politicalcivility.com Blog

I went to the Utah Foundation’s Utah Priorities lunch today, which included remarks by the Governor.  I have to say that there should be a general rule that politicians should be limited to 20 minute speaches, because that’s about the time people started tuning out the governor and started chatting quietly with their neighbor.  Anyway the length of political speeches is not the reason for this post.

A couple of takeaways for me from the Foundation’s report. 

1. Education has been subplanted by concerns over energy (gasoline, utility prices, etc.).  I found this interesting because we had the voucher debate in November and given the level of contention I would have thought that education would have held onto the top spot.  It is also interesting to note that in Southern Utah, education came in at #5.  The survey results seem to indicate that voters are most interested in what hurts the most and if the economy continues to struggle and gas & utility prices remain high, I think voters may not pay much attention to candidates running on an education platform, which does not bode well for those looking to gain momentum on the voucher defeat.
2. Economy: Our governor has a one track mind and that is “creating and growing the best economy in the country.”  I was sad and disappointed that it appears that the governor doesn’t get that more important priority for Utahns (even if it didn’t show up on the survey) is not creating the GREATEST economy on the planet but is strengthening the natural family.  When a growing number of Utah’s families are in trouble (divorce, addiction, abuse, etc.), the resulting lack of health will undermine any attempts the governor may make to build the best economy on the planet.  When families are sick it impacts almost every aspect of our society and exponentially grows the cost to maintain any semblence of a civil society.  Not only is the family, the most fundamental economic unit in an economy; it is also the best and most cost effective mechanism in creating productive citizens that add rather than subtract from the economy and the public coffers.

Now the truth comes out.

The media is making a big deal out of nothing (what’s new).  This time their pet publicity project is all about voter dissatisfaction and “resurgence” of the Democratic Party in politics in the state.  I decided to take a look for myself and see what was really happening.  Looks like it’s really much ado about nothing.  Here’s the data set.  Let me give you a quick run down of the details.

• House candidate numbers are exactly the same as in 2006.  Democrats do have a whopping 10 more candidates that have filed (five of those are vying for Carl Duckworth’s seat.  Remember that Duckworth is a Democrat himself) versus 2006.  Republicans have seven fewer than in 2006.
• Senate candidate numbers are up, but Democrats filing for senate seats is exactly the same as in 2006, while Republican candidate filings more than doubled.
• State board filings more than doubled for 2008.  These are non-partisan seats, so you don’t really know party affiliation.

Bottom line, the area of greatest dissatisfaction looks like the state board of education not with state legislators. 

Another little number I looked into was legislators that opposed vouchers (since vouchers are the real reason we are seeing this resurgence, right?) to see if they were being challenged by their own party.  The major media have only highlighted ‘interesting’ races where pro-voucher supporters are being challenged. 

Here’s what the numbers say.  There are five ‘anti-voucher’ races, 2 Democrat and 3 Republican where those who voted against vouchers are being challenged from within their own party.

I think for me this just represents the media looking for a way to shape opinion when the facts don’t necessarily tell the same story, but given the Tribs recent article on polar bears dying (when again the numbers tell the opposite), these folks don’t seem to worried about the facts, but rather being propoganda rags.

LaVarr Webb (UtahPolicy.com) came and spoke at the blogger briefing on Wednesday morning and gave his thoughts on the legislative session and upcoming election cycle.  He highlighted some of the major themes of the session like health care, Sen. Buttars, and immigration.  But one of his comments stuck out to me where he talked about Republicans avoiding any “message” bills. 

Translation: Republicans had their eye on reelection and so wanted to keep the waters calm and make sure they passed things that would keep the folks at home happy or give them a better chance to be reelected.  I guess this begs the question, is it more important to vote principle or get reelected?  Why should the fact that your reelection bid may be put in jeopardy by tackling a tough issue make any difference?

So here is my new candidate litmus test (for those seeking reelection).  Did you a) tackle a tough issue (this most likely means unpopular) in an election year because it was the right and principled thing to do or b) did you play it safe?  If the answer is b then you are just another politician and I’ll take my vote elsewhere.  If the answer is a) you’ve got my vote even if the issue is one I disagree with.  We don’t need more elected officials who live by the axiom of reelection or bust.  We need more elected officials who stand on principle no matter the consequence. 

Someday…

The state has issued its Budget overview and two items jumped off the page.  1) The state depends on the federal government for 50%+ 22% (See the update) of the state budget and 2) the 2008 budget has been revised up $1 BILLION for FY2008.

[UPDATE]

I wanted to get this clarification from Mike on this post:

The LFA report does not explicitly state what “state funds” are or are not. The GOPB report is much clearer in this regard which is why I usually base my calculations on GOPB data. Unfortunately, the GOPB report doesn’t come out until April or sometimes later.

“State funds” include
- individual income tax
- corporate income tax
- unearmarked general sales tax
- other general fund (severance, insurance premiums, tobacco/beer taxes, liquor PROFITS)

“State funds” exclude
- dedicated credits such as university/college tuition, liquor TAXES, gas taxes, motor vehicle registration fees
- earmarked general sales tax
- education property taxes such basic, voted, board, K-3 (other K-12 property taxes such as debt service, recreation, transportation, etc are excluded from both “state funds” and total funds.

Also, GOPB is more accurate in calculating growth rates. For example, when comparing FY09 and FY08, GOPB excludes FY08 supplementals because FY09 supplementals won’t be known until next year. By including FY08 supplementals when calculating growth rate, which LFA does, the growth rate will most likely be understated once supplementals are known and included for both years.

Supplementals should be included when they are known for both years. For example, FY07 and FY08 supplementals are known so it makes sense to include those.

This post is primarily an answer to a comment from Misty Fowler on this blog.  Her comment:

“I give up, I don’t think people that are set against the idea of global warming are just being blind and don’t want to hear the truth. I’m really truly not sure what people like you have against the idea of taking care of our planet.”

My first response to this question is a question.  How does my opposition to those pushing the global warming movement immediately make me someone who opposes the idea of taking care of the earth?  This is a plain and simple logical falacy in that it assumes that I can only take care of or that I only care for the planet if I buy into a particular worldview on global warming. 

I have already highlighted some of the bungled attempts to legislate “earth” sensitive products (GE fluorescent bulbs and ethanol), which especially in the case of ethanol are actually more destructive to the earth than the ‘dirty’ products they were supposed to replace.  Given the track record of these ecologically friendly products, I believe I have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the fixes many of the advocate propose regardless of my feelings about the science.

I think what Misty mistakes as lack of care for the earth really is based perhaps (I can’t speak directly for Misty, so I am generalizing here) in a fundamental philosophy difference in how we see the world.  I am a conservationist, meaning that I believe in personal (not government mandated) stewardship and wise use, and that I have what Peter Borrelli calls a anthropocentric world view.  This view starts with viewing man as the measure of creation. 

This view [conservationalism] is opposed to the preservationist philosophy, which fundamentally has a biocentric view of man and nature, meaning that man is just another creation and so is of no more value than a dog, cat or house fly.  The preservationist advocates a position of nature lock out because humans have no right to disturb the flight patterns or mating habitat of an animal, reptile, bug or whatever.  It also centers on a scarcity versus abundance mentality or zero sum world view–i.e., if man’s population grows xyz animal loses. It is this view that allows preservationalists to make man the problem because he is the great annoyer of nature. It is this view that allows environmentalist to ignore the human costs of their actions/policy initiatives (i.e., DDT and 40 million children [who have died since DDT’s ban– thanks Ed for the correction here. WHO puts the number at 1 Million+/year, 90% of which are in Africa] around the world from malaria or the increased burden the poor and low-income families in America are carrying) because their suffering is equal to or in some cases not as significant as the bird that has the minor risk of dying from DDT exposure.

As a conservationalist, I am and will forever be opposed to prohibitionist and mandate policies regarding the earth, because they a) increase the size and scope of government and b) lead to a huge loss in freedom and liberty.  With respect to the first point, I lived in Russia and saw first hand the effects of a state run everything.  This form of centralized government ultimately leads to unwise use of resources and the destroying of the environment.  It also destroys the average citizen’s desire to be a good steward. 

My idea of good principle grounded environmental policy is based on incenting behavior not mandating or punishing behavior.  This incentive based policy is one of the primary reasons that the polar bear population is growing as noted in a recent USA TODAY article. This policy approach limits the role of government, frees humans to make good choices and fosters freedom and liberty.  So do I favor tax breaks for enviro-friendly cars; yes.  Would I favor mandating that by 2012 every American should run a enviro-friendly car; absolutely not.  Should I be rewarded for paying extra for energy efficient windows and appliances; yes. Should the government mandate my choice in appliance or windows; no. 

Thomas Huxley would classify this as an ”ugly” fact, which has the potential to ruin a beautiful hypothesis: global warming. 

Let’s look at a positive of global warming: Bio-Diversity.  The colder the earth gets the more rapid the rate of species extinction.  The reverse is true that as the earth warms we experience expanded bio-diversity in plant and animal life.

If global warming is really happening, why do we only hear how bad it is when in actuality the earth is better off when it is warm.

Here are some quotes from the global warming conference I attended earlier this week that ought to help inform the global warming/climate change policy debate.

From Thomas Huxley:

1. Skepticism is the highest calling of a true scientist. 
2. The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
3. Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. [In this case the creed is Global Warming??? Just another note on this, don’t global warming advocates sound an awful lot like Chicken Little?]

From Alfred North Whitehead:

“It is the business of the future to be dangerous, and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties.”

1. STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER: This professor back in the 70’s was one of the leading proponents of global “cooling” where he and others were making dire predictions about the earth freezing in 50 years and now he’s switched his position.  I don’t mind the fact that he’s looked at new data and come to a different conclusion, but what bugs me is that now he is somehow infallable and his research is unquestionable.  How can he consider himself a real scientist.  The true scientist is a natural SKEPTIC not conformist.  Here’s to Dr. Schneider joining the cooling bandwagon in 15 years.
2. Money Conflicts: I keep hearing (from global warming activists) about how because certain think tanks have accepted Exxon mobile money they are compromised and have a conflict of interest and so their research cannot be trusted.  OK.  Let’s follow the money then. Exxon has funded approximately $19 million worth of research into climate change over the past decade.  By the numbers no think tank has received more than 10% of their budget from any oil company.  Now let’s compare that to global warming groups.  These groups have received $19 billion from special interest and government grants over the past decade.  That is a 1,000:1 difference in funding.  So whose science is really bought and paid for by special interest?  This is a huge $$$ discrepancy and yet nothing from the media.  Why? 

I’m in NYC right now attending a conference on climate change or global warming and have come across some interesting facts, actually I’ve got a bundle of information that I will be posting over the next several days, but let me just start out with a couple of “inconvenient” truths exposed at this conference:

1. The equivalent of the US Federal Court System in the UK has found that Al Gore’s award winning documentary contains 9 fundamental flaws in his data and reporting of in certain cases gross misinformation regarding the actual data.  As such the court has ruled that An Inconvenient Truth can not be taught in elementary schools without providing sufficient rebuttal.
2. Polar Bear Population–A crisis?? Hardly, for those who are losing sleep about a dying polar bear population as a result of global warming or climate change, you’d better check the facts.  Since 1970, the polar bear population has grown by ~8,000 bears, which should make it easier for Coca-Cola to do their Christmas adds in the future.

More to come…