importance over the last three months)

You can’t see gun violence appear in the list for another four rows, and then it’s tied with worry about threats from North Korea, a country that is begging Mongolia to provide food aid for its starving people. The drug lords of Juarez, Mexico pose a greater threat to the United States.  (See the full chart below.)Gallup Issues

With worries about the economy, our ability to maintain a standard of living, provide for ourselves, and so on, weighing on us, why should anyone, let alone Obama who also has these polling numbers, be surprised that Congress, with lower approval ratings than the President, has no fear about thumbing their collective noses at his push to require universal background checks?

It’s still the economy, stupid. And it will be until we change how we’ve been doing things.

Not that I want to rely upon Hollywood for an example, or anything, but I’m going to do just that. I’ve been watching Andrew Sorkin’s West Wing lately, set in the bright years of the 1990s (or so). Repeatedly I hear the same talking points and arguments that are being made–today–by liberals and Democrats in favor of their pet programs and policies.  Whether it’s for gun control, expansion of governments role in healthcare, fiscal and tax policy, or the first amendment, the arguments have not changed.

The difference is that elected officials, all too often, act like our collective memory is too short to remember what they are doing now has been done before, has been said before, and, well, got us into the mess we’re in now. But does anyone remember? Are we going to keep doing the same thing and expect different results?

I can’t claim to understand the arcane workings of federal programs, but I do know the pinch on my pocketbook, on my family, when I look at my pay stub and the withholdings there. I do see the taxes I pay at the fuel pump when I look at my receipt. I do recognize how much cheaper and easier it is to buy a book online from Amazon compared to Barnes and Nobles’ brick and mortar and what will happen if the government starts taxing that purchase. I do see how difficult it is to buy a home, still, five years after the housing market collapsed, largely because of governmental meddling in the housing market. And I know that I am not in the minority–Americans think about the price of a home, of a car (remember what “cash for clunkers” did to all those perfectly fine used cars that we could still be driving?), of a meal, of a vacation…or the lack thereof.

And that’s on my mind more than is gun violence. Stop being so surprised and peeved that you didn’t get your way, Mr. President. It’s government for, by and of the people–and the people are concerned about the economy.

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day (I know…I’ve missed a few days). Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter S, as in Spending.

 Related articles

Filed Under: Second Amendment, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts