Predictable Responses

Posted on 2009-03-05 by David

As newspaper Editorial Boards begin to write about SB 208 their positions mirror what I called the tip of the iceberg and what we expected on the day that SB 208 was announced. In fact, one might almost wonder in passing if the editorial in the Standard Examiner was written by the same person who wrote the editorial in the Deseret News. Both dismiss the idea that they oppose this because it cuts into the revenue they get from publishing legal notices and both suggest that a state run website would not treat all legal notices equally. Also, neither editorial mentioned that this website would help city governments and citizens to save money on all the legal notices that they are required to publish. Essentially all their objections boil down to scare tactics as shown by this response to the Standard Examiner editorial.

As I read the Deseret News version I had a thought about an amendment to the bill that would expose the sincerity of the newspapers in their "public service" claim for opposing this. If the bill were amended to stipulate that the legal notices website allow bulk uploads of legal notices from entities such as newspapers (at bulk rates), and also allow a feed or other source for newspapers to print or otherwise republish the notices from that site (if they so choose) then I can see no reason for newspapers to object – besides the revenue competition. If the papers really are not afraid of the competition – if they honestly believe they are opposing this on public service grounds – they should simply offer to post on the state website any legal notices they receive so that their service complies with the new law (assuming it passes).

The Deseret News also provided two claims that need to be debunked.

In addition, as any Web surfer can attest, Web sites are not dependable. They are subject to technical issues, and they don’t make a reliable and enduring archivable record the way newspapers do.

As a long-time web developer I can say that whatever temporary glitches a website may have does not change the fact that web sites can produce reliable and enduring archivable records. In fact, the most reliable archivable records of newspapers are digital. For proof of that simply go look at archive.org. I can pull up old websites of mine that I know no longer exist on any computer where I ever published them. Even if a government site went down it is not likely that it would be lost.

The bill claims it would cost the state nothing. However, Web sites require considerable maintenance and personnel. Even if this new site were to fall under existing state government Web services, it still would cost taxpayers. Newspapers, on the other hand, store and archive data for nothing other than the cost of a legal notice.

This statement completely ignores what was actually said when SB 208 was first unveiled. The site would not cost taxpayers anything not because Sen. Urquhart is ignoring the cost of running a site, but because the site would charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of the website.

I have nothing against the newspapers – sometimes they have useful information – but they have yet to show a solid reason why they deserve a captive market for legal notices. To prove that, I would encourage a removal of the cap on what they can charge for legal notices (this would be even more broad than what they are pushing for in SB 161) if SB 208 is passed.

Posted in State, technology | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

Posted on 2009-03-04 by David

Apparently the Senate cloture vote is more newsworthy than the House rules vote on a bill. We have heard on many bills that the cloture vote is the bottleneck or the hurdle that can trip up a bill. In the House the rules vote is the procedural hurdle that must precede the actual vote and can be used to kill or hamper a bill. This is taking place right now with the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I am not particularly a fan of using technicalities, but considering my position on this bill I’m happy to see any delay.

I figure that each passing day makes the bill less enticing for Utah as we draw ever closer to getting our extra seat anyway. In fact, if this bill had still not passed by 2013 and Hatch were still in office I would love to see him reverse position on the bill once Utah were no longer next in line to get the "balancing" extra seat. (I would doubly expect this if the state next in line for a seat leaned Democratic.)

Having studied the issues surrounding this bill there is no doubt that the residents of D.C. have a complaint worth addressing – the only problem is that it must be addressed within the constraints of the law. The only issues that are truly clear cut here are the tax related arguments. The proper resolution for those arguments is not a simple bill but a constitutional amendment to the effect that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states and all territories subject to the same federal taxes as the several states."

I don’t claim that the threshold for an amendment is an easy one to climb, but I think that a majority of fair minded people could be brought to support such an amendment along with the requisite supermajorities of both houses of Congress. Problem solved, constitutional objections averted.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Envision the GOP to Come

Posted on 2009-03-03 by David

In the current discussions regarding the future direction of the GOP as the Republican party seeks to find ways back to leading the nation there are many ideas being suggested. Some of those ideas deserve no consideration, such as abdicating our conservative roots and embracing an expanding government. Other ideas merit serious consideration, such as how we talk about and react to evidence of climate change. Finally there are some ideas which I believe should be embraced by the party quickly to help us build a party culture that will attract the support of reasonable people from across the political landscape. Two such ideas come to mind instantly. One is the need for smaller government. With Democrats in power proposing expansive programs we have already seen out elected Republicans paying lip service to the ideas of smaller government. Some of them might even actually believe what they are saying right now. The second idea that we should embrace without delay is to promote a Humbler Foreign Policy.

This might seem to contradict the longstanding party talking point of having a strong military, but if we stop to look at foreign policy separate from military strength it is easy to see that there is a vast difference between having a big stick and using it excessively.

What, after all, was conservative about George W. Bush’s post-9/11 pledges to "rid the world of evil" and "end tyranny in our world?" Conservatives used to believe that there were limits to the federal government’s capabilities. And yet, today, many of the same people who ridicule "midnight basketball" programs at home support ambitious nation-building projects abroad.

Do we really need new aircraft carriers, fighter planes, and a bigger army to fight men who live in caves, and attack us with box cutters? Why, in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, do we spend more on "defense" than the next 12 nations combined, maintain an empire of over 700 bases in 144 countries, and provide defense welfare for South Korea, Western Europe, and Japan, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves?

Conservatives seem to have forgotten the wisdom of one of their intellectual founders, Russell Kirk, who resisted empire and militarism, and maintained that war had to be a last resort, because it might "make the American president a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, [and] distort the economy."

(emphasis added)

I would not be one to argue that our military should be reduced in strength or that we should not continually seek to improve our capabilities to match advances in military reality. I would argue that carrying the big stick has led to abuses of our military might and a presidency that has grown alarmingly close to dictatorial in its power. We need to learn the difference between carrying a big stick and owning a big stick. We may have to endure inaccurate accusations of being isolationist but it’s better to be an isolationist than a bully if you must err on one side or the other.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Federalist No. 54

Posted on 2009-03-02 by David

Federalist No. 54 is not particularly applicable to any of our current political issues, but it is very instructive of the process of political compromise. I also found it to be a very interesting example of the logical somersaults that a person can be brought to accept when they believe in the morality of something as immoral as slavery. The statement below captured a great logical pretzel.

we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Federalist Nos. 52 – 53

Posted on 2009-02-28 by David

Federalist No. 52 and Federalist No. 53 begin an exploration of the individual branches of government as defined in the Constitution by considering the purpose, composition, and structure of the House of Representatives. While they were trying to rectify the weaknesses of existing legislative bodies, sometimes it can feel like we still live under a system where:

The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members

The final paragraph of Federalist 52 contained this sentence:

It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted.

This got me thinking because that would suggest that the Senate has the less power than the House of Representatives. I had always believed that the Senate had comparatively more power than the House. I’d be curious to know what others think about their relative power.

Federalist 53 makes passing reference to:

a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government.

I stopped for a minute to think about that. With the way our Constitution today is almost invisible within the laws passed by Congress I almost believed that our government was busy changing the Constitution. I soon realized that I was wrong. They may ignore the Constitution, but they cannot change it. In order to change the Constitution both houses of Congress must pass a bill for the change by supermajorities, but even if they were unanimous the change cannot go into effect until majorities in three quarters of the states also ratify the amending bill. It’s no wonder they ignore the Constitution so much, they can’t change their minds about it with every administration if they were to try making a change to our legal foundation. And yet our Congress acts very much like the British Parliament that they were designed to improve upon:

Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government.

I particularly liked the description of the challenging task that representatives in the federal government would have to undertake. Even before we allowed the federal government to reach into every aspect of our daily lives the citizens were supposed to select someone who could tackle this:

The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region, and are extremely diversified . . . A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations.

Finally there is another instance of the federalist authors making an assumption that turns out to be less than accurate:

A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.

Sadly, it is not a few who become members of long standing by frequent reelections. Instead it has become almost universal, and they almost universally avail themselves of the advantages of their office.

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

Accountability Now

Posted on 2009-02-27 by David

MoveOn.org has proven that they can be a political force, so has The Daily Kos, and long before either of them existed labor unions were already very influential in politics. That made me very interested to read that those three were teaming up to form a new political action committee called Accountability Now.

Their stated goal is to help recruit and promote move liberal democratic candidates in areas where moderate democrats are currently in office. So how soon until they decide to target Jim Matheson? (And who would they get to challenge him in Utah?) One of their founders also raised the possibility of taking action in Republican primaries as well. (I can just imagine if they had been supporting Chris Cannon against Jason Chaffetz.)

So I’m curious about what other people think about this. It’s obviously a part of the internal debate that Reach talked about in comments earlier this week. Do we think that this approach to the internal debate is healthy, or destructive? Is it better news for Democrats or better news for Republicans – or is it simply bad news for proponents of a civil political process?

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Federalist No. 51

Posted on 2009-02-26 by David

Of course the importance of checks and balances in our government is a well known concept as discussed in Federalist No. 51. What I had not previously realized was that splitting the Congress into two houses was a part of the effort on checks and balances. I had always understood that choice to simply be a compromise between the power of large state and small states.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency (sic) is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

Today some may argue that the legislative authority does not predominate in our government. Closer inspection of our government shows that it does still dominate which is why the concentration of interest in the executive branch by individuals and news organizations is so effective at confusing the electorate and allowing a Congress with 10% approval rating to have a 90% success rate among incumbents. (At a state level the same results can come by focusing on the governor over the legislature.)

Those who would argue that Congress does not dominate the actions of our government can only have an argument if they claim that the parties have come to dominate the government rather than arguing that another branch of government has come to dominate.

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

Federalist No. 50

Posted on 2009-02-25 by David

Federalist No. 50 brings forth the distinction between occasional appeals to the people and periodical appeals to the people. While I am not sure that this paper really satisfies the question it does force consideration of the question of what the difference is and how it plays out. The founders clearly settled on periodical appeals as proven by pre-set term lengths for various offices. They chose not to provide a limit to individual service, but they set the length of terms for the Representatives, Senators and the President. These set term length guarantee that we will go to the polls as a nation every two years, whether we like the way our government is functioning or not, and cast our votes to determine our representation for the next 2, 4 or 6 years (depending on the office in question).

If we want to consider the effect of occasional appeals we can look to other governments around the world such as Israel.

Another issue that was illustrated in this Federalist Paper is the effect parties can have of manipulating the thinking of otherwise intelligent people.

When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them.

It has always disturbed me to see those Republicans who will always praise the actions of Republican leaders and always denounce the actions of Democratic leaders. Likewise I am unimpressed by those Democrats who always praise Democrats and always oppose the actions of any Republican.

Of course the different parties have legitimate differences of opinion and the people who join the parties do so for a reason, but to refuse to see any good across the aisle is a recipe for poor policy. Real leaders know how to recognize the value being offered by the opposition and will not oppose the other party simply on the principle that it is the other party.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Public Transportation

Posted on 2009-02-24 by David

I have just changed my commuting from riding the bus to driving. This was not due to my own choice – my office moved and I was unwilling to take an extra 2 to 3 hours per day to get to and from this highly underserviced area. Coincidentally I had to buy gas on my way to work on my first driving day. It threw some real perspective on the price of riding the bus

At my old building the bus took 30 to 45 minutes each way while driving took 20 to 30. At my new location the bus would take at least 90 minutes each way but more likely 2 hours while driving takes 25 – 35 minutes. Of course the bus has never been portrayed as the fastest method of commuting so lets look at cost. The bus cost me about $6 a month because my employer paid the other $70 for my pass. I no longer have that option so a bus pass costs me almost as much as my gas ($60) plus my insurance while taking 3 or  4 times as long to make the trip. Imagine if I were paying on a per trip basis for my bus riding – that would be $99 a month to ride the bus – not counting the taxpayer money that supports UTA. Notice that all the prices I am quoting for the bus are not the express passes or the trains, just the regular bus system.

As I started to put all that together I realized that despite the fact that I believe that good public transportation is a good idea, it is notanywhere near economically competitive with private vehicle ownership. Whatever money we spend as a society to prop up our public transit system we need to realize that we are not making any significant economic benefit to those who use the system – they come out a little bit ahead of simply hiring a taxi every time they need to go somewhere.

I still favor the idea of public transportation in theory, but in practice I’m not sure that our taxes should be used simply to hide the fact that the system is not economically competitive. If we are unwilling to pay enough to make it beneficial then our tax support is wasted.

Posted in State | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Running for Treasurer

Posted on 2009-02-23 by David

I have decided to run for the position of Treasurer for the Davis County Republican Party. Those those who are interested can visit my campaign website although any regular readers here will not find any surprises there.

The vote is 8 weeks away, but call this an early invitation. Anyone in Davis County who is a registered republican is encouraged to support me at the party organizing convention. I see this as an opportunity to put my beliefs and principles into action to help make the Republican party the best it can be here in Davis County.

Posted in life, Local | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments