A Short-Term Vision of “Purity”

Posted on 2009-11-24 by David

photo credit: David Reeves

It’s never safe to focus so much on the present that we lose sight of the future. This seems to be what is happening with the push by some to codify a purity test within the GOP. If you have not heard about this I would sum it up like so – there is a resolution before the Republican National Committee which would prevent them from giving financial backing to a candidate that did not support at least 7 of the following ten principles:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I am amazed that the people backing this proposal do not see how short-sighted this effort is. I believe that their efforts are sincere, but sorely misguided, as they seek to define the GOP in a way that is more concrete than “not the democrats.”

Without going into specifics I am basically in favor of principles such as those outlined above, and the fact that the resolution only requires 70% support for those principles to receive party support is proof that they are not trying to weed all but the staunchest conservatives from the party (especially since they do not specify any subset of the principles which demands 100% conformity).

The shortsightedness is evident in the specific references such as “Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill,”, “Obama-style government run health care, ” and “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan” (or maybe they are just admitting that this is a perpetual project).

I believe that there is value in talking about what defined ideological purity within the party – we certainly need to have some idea about who we are in order to be able to identify what the party has to offer voters but this particular proposal is significantly too blunt an instrument to benefit the party. Without any extended study of exactly the best way forward for the party I have a few suggestions, based on the existing proposal, for an approach that would be more likely to make things better rather than worse.

Continue reading →

Posted in National | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Stretching Our TARP

Posted on 2009-11-20 by David

photo credit: wolfheadfilms

When the TARP bill was first being discussed I made a statement that I would like to repeat about the TARP money:

[T]his should not be used as a windfall by Congress to fund some pet projects.

We have come to the point now where Congress is faced with the question of whether to extend the program past the initial time of authorization. From the earliest versions of the bill (not including the 3 page version written by Sec. Paulson) to the final version the program was authorized only until 2009 with the option for Congress to extend it as far as two years from the day it was enacted (October 10, 2010 being that two year mark). Faced with the reality of this first deadline there are people who are absolutely opposed to those members of Congress who have indicated a desire to not extend the program.

I stand by my response to what I called “my favorite section” of that first version of the bill:

Of course I won’t hold my breath that it will die in two years or less.

Indeed, Sec. Geithner testified before Congress yesterday that:

he would not support a permanent extension of the program, but . . .

(emphasis added)

Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

Posted on 2009-11-19 by David

I agree with the sentiment in this Deseret News article that the environmental impacts of proposed Utah Lake bridge should be discussed.

{Sam} Rushforth has been studying at {Utah Lake} for 35 years and said there needs to be an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conducted while the bridge over the lake is being considered.

Those who have read here long enough know that I am in favor of building a bridge over the lake and even if I weren’t I think it is inevitable in the long run. The argument that a bridge over the lake will bring more growth to Utah county is laughable – the growth is coming either way. One comment on the article says that a bridge is not necessary with the arrival of the new roads under construction through Lehi on the north end of the lake. Having lived in Lehi and worked on Main Street there I am absolutely convinced that no matter how much road they build there it will be congested very quickly with the ever increasing demand of the growing populations in the area – a bridge will make a significant impact on commute time.

Having said all of that, my support of building a bridge does not interfere with my belief that doing an EIS is absolutely imperative in order to do it right. I would consider such a study to be the very least in the way of due diligence on the part of those who want to build a bridge.

Since I no longer live in Utah County, I no longer have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate like I once did. I consider myself to be a relatively informed and now more objective observer and long term I am certain that the bridge, if it is done right, will be a benefit to Utah County residents and possibly to the lake itself. I urge all those who are actively discussing this issue to not rush their decisions – simply throwing up some steel girders and a wide slab of concrete would be a travesty but doing nothing or putting off bridge planning until it becomes truly critical would be foolhardy.

Start now.Take your time. Do it right.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Phony Federalism

Posted on 2009-11-18 by David

photo credit: estherase

Gene Healy wrote about what he called Obama’s phony federalism but what he was really talking about was a relatively universal perspective on federalism:

Not yet a year into his administration, Obama’s record on 10th Amendment issues is already clear: He’ll let the states have their way when their policies please blue team sensibilities and he’ll call in the feds when they don’t. Thus, he’ll grant California a waiver to allow it to raise auto emissions standards, but he’ll bring the hammer down when the state tries to cut payments to unionized health care workers.

. . .

Just a few years back, the Republicans — nominally the party of federalism — were busily wielding federal power to enforce red state values . . . In that odd political climate, you often heard liberals lamenting the decline of states’ rights.

That strange new respect for the 10th Amendment lasted roughly as long as the blue team’s exile from power.

Federalism then, as understood by both major political parties is simply a tool to bash your opponents into conformity and then deflect their power from affecting you when you are on the defensive.

Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Legislator as Advocate

Posted on 2009-11-18 by David

Many times during campaigns for legislative offices voters and candidates alike portray officeholders as leaders. I think this is a mistake. A more accurate portrayal would be of officeholders as advocates. Their job is one where they speak out for positions and principles, but it is not possible for a legislature to be made up entirely of leaders. Obviously some legislators will be leaders, those who are able to rally other legislators to support the ideas and positions they are advocating but all legislators should be advocates while only some of them will be leaders – that is one of the primary differences between the legislative and the executive branch.

Voters may prefer that their legislator be a leader, but they must insist that their legislator be an advocate. If they choose a leader who cannot be an advocate they will be frustrated and disappointed. If they choose someone who is an effective advocate for them and their positions they will be satisfied. If they are able to have a legislator who is effective both as an advocate and as a leader then they should feel very fortunate.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 10 Comments

Legislator as Negotiator

Posted on 2009-11-17 by David

Politics is the art of the possible.

So said Otto Von Bismarck in 1867 and he was surely right. One of the challenges for an idealist is that compromise is a necessary and appropriate component of the political process. It happens within parties and it happens within legislative bodies. In both cases compromise is necessary because all decisions in those settings affect a number of people who are in a variety of life situations and hold varying goals for themselves and their communities and good decisions cannot be made without addressing the concerns and perspectives of those various parties. Some dislike this reality – and certainly some use it as an excuse to abandon all principle, but the ability to recognize when and how compromise is appropriate is an important skill for any good legislator.

Obviously the ability to analyze and communicate with colleagues and constituents is a critical prerequisite for a legislator to be an effective negotiator. The real challenge once the analysis and communication abilities are in place is knowing how to balance the ability to negotiate with the understanding of what values or positions are non-negotiable. A legislator should be a good negotiator, but they should not be a chameleon or even a contortionist.

Part of their negotiation must be that there is a core which is immutable – one that they have communicated to constituents. The constituents should be able to depend upon this core of principle to predict how their legislator will represent them and the legislator should be able to articulate how their actions during negotiations conform to those core principles. Once the core of principles has evaporated in the face of their legislative record constituents should be quick to replace their legislator – and a legislator should expect no less from their constituents.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Frying a Red Herring

Posted on 2009-11-16 by David

I wonder if our country would be in better shape if we spent more energy in a war on bad arguments rather than a war on terror  (or poverty, or drugs, . . . or prosperity). Just a thought.

As an example, we see the often repeated argument by abortion advocates that it is hypocritical to claim to be pro-life and simultaneously support capital punishment. This is a very nice red herring for them because there is a lot of overlap between those who oppose abortion and those who support capital punishment. The problem is that holding those positions simultaneously does not amount to hypocrisy. For those who care, here is a long, well-written explanation of how the two are perfectly compatible. For those who are in a hurry or in the middle of a debate where this argument is trotted out, here’s my short proof.

The founders recognized life, liberty, and (private) property, as human rights to be protected. It’s not really necessary, but for the sake of clarity let’s view these as a hierarchy of primary individual rights – life being the most important of the three and property as the least important of these inalienable rights. “Inalienable” means that they are “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred .”

Now, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to property I would ask if property can ever be legitimately taken from our control? The answer is clearly “yes.” Taxes, fines, and restitution for wrongs committed by a person are all examples. If we cannot surrender or transfer our right to liberty, can liberty ever be legitimately taken from us? Once again, the answer is “yes.” Saunter on down to the nearest jail or prison and see that it has been taken from some. Note also that even in cases where a person is later proven innocent the state at times has a legitimate right to suspend liberty while determining the question of guilt. Finally, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to life, can life ever be legitimately forfeit based on our actions (according to the best evidence available at the time)? I will stop short of answering in the affirmative because I recognize a lack of complete consensus on the question but I submit that the affirmative answers on both preceding questions is ample evidence of what I set out to prove – that simultaneously being pro-life and supporting capital punishment is insufficient evidence to convict someone of the sin of hypocrisy.

Case closed – pass the fish.

//

//
Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Political Cultures

Posted on 2009-11-13 by David

photo credit: www.charlietphoto.com

There are two political cultures that we need to change in order to have a healthy “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” in this country. The first is the culture among the voters as defined by how thy perceive those who hold political office. The second is the culture among lawmakers as defined by how they perceive the purpose and role of government.

Our Pit of Dysfunction

I got thinking about these culture issues during a brief discussion with my brother in which he mentioned an ex-politician that now works for the same company as he does whom he described like so:

He’s the kind of guy who leaves you with a sense that not all politicians are scum sucking bottom dwellers.  He’s a really great guy.

That is a great example of the voter culture that leaves voters not wanting to participate in politics because the whole process feels dirty. That perception makes you feel that anything more than voting might contaminate you by association and has the added effect of making your vote feel useless anyway.

Among politicians the dysfunctional culture is one that views government as a powerful multi-tool which is adaptable to help deal with whatever problem the nation is facing at the time. The perception that government can be so adaptable is dangerous because it causes an excessive reliance on government (a hammer) so that we use it for tasks it was not meant to address (like cutting aboard and wondering why the edge is all jagged) while overlooking other available tools (any number of saws) that are better suited to many of the challenges we face.

The reality is that neither of those cultural perceptions is correct. Many politicians (possibly even the vast majority although my own experience is too limited to prove that conclusively) on both sides of basically every issue are good people who really do want what they think is best for their constituents and the nation as a whole. That fact may explain why, when confronted with their individual elected leader at whatever level, voters find it easy to send the incumbent back even while holding a very low opinion of the elected body they are sending them to participate in. Because government is not a multi-purpose tool to address a wide variety of problems, even well-meaning people (politicians, lobbyists, voters) trying to use it as such will create at least as many problems as they solve and they will be dissatisfied with the results of all their hard work.

Continue reading →

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eight Ideas for Reform

Posted on 2009-11-12 by David

Kyle Mathews shares eight steps he believes would produce a more functional congress at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen. It is an interesting list including ideas I’ve heard before and a few new ideas. There is also some good discussion in the comments. I thought it would be worth sharing here in the order that he presented the ideas.

Resolve the electoral status of D.C.

I’ve made my position on this issue clear in the past. Kyle agrees with me that it is important and that the current legislation is the wrong route.

Limit campaign contributions to those who will be represented in the election.

Again, I’ve already shared my thoughts on that (multiple times) and I agree with this idea. I like the term Kyle uses – electoral carpetbaggery.

Water down the filibuster.

This is one I don’t think I have written about. I agree that the filibuster is overused but I also agree with one of the comments which said that placing a time-limit on filibusters would effectively remove them completely. As one who believes that the filibuster mechanism provides an important check on the system I think I would rather put up with its overuse, than do away with it entirely.

Eliminate anonymous holds.

I had not considered this before either, but as a believer in transparency and accountability I agree that holds should not be anonymous. If I put a hold on a bill I should be willing to admit it and explain my reasons.

Increase the size of both houses.

Once again, I have made my position on this quite clear, and once again I agree. I had never considered increasing the size of the Senate, but the way that he presents it – three senators per state – would be workable and would still allow the Senate to function in the same capacity that it was originally designed to function. I especially like the way the three senators per state idea would give each state a chance to bring a fresh face to the Senate in each cycle.

Increase the capacity and role of the Congressional Research Service.

This was another idea that was new to me, but it sounds like a good one. One comment argues that members of congress only use the CBO information if it benefits them. That argument is fairly weak because whatever hurts one side of the debate will benefit the other so the information will almost always be used. More information is almost never a bad thing for the governing process.

Restructure the committee system.

This is another idea I have never addressed, but I agree that the committee system is broken. Committees tend to turn committee members into industry insiders (if they weren’t already) and thus minimize any objectivity that should exist between government and industry. One other idea I once heard related to this was random committee assignments and regular rotation. I think there are lots of ways the committee system could be altered and most of them would be improvements over the current system.

Make all elections non-partisan.

Once upon a time I might have agreed with this, but I now believe that this would actually make it more difficult for voters to get truly informed about candidates and would further discourage voter participation in the political system. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I would expect to happen.

Out of the eight ideas I had addressed three directly in the past and I agree with six of the ideas in principle – some details would still need to be worked out on some of those. If I had to choose all or nothing I think that making all eight reforms would be a positive change overall in our system despite the drawbacks of the two ideas that I disagree with.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Term Limits for All

Posted on 2009-11-11 by David

One year ago today I pointed out that the subject of term limits becomes popular after an election. Like clockwork it came up again this year. Jim DeMint jumped the gun a bit by announcing three weeks ago that he would introduce a term limit amendment. Yesterday he introduced the bill and today I read an opinion by Mark Tapscott on why he thinks it will actually happen this time.

In previous posts on the subject we have usually had some good discussions, but they tend to be the same from year to year. I’ll summarize the previous discussions in hopes that we can start a step or two down the road and have a more advanced discussion by doing so.

The discussion  that we usually have boils down to the fact that term limits deal more with a symptom of our broken system rather than a cause but that treating that symptom might help to promote the curing of some of the underlying causes. Those who oppose term limits often argue that the people should be free to keep their same representatives as long as they want – but that thinking seems to obscure the fact that the position should always be greater than the person holding it and that society and the political system benefits from regular turnover so that we can’t mistakenly think that the junior senate seat from Utah somehow belongs to Bob Bennett, or that the senior senate seat from Massachusetts was some inalienable right for Ted Kennedy until his death.

Posted in culture, National, State | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments