Utah State Democratic Party

Mark Shurtleff as healthcare reform poster child

2009-07-10T10:41:00.001-06:00

The Salt Lake Tribune reports Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a state employee enjoying some of the best healthcare benefits available, has somewhere between $50,000 and $130,000 in outstanding medical bills as a result of surgeries related to a motorcycle accident. If ever anyone needed proof health insurance in America has ceased to offer families protection from medical related bankruptcy, Mark Shurtleff is it.

Given Shurtleff's historic support for the payday lending industry, it is tempting to suggest he take out a payday loan to cover his medical expenses. However, unlike millions of fellow uninsured and under-insured Americans, Mark Shurtleff does have a six figure salary and somewhere between $366,000 and $815,000 in assets he can fall back on according to a financial report he recently filed as a candidate for the US Senate. This provides him the luxury of avoiding both payday lenders and the kind of sympathy for working families that might motivate him to provide a healthcare reform plan of his own.

Through a spokesman Shurtleff told the Tribune he remains steadfastly opposed to a public health insurance option for businesses and the public. Shurtleff has spent much of his adult life receiving insurance from the government either through the military, Salt Lake County government, or the State of Utah. Still, he does not see the fact the state purchases about the best coverage available for him, his family, and other state employees as being inconsistent with this position. Nor apparently does it give the AG pause that even with his gold plated policy he is still carrying a medical debt that would bankrupt many middle income families and virtually every low income family out there.

In light of Shurtleff's personal experience, the voters should expect some empathy - a much maligned word on the right lately. If not a public option, then what? What is Shurtleff's answer to Utah families lucky enough to have insurance but still facing annual increases in premiums and co-pays that out pace inflation? What is his answer to those both with and without insurance that must choose between years of debt or bankruptcy when faced with a motorcycle accident or worse?

It is no longer enough to simply criticize proposals currently on the table. The time to start providing serious solutions has come. What say you Mr. Shurtleff?

Healthcare Reform: What is it?

2009-07-07T09:50:00.001-06:00

While the political world is fighting about healthcare reform, the public seems largely in the dark about what is actually being proposed.

It is no wonder that the public isn’t in on the details.

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Face the Nation this weekend announced that they agree on 90% of what needs to be done, but are still fighting over three issues. They then talk about the three issues that are under dispute.

President Obama needs the plan to pass Congress, so he is letting them develop it with minimal guidelines. Most of his comments are seeking to reassure the public that if they are happy with the insurance they have, they can keep it.

The big boys all seem intent on NOT talking about what they ARE doing.

So, here is a run down of the main proposals (much of it provided by Democracy Corps):

This plan prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage when someone gets sick and requires them to cover preventive care.
It creates a health insurance exchange where individuals can comparison shop among different private plans or a public insurance option. (GOP & Dems are arguing over the public option.)
The plan requires all Americans to have health insurance while subsidizing the cost for those with low and moderate incomes. (Some dispute, but mostly agreement.)
It requires all companies to provide health insurance
for their employees or contribute to a fund that will help pay for their coverage with small businesses getting help covering some of the cost. (There is disagreement over the mandate for small business.)
The plan will be paid for by reducing Medicaid and Medicare spending by 400 billion dollars over the next ten years and implementing some new taxes that might include a small sales tax on goods except for food, higher taxes on those making over 200,000 dollars OR new taxes on alcohol or sugary drinks. (This is the area where much of the fighting will take place. As you can see, there is no consensus about the funding.)

Some of positive changes reform will bring:

Never losing health insurance when you lose a job or get sick.
Power shifted from insurance companies to people, who no longer face higher rates or lost coverage for a pre-existing condition, getting sick or getting older.
Reduced costs for you and your family, business and country.
Guarantees that quality, affordable coverage will be there for you no matter what happens, giving you the peace of mind that even if times get tough, you will always have access to quality health care at a price you can afford.

The reform is monumental because at heart it is about taking power away from the insurance companies and giving it to people. The control and power that insurance companies have over people, their ability to refuse care because of pre-existing conditions and use the fine print to drop people when they
get sick is the part of the status quo that voters most want to change.

Some of these changes will lead to lower costs:

Competition created by a health insurance exchange where individuals and small businesses can shop for competing private plans or choose a public one (the public plan may be like Medicare or it may be a co-op or mutual insurance company owned by the policy holders like a credit union).
Paying first-dollar for preventive care and supporting wellness.
Preventing insurance companies from raising rates when people age or get sick.

Seniors who are already covered by Medicare should also know that there are benefits for them.

Under this plan seniors would still receive Medicare coverage, just as they do now with no reductions in benefits.
If nothing is done to decrease healthcare costs across the board there will have to be cuts in services, or increased premiums and taxes.
The plan would also provide seniors with better prescription drug coverage by eliminating the so-called "donut hole" - the gap in Medicare coverage that forces millions of seniors to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for prescription drugs.

Continuing as things are now is not sustainable:

Keeping the status quo means the insurance companies are still in charge, jacking up rates and denying coverage.
It means more people losing insurance or enslaved to their job, prices skyrocketing for families and businesses and our companies less competitive.

We need change so that people no longer lose coverage, get dropped for a pre-existing conditions, and see lower costs.

This was originally written for Utah Policy Daily.

UTA: Average Utah Family will not pay Federal Income Tax in 2010

2009-07-06T16:34:00.001-06:00

The Deseret News reports on a Utah Taxpayer’s Association study- Utahns to get federal tax refund in 2010:

For all the complaining some GOP Utah politicians do about federal taxation, a new study finds an amazing fact:

The typical Utah family — which will make just over $63,000 for 2009 — will actually get a federal tax refund in April 2010.

That's right, that typical family — a married couple with three children — will get $356 back from the federal government, not paying any federal income tax at all, the Utah Taxpayers Association says in a new study on tax burdens in the Beehive State.

And for heavily Republican Utah, the check comes because of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats' federal stimulus package, which also includes a middle America tax cut via the Making Work Pay tax credit.

Obama Coverage Not Liberal Media Bias, Just Good Business

2009-07-06T13:38:00.001-06:00

The corporate news media's bias isn't toward ideology...it is toward making money. If they couldn't make a ton of money off of President Obama, they wouldn't be covering him nearly as much as they do. -- Comment from BradKT on Politico’s story on the ratings bonanza for coverage of President Obama

What do they cite:

Last week’s healthcare forum on ABC brought in more viewers at 10 PM than the network had had in six weeks. While the forum didn’t win the ratings battle the night it aired, “Nightline” beat out both of its top competitors: “The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien” and “The Late Show With David Letterman.”
Both parts of NBC’s “Inside the Obama White House” cracked the weekly Top 10. The second night’s segment even delivered NBC’s highest rating over the previous six months among 18-to-49-year-olds in that time slot.
When Obama appeared on “The Tonight Show” in March, the show had its highest rating for a Friday episode in the 17 years with Jay Leno at the helm. “The Tonight Show” numbers, 126 percent above average, also helped boost the shows that followed: “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” and “Last Call With Carson Daly.”
An Obama interview led to a spike in ratings with “Face the Nation” bringing in its largest audience in four years and tying the perennial leader “Meet the Press” in the important 25-to-54 age group.
When Obama appeared on the November 16 “60 Minutes”, it drew 25.1 million viewers and, at the time, it was the season’s most-watched broadcast. Not only did “60 Minutes” win the week, but the post-election interview with Steve Kroft drew the show’s biggest audience in nine years.

Wow, talk about stimulus. The interest in the new president won’t continue forever, but it is nice while it lasts. And it shows why the Obama Administration is trying to accomplish so much this year while a conversation with the American people continues.

There is another huge spillover benefit: Networks airing Obama specials can squeeze every drop out of them for morning shows, nightly newscasts, cable and online.

But as one wag noted: Obama’s not Simon Cowell. He doesn’t do those types of numbers. Indeed, ABC’s airing of the Neighborhood Ball, which included the Obamas’ first dance on Inauguration night, was beaten soundly by the only ratings juggernaut that may be more powerful than Obama: “American Idol.”

Beware of simple solutions to complex problems

2009-07-01T09:22:00.001-06:00

Campaign financing is the most heavily regulated industry in America per dollar of financial activity. Private financing of campaigns creates an ethical schism that pits the concept of a “public office is a public trust” against “those who pay the piper call the tune.”

Yesterday’s Salt Lake Tribune editorial “Lawmakers for Sale” correctly points out that Utah has not found an appropriate balance of those concerns. Unfortunately, it concluded with the silly prescription that, “Limiting donations by individuals or corporations to $1,000 for each candidate, political party or political action committee per election cycle seems reasonable.”

There is nothing reasonable about a $1,000 across the board limit for each of these entities. They each have different functions with different resulting costs. We have seen what happens when these limits are set too low. There simply becomes an unending morass of entities created to funnel funds into the important contests. This results in making campaign finances less transparent. Or in the alternative it reduces public discourse because these entities cannot afford the tools of communication.

The more difficult the regulatory scheme the less likely citizens are to participate since the knowledge barrier to keep on the right side of the law is raised too high leaving only the professionals to participate in the contest.

Such limits are slightly effective only with five other major reforms: 1) An aggressive watch-dog agency like the Federal Election Commission; 2) A limit on total political contributions for an individual entity. So, for Utah that would mean creating and funding a State Election Commission and capping any entity from giving more than $20,000 total to all candidates, parties and PACs; 3) A method for coordinating expenditures that allows these entities to take advantage of economies of scale through joint purchasing (i.e. the FEC allows unlimited transfers between party committees and some coordination for candidate services and allows for the limits to be relaxed for “building funds”); 4) A prohibition against giving in the name of another; and, 5) An exemption for certain “grassroots” activities that encourage public participation (i.e. at the federal level there are exemptions for house parties, internet communications, friend-to-friend mail campaigns, slate cards, lawnsigns, bumperstickers, and a host of other activities).

Utah campaign finance laws cry out for some limits to prevent corruption of public officials. But a $1,000 limit for all entities is far too low for some of these entities like statewide campaigns and state party committees and Utah lacks an appropriate regulator with sufficient resources to fairly enforce such limits in a timely manner.

Before limits are contemplated, Utah first needs an independent State Election Commission and an independent Ethics Commission to oversee all public officials and candidates(these could be one and the same). Then, with experience and professional guidance, we can craft rules that work for Utah.

This was originally written for Utah Policy Daily.

Salt Lake County: Look around the Attic

2009-06-30T12:10:00.001-06:00

We had the pleasure of visiting with Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon last evening. He described Salt Lake County’s main budget problem is that with interest rates so low county investments likely will yield $9.4 million less than expected this year. Similar shortfalls are predicted in 2010.

It strikes us that this is the same problem that every retiree in the state is coping with: lower yield on their savings resulting in reduced income. There are really only two solutions for the healthy and only one for those not fortunate to enjoy good health – cut costs or go to work and earn more from another source.

Mayor Corroon has suggested that the economy is not healthy, other sources are not available, and that only one responsible option exists -- to cut costs (and some of those cuts may hurt).

We also had the pleasure of discussing this issue with Council Chair Joe Hatch. The Democrats on the Council believe that by asking for a small sacrifice from a large number will cause less pain in the long and short term. The Council Democrats are asking for less than $1 per month from the typical homeowner.

The Council is rightly concerned about another steep drop in revenue from property taxes if housing prices have declined dramatically. This could push any future tax increases to levels far beyond what the public is able or willing to absorb. Regular small increases are more feasible than large occasional increases – just ask any Davis County Commissioner. The Council’s concerns are legitimate and a strong reason for the good management of Utah’s second largest governing entity.

Salt Lake County has already absorbed some painful cuts like the suspension of hiring and matching contributions to retirement programs. We appreciate the sacrifice. But, sadly, the times call for more – and over time perhaps much more.

We are sorry to see Democrats publicly at odds with one another. But we agree that the debate is a good one and waged by responsible people who are concerned about the public well-being.

The options on the table are either additional cuts in services or a small increase in taxes . . . or perhaps we do what retirees across our state are doing -- clean out the attic and put our personal effects up for sale on e-bay (just kidding, of course, the county already auctions off surplus property).

Healthcare Reform: Public plan is essential

2009-06-27T01:52:00.002-06:00

With a health care system in crisis, it is up to us to understand the issues and what is at stake: The 47 million uninsured, the minimum 20 million underinsured, our rank of 37th in the world in overall quality of care while we spend 82 percent more than other industrialized nations, businesses crumbling under the weight of providing health benefits, disparities in quality and cost, medical bankruptcies. All are driving a commitment to reform.

And yet, the usual forces are lining up in opposition. The insurance companies, which don't want to compete against a public plan, have conceded that they can forego preexisting condition qualifiers and premium penalties for health conditions. But they agreed to this in 1993, and now, 16 years later, we see no change. They clearly have a vested interest in swarming the halls of Congress with lobbyists to make sure that they're not threatened with serious change or competition.

The American Medical Association, which represents barely one-fourth of physicians and is heavily weighted to specialists, has long expressed opposition to a public plan. However, a year ago, the Annals of Internal Medicine reported Aaron Carroll's study that found that 59 percent of doctors said they support a national health insurance program.

Co-author Dr. Ronald Ackerman states, "As doctors we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments and restrictions on patient care."

Last week a New York Times /CBS poll found that 72 percent of the public support a government-administered insurance plan that would compete for customers with private insurance. On the brink of making decisions about "real change," we must define why a public plan matters.

First, a public plan will provide coverage for the 47 million uninsured people in America. The cost burden of paying for charity care in place of being reimbursed for the uninsured will be eliminated by a public plan.

Second, with the other federal plans in place, there will be enough bargaining clout to significantly impact pharmaceutical as well as other costs.

Third, a public plan with adequate size and influence could implement recommendations from the newly established Comparative Effectiveness Board to improve quality and cost.

We know from research out of Dartmouth that high cost does not equal high quality. Practices vary across the country, with some areas provide better quality for lower cost. This kind of disparity represents opportunities for cost savings by reproducing the best care provided.

Fourth, perhaps the most vital function that a public plan could have would be as a platform to reform the way that doctors get paid. The fee-for-service model in which doctors get paid more for doing more drives up cost and lowers quality.

The payment system needs to be structured to pay for quality health care, not quantity. Until payment reform is accomplished there will not be a sustainable, coherent system.

While President Obama is advocating for a plan that protects choice and fosters competition, let's not fall prey to the fear tactics of Harry and Louise and those who try to scare us into believing that this is the road to socialism.

We, the people, elected Obama to deliver us from the crushing weight of our broken health care system. The people want it fixed. Doctors want it fixed. Now is the time for us to stand up and refuse to let power politics deliver plans that amount to putting Band-Aids on a hemorrhaging, fractured system.

Julie Day is a practicing primary care physician with the University of Utah Community Clinics and serves as the medical director of quality improvement for the clinics.

This op-ed was published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Matheson statement on Waxman/Markey Energy Bill

2009-06-26T18:29:00.002-06:00

The two great energy issues our generation faces right now are domestic energy security and climate change. These issues deserve our active attention, and they deserve action. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today does not appropriately address these issues.

Some continue to argue that climate change is not happening. In fact, scientific consensus has clearly been established that climate change is a very real, significant problem and we need to determine an effective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. However, this legislation has problems.

The early-year carbon reduction targets assume an aggressive pace of new technological development that may be unachievable. These targets received little attention in the debates that have taken place on this bill.

I remain concerned that this energy bill will result in unfair regional wealth transfers. The one-size-fits all renewable electricity standard is not the right approach to address climate change. It is an add-on without a purpose. Data shows that the renewable targets in this bill are only slightly better than business-as-usual. So why are we bothering to dictate these standards when we should encourage the 15 states that currently do not have renewable energy targets to find something workable for their communities?

The bill’s distribution of emission allowances also creates regional inequities. The “50-50” formula in the bill gives extra, unneeded allowances to utilities with lower fossil fuels resources, and less to utilities with greater reliance on fossil fuel resources. Those regions that receive excessive allowances would sell those allowances to other regions of the country that received less.

With respect to carbon markets, this bill overreaches and will effectively destroy the derivatives market. Many people seem to confuse the different types of markets that exist. The futures market contains listed derivatives—these are standardized exchange-traded agreements. There is also a market for cleared derivatives, which are standard contracts that are privately negotiated but booked with a clearinghouse as a counterparty. And finally, you have the over-the-counter derivatives market where people negotiate deals to fit the needs of everyone ranging from utilities, to airlines, to banks, and finally, regular investors. This is a very complicated financial system and while it is clear that we are not appropriately regulating this market today, we should also avoid gutting the market altogether. I think there is a reasonable way to structure the new carbon market and to address deficiencies in the commodity markets. The provisions in the bill are not the right approach, and these provisions of the bill were never really debated in a House committee hearing.

There are also some changes made to the offsets section which are troubling to me. I have been supportive of the effort to build a strong, accountable offsets program and I am sorry to see that this bill allows USDA to try to establish a much looser, less effective program. This is short-sighted because unless offsets signify real, verifiable carbon reductions, they will be worthless. This is problematic because buying and using offsets is much cheaper for businesses than it is to buy allowances.

I have been advocating for the inclusion of transmission language in order to build much-needed infrastructure. However, this bill only addresses the Western Interconnection, not the whole country. That doesn’t get at the underlying problem which is the lack of electricity transmission capacity across the nation. I wish this bill had taken an approach similar to the one the Senate is considering.

Finally, the issue of energy independence calls for additional items that are not included in today’s bill. In the long run, technological advances will provide new options to help this country gain a more secure, stable energy profile. In the interim, we need policies that keep all options on the table for the development and use of conventional energy sources.

As a result of all of these concerns, I will vote against this legislation. However, I will continue to work on the important issues of climate change and energy independence.

Healthcare Reform: Time to Act is Now

2009-06-25T11:50:00.001-06:00

This op-ed by then State Party Vice Chair Rob Miller was published in the Davis Clipper:

Our country faces the significant challenges of fighting two wars, nuclear proliferation, a fiscal crisis, rising debt, dependence on foreign oil, rising energy costs, and a failing healthcare system. We have a simple choice: Do we confront our problems head-on or do we continue to ignore them?

America spends nearly fifty percent more per person on healthcare than any other country. Healthcare premiums have doubled over the last decade. Medicare and Medicaid pose one of the greatest threats to our federal deficit.

We cannot accept a future where more and more Americans choose to die or forego healthcare because they can’t pay for it, where American business is not competitive with their foreign counterparts, where American business cannot afford to hire American workers, and where our American government goes broke shifting the burden to our children.

In Utah, nearly one-third (32.2%) of us went without health insurance for a significant period during the past two years and 84% of them were employed. Families’ benefits are eroding because they can’t keep up with higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Seniors are choosing to cut their medications due to the high cost of prescription drugs. People are staying in jobs they hate and are unproductive because their current job has healthcare benefits. And parents are skipping a doctor’s visit for their children because it’s just too expensive.

Healthcare costs are the single largest reason for bankruptcy. More than half of filers are financially ruined by medical bills including many who had previously enjoyed a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, a good education, a decent job, and good health insurance. No matter how well off we are, we are all two illnesses away from bankruptcy.

Skyrocketing healthcare costs are robbing us of the choices we value most: How do I keep my family healthy? What can I do for a living? Where do I have to live? Can I still see my doctor? Can I afford the treatment the doctor recommends?

To put it plainly: our healthcare system is broken.

Washington was beholden to special interests with politicians failing to make tough choices, imperiling our economy, our security, and our health. Thankfully, change has come to Washington.

President Obama is working in an open, inclusive, and transparent manner with members of Congress, hospitals, doctors, businesses and unions and seeking their best ideas regardless of their political background.

The President and Utah Democrats are committed to reform that builds on the existing American system and strengthens it, not radical reform replacing our system with something foreign. President Obama has consistently said that if a family likes what they have, they will be able to keep it.

President Obama has laid out three principles for reform: reducing rising health care costs for families, businesses and government; allowing all patients choice in their own coverage and their own doctor; and ensuring that quality, affordable health care is available to all Americans.

Working together, we can reduce long-term growth of health insurance costs, guarantee choice of doctors, invest in prevention and wellness, end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, and ensure every American receives the healthcare they need. This reform will lead to faster economic growth, higher take-home pay for workers, greater employment opportunities, a more level playing field between small and large businesses, and deficit control.

The time to act is now.

Healthcare Reform: Fear is No Longer Acceptable

2009-06-25T11:49:00.001-06:00

In a free market economy the duty of the enterprise is to maximize returns to its shareholders.

An insurer charges premiums and makes its return after costs and claims are paid. Thus, to the extent an insurer can avoid insuring sick people, deny coverage, reduce or delay payments or transfer costs, it optimizes its returns. This leaves the uninsured sick to sign direct contracts with providers that put the entirety of their personal savings and homes at risk before care is provided.

The net of our current "free market" system is a tacit agreement between insurers and care providers. The insurers take the premiums and profits from statistically healthier groups while providers financially squeeze the uninsured and underinsured remainder into poverty or bankruptcy. The result is that nearly two-thirds of U.S. bankruptcies are health care-related.

Such a market allocation would ordinarily violate restraint of trade laws. Yet, our very laws and regulations are used as a shield to protect insurers and providers when coverage is denied and exhorbitant individual payment later extracted.

For example, in this past Utah legislative session, laws were passed with respect to insurance coverage requirements and exclusions for selected illnesses, thus legislatively allocating and regulating risk. In addition, the rules on patient record confidentiality allow insurers to obtain access to confidential patient information providing a basis for coverage exclusion. Yet, when coverage denial is challenged, these very "confidentiality" rules are used as a shield to deny accountability.

Insurance companies and providers maintain this protected position and cash flow by employing lobbyists and forging laws and regulations protective of their selective and limited coverage and maintenance of profitability. Insurers prefer the current system protected by existing law and regulation. This system allows insurers to take premiums from select groups such as the young and healthy while denying coverage to groups such as older and more at-risk individuals and the sick and infirm.

Insurers prefer the current U.S. employer-based system as it provides statistical assurance that covered groups will be relatively healthy. People with jobs are, by definition, not too ill to work nor incapacitated or suffering from the stress of no job and no income. The only fair health care regulatory system would spread the risk of illness across an entire population and a lifetime.

It is absurd that a working individual pay for health insurance coverage for 25 or 30 years, lose a job and, because of job loss, lose health insurance. An additional and significant intangible but real cost to our current health care system is the fear that now permeates our society -- a fear that we are weary of.

We are weary of the fear that job loss will lead to loss of health coverage and possibly to bankruptcy, weary of the fear of going to a doctor because, if found ill, subsequent coverage will be denied, weary of the fear in the eyes of young parents with a sick child not knowing if taking care of their child will mean that they can't pay the rent, weary of the fear that a lifetime of work and savings can be lost in a single illness.

These fears are no longer acceptable.

The only way to establish coverage fairness and health care assurance is community-wide rating that effectively spreads risk across the entire population and the entirety of life and ends the practice of denying individual health care coverage.

We have government regulation now. Let's move to a comprehensive system that benefits all and not the select few.

Andrew Buffmire has been an executive with two Fortune 500 companies and a senior executive with four wireless technology startups. He was an assistant attorney general over trade regulation and antitrust in the Utah Attorney General's Office and the primary author of the Utah Antitrust Act. He is a graduate of the London School of Economics.

This op-ed was published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Utah Democrats stand in solidarity alongside the Iranian dissidents, showing their support for a democratic Iran by wearing green

2009-06-20T20:17:00.015-06:00

Earlier today, at the 2009 Utah State Democratic Party Organizing Convention, a large portion of attendees wore green wrist/arm bands, as well as green clothing, in order to stand in solidarity alongside the Iranian dissidents currently being violently oppressed by their own government, and thus to show their support for a democratic Iran.

The Utah Democratic Party appreciates and echoes President Obama's following message on the matter:

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

Wayne Holland wins State Party Chair race

2009-06-20T14:20:00.014-06:00

Wayne Holland, Jr. has just recently been announced as the winner of the Utah State Democratic Party Chair race. Thus, he will serve out a third term as the Party's Chair for the next two years. Wayne appreciates all the supporters who have made his re-election happen. Wayne congratulates Jeff Bell for running a great campaign, and thanks him for the competition, so that now the Party can examine some of the things it has done wrong in the past and to fix them so to improve the Party for the next two years and beyond. Wayne invites Jeff and all of his supporters to join him in helping improve the Party, so that much of the change desired can be made a reality. From this Democrat, and on behalf of all at State Party Headquarters, thank you very much to everyone who attended this year's organizing convention. Thank you in particular to all the volunteers who made this all possible. We look forward to working with, and serving, all of you even harder in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.

Voting soon to begin as speeches near end

2009-06-20T11:50:00.015-06:00

Registration has closed and most of the Party's candidates and leaders have had their time on the stage. The energy in the auditorium has been electrifying. Throughout the program, the auditorium has filled up with more and more wonderful Democrats. It is this kind of passion and involvement that will help us win the Governorship in 2010, and beat Bob Bennett for the U.S. Senate, among other races. The audience has just finished hearing from the various convention committees and listening to what they have to report, as well as watching a few great DNC videos, and nominating the candidates for the State Party Leadership. Right now the candidates for Chair, Jeff Bell and Wayne Holland, are making their cases to the delegates. In a moment, the convention will recess for balloting to elect the next Utah State Democratic Party Chair. Results will be announced here and on Twitter (https://twitter.com/UtahDemocrats) as soon as they are available. Stay tuned in, stay involved!

Above:
Congressman Jim Matheson at the podium

Below:
SL County Mayor Peter Corroon speaking

Registration is in full swing!

2009-06-20T08:50:00.017-06:00

Registration at the 2009 Utah State Democratic Party Organizing Convention has begun and is in full swing! Caucus meetings have already begun. If you haven't joined us at Murray High school yet (5440 S State Street in Murray), don't hesitate; there is still plenty of time to come meet Democrats from around the state, including Congressman Jim Matheson, SL County Mayor Peter Corroon, U.S. Senate Candidate Sam Granato, and Candidates for State Party Chair Wayne Holland and Jeff Bell!

Call to Order is at 11:00 A.M., in which candidate presentations, reports, speeches, and nominations will take place. Recess for balloting to elect the new State Party Chair is at 12:55 P.M. Resolutions will then be considered, including resolutions supporting the Fair Boundaries campaign (http://www.fairboundaries.org), supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, and honoring the life and career of Former Congressman Bill Orton. Results of the election will then be revealed, shortly before 2 P.M. and adjournment.

For more information, visit: http://www.utdemocrats.org/articles/view/138983

Follow us throughout the convention on Twitter: https://twitter.com/UtahDemocrats

Follow the Convention on Twitter

2009-06-19T10:11:00.001-06:00

There are a lot of Democrats who regularly use Twitter as a social networking tool.

A number of them will be using the hashtag #utpol, which covers a broad spectrum of Utah political issues. We also encourage them to use the hashtag #utdem on items specifically pertaining to the Utah State Democratic Organizing Convention so that people who want can follow this specific event.

If you are new to hashtags, simply add “#utdem” to any message you send on Twitter. People can then follow feed of many different commenters based on a search of #utdem at Twitter. We’ll also include the feed on this blog page.

Democrats Convention Going Green

2009-06-19T10:05:00.001-06:00

A theme seems to be spontaneously emerging for the state convention attendees: going green. Not eco-conscious green, but literally, the color green.

As the people of Iran take to the streets, rallies have sprung up across the globe in solidarity with Iranians protesting the results of last week’s election. Green has emerged as the symbol for the protesters, many of whom support the Green Party of Iran led by opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi.

A number of delegates have told us they will be wearing green to show their support for those engaged in the struggle for a democratic Iran.

Presidential Proclamation: Father’s Day 2009

2009-06-19T10:04:00.001-06:00

The journey of fatherhood provides unique and lasting joys. Cradling a baby in his arms, a father experiences the miracle of life and an unbreakable bond. Fathers imagine a world of possibilities awaiting their children and contemplate the privilege of helping them reach that expanse of opportunity. As kids grow and mature, they look to their dad for a special kind of love and support. Providing these necessities can bring great happiness.

Fatherhood also brings great responsibilities. Fathers have an obligation to help rear the children they bring into the world. Children deserve this care, and families need each father's active participation.

Fathers must help teach right from wrong and instill in their kids the values that sustain them for a lifetime. As they encounter new and challenging experiences, children need guidance and counsel. Fathers need to talk with their kids to help them through difficult times. Parents must also help their children make the right choices by serving as strong role models. Honest and hard-working fathers are an irreplaceable influence upon their children.

Communities must do more to counsel fathers. Family and friends, and faith-based and community organizations, can speak directly with men about the sacrifices and rewards of having a child. These groups can support men as they take on the great challenges of child-rearing. Through honest and open dialogue, more men can choose to become model parents and know the wonders of fatherhood.

On Father's Day, we pay tribute to the loving and caring fathers who are strengthening their families and country. We also honor those surrogate fathers who raise, mentor, or care for someone else's child. Thousands of young children benefit from the influence of great men, and we salute their willingness to give and continue giving. We also express special gratitude to fathers who serve in the United States Armed Forces for the sacrifices they and their families make every day. All of these individuals are making great contributions, and children across the country are better off for their care.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C. 109), do hereby proclaim June 21, 2009, as Father's Day. I direct the appropriate officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on this day. I urge all Americans to express their love, respect, and admiration to their fathers, and I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA

Juneteenth

2009-06-19T10:01:00.001-06:00

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and DNC Black Caucus Chair Virgie M. Rollins issued the following statement commemorating Juneteenth:

“On this day in 1865, emancipation finally made it west, freeing the last slaves in Texas. So today, we commemorate the end of slavery in America and honor all those throughout our history who have fought for freedom, equality and justice by celebrating Juneteenth.

“As we take time to honor this occasion, we also stop to consider the remarkable path African Americans have forged, from slavery to the White House. With the first African American President of the United States, we usher in an era of endless opportunity. A new generation of Americans will be raised with no limits to their dreams – something their predecessors, who fought for equality as slaves in the fields of Texas and Freedom Riders in the streets of Alabama, may have never been able to imagine.

“But while we have come a long way, we still have further to go. We at the DNC join President Obama and the African American community in the fight to ensure equality in education, employment, and health care for all Americans.”

Don’t bother trying to find him, Herbert’s not there

2009-06-17T15:21:00.001-06:00

The headline at the Deseret News caught my eye, “Herbert skeptical but concerned.” The article seemed to be an apologia, or defense, of Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert’s retreat from Huntsman published in the Salt Lake Tribune that he is not convinced of the need to address climate change, “Help me understand the science if, in fact, the science is conclusive."

When Energy Secretary Steven Chu tried to answer his question, the governor-in-waiting was not there. The Tribune reports, “The lieutenant governor's absence was "purely coincidental," said his chief of staff, Joe Demma, a case of "bad timing" that required Herbert to leave for another meeting.”

Joe Cannon’s Deseret News did not report Herbert’s absence at the moment that his question was being answered, and instead only reported people trying to be kind and not contradict the newbie. Herbert did not return the kindness accusing others of being two-faced to the public by saying that “other governors attending the meeting told him privately they agreed with him.”

Additionally, the Deseret News did not report on the answer to Herbert’s question by the people at the conference, either. Instead, leaving the reader to believe that the question was left unanswered, and that Herbert would have to “organize his own conference in Utah so scientists on both sides of the issue can make their arguments.”

The Governor-to-be should have taken advantage of the talent that was in Utah at a conference on the issue.

Speaking of being AWOL, Herbert currently has a duty to oversee the State Election Department. There have been a number of reports on problems there, but the latest one is not mostly of their making – but is one that soon-to-be Gov. Herbert could fix.

Unfortunately, like most state employees, they only work four days per week. And, it caused another kerfuffle last Friday when they were out. Sadly, a not unusual occurrence for Herbert’s Department.

The cause for concern was that HB346 requires candidates and officeholders to report contributions within 30 days of receipt. The law went into effect on May 12 and so Friday, June 12 was to be the first "reporting date".

Unfortunately, the Elections Department didn’t remind the effected group about the law. But Chris Bleak in the Speaker’s office caused a notice to be sent to legislators late Thursday evening reminding them of their duty. When lawmakers tried to find out how to comply the next day, of course, no one was around to at the Elections Department answer their questions.

Now, Utah election laws try to anticipate this problem in Section 20A-1-401 by saying that if “a specified date or event falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the following business day shall be used.” Looks like its time to amend that law to include any other day the office may not be open for business.

LaVarr Webb at Utah Policy Daily suggested that the new governor reverse the four day work week and/or that the legislature being an in-depth study. State Rep. Craig Frank at Under the Dome pointed out that his committee (Gov’t Ops Interim) would be taking up the issue.

So, here is a note specifically to Rep. Frank: I listened to the committee hearing and the glowing reports on the four day week – with all the caveats – and heard that there needs to be some solicitation of customer feedback. If you do solicit feedback from customers, it should to be on a department by department basis. While the extended hours may work well for vehicle registration, it does not work at the Elections Department (nor would it work for Legislative staff who do work on Friday). I deeply appreciate that the employees at Elections are friendly and try to be helpful, but it is amazing how many times I find myself calling them on a Friday only to realize they are not going to be there. I find that I have to take extraordinary measures to organize around election’s staff availability. It has not been a welcome change.

I have been told that, “The world is run by those who show up.” Apparently, Utah is exceptional.

Utah GOP votes to protect Big Tobacco

2009-06-12T11:04:00.001-06:00

Yesterday, Congress did something many thought impossible. They acted in a bipartisan manner overcoming heavy lobbyist pressure to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to examine what goes into tobacco products, ban those ingredients deemed dangerous to health, and limit marketing and sales.

The measure, HR1256, was nearly two decades in the making and passed the House in April with a vote of 307-97 and passed the Senate yesterday with a vote of 79-17.

According to the Associated Press, President Barack Obama hailed the moment, saying it "truly defines changes in Washington."

The initial major push for FDA oversight of tobacco came from Dr. David A Kessler, a former staffer for Sen. Orrin Hatch who was appointed as the FDA Commissioner in 1990 by Pres. George HW Bush and was reappointed by Pres. Clinton.

In an ironic turn of events among the distinct minority of members of Congress opposing this public health measure we find Sen. Hatch and his Utah GOP colleagues Sen. Bob Bennett, Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Rep. Rob Bishop. For the record, Congressman Matheson voted with the majority for FDA oversight of tobacco.

The measure puts special emphasis on dissuading young people from taking up smoking for the first time by prohibiting the use of candied and flavored cigarettes popular among young people and severely restricting advertisements and promotions targeted toward youth.

It bans use of words such as "mild" or "light" that give the impression that the brand is safer. It requires stronger warning labels.

The FDA would also require tobacco companies to reveal the contents of their products and they'd have to seek approval for marketing new products. It gives the FDA power to order changes to ingredients, including tar and nicotine, to protect public health.

There has been much made in the punditocracy about the connection between Southern Republicans and Republicans from the “Mormon Triangle” of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. The Southern faction did indeed vote against this measure along with the Utah GOP. But, it is interesting to note that the rest of the “Triangle” did not join in: all of Idaho’s congressional delegation supported the act, as did Wyoming’s Senators, and for additional emphasis GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

We know where the Utah public stands on this issue. What is the Utah GOP getting in return for its failure to protect public health?

Redistricting: Speaker Clark’s irresponsible position

2009-06-11T14:02:00.001-06:00

Starting today legislators from around the country are meeting in San Francisco to hear the latest about redistricting from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Sadly, Utah House Speaker Dave Clark chairs NCSL’s redistricting efforts. His solution is to be more like Utah -- avoid accountability and confound the public about what is really happening. Values and principles are to be avoided at all costs. Stick with minimal court mandates.

According to City Weekly, House Speaker Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara is no fan of the Fair Boundaries citizen’s initiative to bring some sanity to Utah’s redistricting process. His complaints: 1) it would invite lawsuits; and, 2) redistricting has less to do with politics than population shifts.

The current legislative process hews to no values and, therefore, no accountability beyond the broad rules set forth by the Supreme Court. The Fair Boundaries initiative does provide values and, hence, accountability.

This might indeed lead to lawsuits, but I doubt it. The initiative provides for such careful documentation that the reasons decisions are made are transparent; legislative counsel is to be an integral part of the process; and, there is a process for the legislators to over-ride the commission. A process of accountability could have consequences that includes lawsuits. It could also include legislators being voted out of office if they do not support a commission that acts fairly or fail to oppose a commission that abuses its power. The State Constitution requires that ultimately it is the legislature, and not the commission, that makes the final decision. With a commission, the pressure is on.

Think of it: Accountability. Values. Rules made in law instead of by the courts. Checks and balances. Communities and people prioritized over politics.

As to Clark’s second point, he has it wrong. Redistricting should have less to do with politics than population shifts – but that is not the way it works in Utah where politics is triumphant.

We have heard this before. In 2001, the Republicans insisted that population shifts had forced them to do what they did – politics played no part.

Bulls**t!!!

It wasn’t population shifts that hurt Democrats during the 2001 round of redistricting. It was the politics.

The Democratic Party submitted a plan in full compliance with the law and population shifts that would not have changed the historical partisan vote in any State House or Senate district by more than one percent. It only combined two members of the State House – one Republican with one Democrat – in Salt Lake County to create a new seat in Washington County.

The State House districts with the three largest population deficits were all held by Republicans: Afton Bradshaw, Lamont Tyler and Greg Curtis. The top four State Senate districts with the slowest growth were all held by Republicans, too: Lyle Hillyard, Pete Knudson, Scott Jenkins and David Steele.

As we noted in our plan, the Democratic Party could have drawn districts where Democrats would have been competitive in 36 of the 75 House districts and 14 of the 29 Senate districts. Political reality prevented us from even presenting this option.

The only place we suggested big changes was in the congressional maps to reverse the gerrymander that had taken place in 1991. It too would not likely have changed the party division for Utah’s Congressional delegation. But it was logical and respected communities. In our plan for Congress every county, save Salt Lake, was kept whole and every city and town within Salt Lake County was kept whole.

CD01: Counties – Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Morgan, Rich, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Wasatch and Weber.

CD02: Cities & Towns – Alta, Cottonwood Heights, Holladay, Kearns, Magna, Midvale, Millcreek, Murray, Sandy, Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Taylorsville and White City.

CD03: Cities & Towns – Bluffdale, Draper, Herriman, Riverton, South Jordan and West Jordan; Counties – Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Utah, Washington and Wayne.

Speaker Clark’s opposition to Fair Boundaries is about avoiding accountability and obfuscating the oversized role politics plays in the redistricting process.

Housing: One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small

2009-06-10T14:12:00.001-06:00

The credit bubble creates too much new housing stock and then government rebates help sell it off. First, too much. Then, too little. Will it ever get to be just right?

Yesterday, the Deseret News reported the end of the state's three month old "Home Run" housing grant program of $6,000 each to Utahns purchasing newly constructed, never-occupied, single-family homes. Demand has exceeded expectations to the point that the Utah Housing Corp., which administers the grants, anticipates the $10 million one-time federal stimulus money funding the program will be gone by week's end. And when they're gone, they're gone.

This program was funded by the Obama fiscal stimulus bill. It was part of $90 million given to Gov. Jon Huntsman to use at his own discretion. Other funds went to USTAR and film subsidies. This was clearly a gift to Ivory Homes and other developers who overbuilt during the easy credit heyday.

According to the article, most of the grant money has gone to assist the lower- and middle-income Utahns.

But the valid criticism remains that it subsidizes homebuilders at the expense of ordinary Utahns attempting to sell their existing homes without the help of the government. The federal government's tax credit for first-time buyers, which can be as much as $8,000, does not distinguish between new and existing housing. But it too will be over in December.

One commenter on the D News article wrote that the credit bubble and the recent government rebates have fueled “hallucinogenic home prices” that will leave a strong hangover in next year’s market. The best housing prices may be yet to come – even without the rebates.

Perhaps, Obama/Huntsman have engineered a soft-landing for the housing market, helped a number of low- and middle-income Utahns get affordable housing, aided in a quicker recovery for the construction trades, and may have benefitted existing homeowners by preventing a total collapse of the housing market (it’s hard to prove a negative). All good things. But we need to remember two things: 1) it came with a cost to taxpayers; and, 2)many developers profited beyond what they should have.

There is a way that developers can repay this debt to taxpayers: Stop opposing impact fees from local communities. It is time that you start paying your own way instead of putting an unbearable load on the backs of our existing communities. The new “free market” norm needs to include all the costs. Legislators, City Councils, and voters should demand this whether the developers approve or not.

Yes, these fees increase costs for new housing, but they conserve and upgrade existing housing and infrastructure avoiding the moronic situation we Utahns see annually where we raise taxes to build new schools while closing those in older neighborhoods. Existing homes would sell better, fewer new roads would be needed, commute times would be shorter, less California-like sprawl and the mind numbing sameness of the strip mall culture, more energy efficiency, more conservation of materials – in short, a virtuous cycle to replace the vicious cycle we now face.

With a nod to Jefferson Airplane, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens when “the pill” doesn’t do anything at all.

h/t Voice of Utah

Healthcare Reform: The devil is in the . . . talking points?

2009-06-10T10:37:00.001-06:00

Monday Sen. Orrin Hatch went on FOX News to attack healthcare reform legislation. He was on message using Frank Luntz talking points. The problem is those talking points do not address the legislation that is actually proposed.

According to Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress.org, contrary to Hatch’s insistence that the bill would put a bureaucrat “between you and your doctor,” Section 2 of the draft legislation explicitly states that “a strong doctor-patient relationship is essential to the practice of medicine, and patients have a right to an effective doctor patient relationship.”

Apparently the details don’t matter – only the talking points do.

Carrie Budoff Brown at Politico shows Democrats fire back with a memo from Paul Begala. His talking points speak a little more to the actual legislation proposed, but it is more of a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. Luntz.

To sum up the talking points memos:

Advice to Republicans -- Obstruct health reform by ignoring what Obama is actually offering, and instead, attack what you wish the Democrats were proposing.

Advice to Democrats -- Push back hard against Republican Orwellian rhetoric. Because they know they cannot win the argument honestly, Republicans are resorting to mendacity.

Advice to voters -- Take seriously former Senate Leader George Mitchell as quoted in the opening of Begala’s talking points memo: “The only people who give any credence to Republican Senators’ rhetoric is Democratic Senators.”

GOP Idea: The Cassandra Committee

2009-06-09T13:16:00.001-06:00

According to Reuters news service, the Obama administration is set to announce next week a comprehensive package of fiscal system reforms in response to the worst financial crisis in generations.

A centerpiece of the proposal is to establish a "systemic risk regulator" that would monitor and intervene to address potential financial dangers in the economy.

The Party of “No” wants to get into the game with some proposals of their own. Which is a good thing, but their solution is a study group.

Reuters reports that the GOP draft package opposes giving systemic risk authority to the Federal Reserve. Instead, the Republicans call for creating a board of regulators and outside experts, chaired by the Treasury secretary, to study systemic risk and report quarterly. The board would have no enforcement or supervisory powers.

Republicans are good at coming up with misleading names like the Clear Skies Act or the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. One thing they won’t do is name it what it really is. This proposed group should be named the Cassandra Committee.

In Greek mythology, Cassandra was given the gift of prophesy and the curse that no one would believe her.

The American Enterprise Institute points to Hyman P. Minsky (1919-96), a theorist of the human foundations of credit over-expansions and busts. His work is regularly rediscovered in times of financial crisis. Minksy writing in 1986, "As a previous financial crisis recedes in time, it is quite natural for central bankers, government officials, bankers, businessmen, and even economists to believe that a new era has arrived. Cassandra-like warnings that nothing basic has changed . . . are naturally ignored."

The Cassandra Committee can have a quarterly campfire sing-a-long to Everlast who summed it up in a song lyric: Baby don't cry/ praise the most high/ I tell you no lie/ we're all gonna die.

In an unrelated story at Politico, the headline reads, “Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush.” Is it any wonder?

What Americans Really Think

2009-06-09T09:54:00.001-06:00

Starting on Sunday, the Western Governor’s Association is meeting in Park City. Expected at the meeting are eleven Western Governors and three Western Canadian Premiers and 500 attendees including Obama Administration officials, other VIPs and industry and non-governmental leaders from the West, across the country and around the world.

Water, renewable energy and climate change are the chief topics.

But for twenty minutes on Sunday, between 3:00 and 3:20 p.m. in the Impressionist Ballroom, Frank Luntz, President of The Word Doctors, will tell them “What Americans Really Think.”

Detail: An examination of American public opinion and "words that work" on key issues -- with an emphasis on the opinions of residents from Western states.

Apparently, there’s not much to it.