With Congress planning on staying in session during the holiday to discuss changing the debt ceiling, I have to continually pound my head against a wall when I hear that Republicans absolutely refuse to move on raising taxes.

Now, I get it; Republicans don’t want to look weak against a president they can not stand, and they sure don’t want to be seen as tax raisers, but it is time to put bickering aside and actually start talking about real solutions to solving the debt and deficit crisis.

We often hear from Republicans that government should be run by a business – although with the implosion of Wall Street, they have started to back away from this comparison and have started to say that government’s budget should be run like a family budget.  Either way, they seem to think that the only way that either of these institutions work is by cutting spending, not by making investments and looking for more revenue.

To be sure, in the short term both businesses and families have to cut back on some of the more luxurious items they may have in their budget. But at some point businesses and families can’t cut anymore and still be around – for a company, at some point they have to shutter the doors, and for a family they will need to, at some point, end up on the streets. With the debt ceiling debate, we are coming dangerously close to creating the same situation with our government.

We have all been through lean times, and many of us have probably worked for companies that had to make difficult decisions – but we often prevail. Why? Because after we have cut as much as we are able, we start to find ways to generate more revenue for ourselves. Businesses may cut prices, merge with a more successful company, or create a new product or service that brings in more money; families with budget shortfalls may have adults who gain more skills, becoming more employable, or take on a second job.  In short, we find ways to get more cash.

So why, Republicans, can’t we do the same for government? If you truly feel that government should be run under these types of models, but your money where your mouth is.

Aside from the far right Tea Party, few feel that any more cuts can reasonably be made – no one wants to loose their social security, and many don’t see military budget cuts as an option – so where does that leave us?

Yup, ya need to raise taxes.

Step one would be getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and bring things back into line with pre-2001 tax rates (remember when Clinton handed Bush a surplus? Well this is part of the reason). But even this plan wont work. During the booming 50′s under Republican Eisenhower, the top rate was a whopping 91% , under Nixon it was 70%, even Reagan set the bar to 50%. In other words, Republicans were not afraid to raise taxes on the most wealthy (and we are talking the top 1% here).

During this entire time the deficit never topped $4 trillion – still high, but paltry when compared to today’s $14.4 trillion.

We need to generate more revenue, and the money is out there. High tax rates for the upper, upper class have existed during grand economic growth, and the “trickle down” Republicans are so fond of spouting surly should have produced something during the 30 years it has been advocated for. Indeed, as I alluded to before, when Clinton raised the tax rate to nearly 40%, our economy didn’t suffer, indeed it was boom times and we had a budget surplus.

Should we make cuts? Yes, that is part of sound policy. But we also need to bring in more money through taxation to ensure our books are balanced. By not moving on tax cuts, Republicans are playing a dangerous game – one that we can not afford to lose.

Earlier today, eight or nine (reports vary) individuals continually interrupted the peoples business in House of Representatives as debate closed on the Democratic federal budget plans by singing, one by one, an altered version of the Star Spangled Banner (transcript).  Currently, The City Weekly is reporting that one of these individuals was Deb Henry, local blogger and activist.

Henry was there as part of the Peaceful Uprising movement, attending the Powershift climate conference when she apparently chose to take a side trip to our nations capitol building. Although it is unclear if this was the moment Henry was detained, here is an example of what took place:

It is clear that the protesters were not interested in reasonable nor rational debate, rather they were interested in disrupting the proceedings in order to get their point across.

Problem is no one was clear as to what their point actually was. The New York Times said that “(i)t was unclear precisely what grievance the protesters sought to air, but one arrested woman, who looked to be in her early 20s said, “We just want our government to protect the earth.”

This type of action is unacceptable under any circumstance and should roundly be condemned. Despite this groups perceived grievances, they still interrupted the peoples work. This is made even worse by the fact that, to the outside public we don’t even know why they did it.

I am not happy with the current lack of safety afforded to our environment, and I know that the conservative Republicans currently in control of the House are going to do little to change the situation, but disrupting an open and public gathering of the House of Representatives is both rude, it is also a slap to the face of our democratic process.

This group, no doubt, was inspired by the actions of Tim DeChristopher in is attempt to disrupt an illegal auction of lands in Utah. But what separates the actions of DeChristopher to those that took place today was that auction was illegal, while the actions on the floor of the House represent everything that our democracy should take pride in – indeed, DeChristopher interrupted because the public’s interest was not being upheld; these protesters, on the other hand, interrupted despite it.

I know Henry personally, hell she was a brides maid for my wife. But this conduct is simply not right. Making the problem worse is that Henry is currently running for Vice-Chair of the Utah Democratic Party. Her actions today show that she would be disrespectful to the political process and could easily create conduct unbecoming of a person in such a position. It is a shame, really, that her honest and pure passion has been muddied by the actions of this small group.

So, as I was thumbing through my 8th grade American History text book, I came across a section that talked about how a bunch of states got together and decided that they did not like the laws the federal government was passing. Oooh, those states got riled up, and so they did what they thought was right – seceded from the Union. What followed was a civil war, Jim Crow laws, and a continued mistrust of the government.

Now David Clark’s (R – Santa Clara, District 74) joint resolution, HJR 2 – Joint Resolution Applying to Congress to Call a Constitutional Convention on the Process for Repeal of Federal Laws, does not advocate for separation from the Union, nor does it state that the federal government has no right to do anything – no, what it does state is that the there should be a constitutional amendment that allows states the right to reverse a federal law if two-thirds of state legislatures decide that they do not support the bill.

This, of course, is a knee-jerk reaction to Health Care Reform…after all, Clark was not prosing this bill when No Child Left Behind was being proposed (despite numerous complaints from both the left and the right on the hill), no, it is just now that such a law is in vogue.

And why? Well basically the debate regarding federalism ebbs and flows – and right now it is more of a flood rather than a discussion. And usually the people who are not in charge of the federal government tend to do the complaining.

Clark points out very agreeable reasons as to why things have gotten out of hand, but I find it interesting that Clark feels that it is okay for state legislators to directly overturn federal law, but hates the idea of citizens overturning state law. I wonder what the difference really is, legislators come from the people and are apparently wise enough to make that decision – ah but I digress.

This resolution is not sedition, but it is intentionally designed to allow states to pick and choose what laws to follow. I say, if you don’t like a law, you lobby against it; perhaps work to get people elected who feel the same way as you (just a thought). This resolution is an example of Clark wanting to take his ball and go home because he is not allowed to change the rules.

Urgency Score:

Click here to Contact Representative Clark

It is that time again, where less than half the population chooses who will lead everyone for the next two, four, and six years (depending on the election). Here are my predictions based on gut feeling, recent polls, and just a touch of hopeless optimism that people like liberals as much as I do.

Nationally

Demo’s in the Doghouse

It should come as no surprise that Democrats are going to take a thumping this year…though I suspect it is not going to be as bad as everyone is making it out to be. The simple fact of the matter is that people are upset that the economy has not turned around and have failed to see the legitimate accomplishments of the Obama administration. But, not having a job (or being underemployed) is a major stress on people and it is easy to see why they want a solution and they want it fast.

Democrats will loose the House but maintain a majority in the Senate.  In the House, my guess is 204 to 230 – for the Senate 52 t0 48.

The question, of course, is how Obama will have to adapt to the new situation. Odds are we will see something similar to the Clinton years where compromise was key on legislation. Outwardly, things will be much more contentious, however good laws will probably come out of the debate.

Senate

National Budget will be instantly slashed by 40%

Despite a strong showing by Granato, Mike Lee will be the junior senator from Utah. Granato’s problems were twofold: 1) he is running as a Democrat in Utah, 2) he was planning on running against Bob Bennett. Lee’s style was and furor amongst supporters made victory a near impossibility whereas Bennett was predictable and measured – Granato never seemed to be able to adapt to the game-changer despite great attempts to do so. Lee wins 59-35 with the remaining 6 percent going to third party candidates.

House

More of the same:

Bishop is back

In CD 1 Rob Bishop will soundly beat Morgan Bowen, his rival in 2008, and he will do it with a wider margin. Bowen’s fire at the Democratic convention fizzled and Bishop hopped on the Tea Party bus to take advantage of the movement and the extra votes that come with it. Bishop wins 70-25 with the remaining 5 percent going to third party candidates.

Philpot = looser

CD 2 has been one of the more contentious races, but Jim Matheson will hold off Morgan Philpot. Republicans smelled blood in the water early and jumped on the chance to boot the five term Democrat, but Matheson, primed from an inner party challenge, was is campaign mode early on and knew how to get votes. Philpot, on the other hand, never seemed to come out with a coherent message other than “hey, I am a Republican, you should vote for me, look how scary Nancy Pelosi is even though you don’t know what she does.” Matheson wins 54-46 with the remaining 8 percent going to third party candidates.

Chaffetz keeps his cot

CD 3 was an interesting race from a philosophical standpoint: would people in Utah County even listen to a Democrat despite the fact that they were a conservative Democrat who once listed themselves as a Republican? Well, it turns out the answer is no. Karen Hyer might be able to beat Jason Chaffetz in a leg wrestling match, but not much else. A shame, really, as Hyer was a strong candidate with fire in her belly. Chaffetz wins 70-24 with the remaining 6 percent going to third party candidates.

Governor

Two more years of poor leadership

I had said early on that Peter Corroon was the Democrats best chance to take the governors seat away from the Republicans as Herbert was weak and inexperienced.  Sadly, this does not mean that Corroon will be our next governor. Corroon did everything right – choosing a Republican as his running mate, raising funds, campaigning strong, and asking tough questions, but it is simply not enough to put him over the top. I hope Corroon comes back in 2012 with even more fight in him, as his campaign put all Republicans on edge, and made Democrats proud locally. Herbert wins 62-34 with the remaining 4 percent going to thrid party candidates.

Utah State Senate

More of the same

Don’t expect much to happen in the Utah State Senate.  Though some races are tighter than others (Gene Davis vs. Lee Brinton and Wayne Niederhauser vs. Tyler Ayers) I don’t suspect that any incumbents will be booted this year. The real question will be how districts are redrawn during the legislative session and what the 2012 election will look like.

Utah State House

Gerrymandered districts and Dems on Defense

It should come as no surprise that, in Utah’s severely gerrymandered districts, that few faces will change on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the only real change will be the people filling the seats of their fellow party members who either have chosen to step down or were booted at convention. A few races should be interesting, however: Patrice Arent vs. Jason Epps in District 36 features a former lawmaker (Arent) attempting to hold a seat recently won by the Democrats in 2006; District 44 features the very popular Tim Cosgrove against former basketball player Shawn Bradley (who’s only policy position seems to be, in fact, that he is quite tall), will voters on the west side vote for star power alone? Finally House District 48 features a rematch between incumbent Trish Beck and former representative from the district, LaVar Christensen – in the last bout, Beck was victorious by less than 230 votes.

Salt Lake County

The more things change…

The Salt Lake County Council will have some fresh faces on its nine member panel. Republicans are eager to point out that Richard Snelgrove will beat Holly Mullen to win control of the at large seat.  Indeed, I suspect that Mullen peaked too early and could not construct a proper campaign to last her into November; Snelgrove will win 56-42. In County Council District 1, Arlyn Bradshaw will coast past competitor Steve Harmsen in the extremely liberal district 72-28. In County Council District 5, Tyler Andrus, the Democrat, has put up a good fight, but the conservative district will likely not sway and, instead, vote back into office Steve DeBry by a margin of 55-45.

This would split the council 4-4. We now turn our head towards County Council District 3 – a repeat of 2006 where the victor was chosen by just over 900 votes. In the match between the Democrat, Diane Turner, and the Republican David Wilde, the contest would not be more heated.  Turner is out for victory and has worked hard to ensure that she will see victory. I feel that the efforts by Turner and her campaign staff have been nothing less than astonishing, and I feel that it will pay off. Turner will beat Wilde 54-47 and a Democratic majority will remain in the County Council.

On the executive side, Jim Winder and Sherry Swensen will coast to victory. Swensen will have the widest margin of victory due in part to her overall popularity and the childish campaign her opponent has run; Swensen wins 65-35. Winder will also soundly trounce his opponent 62-38.

The one big shake up will be in the District Attorney’s office. Lohra Miller has mismanaged the office and the voters have noticed – at the time of her election it was clear that she was inexperienced, and Sim Gill has used this as his rallying cry in another repeat campaign between the two.  Gill’s message has been clear and they have campaigned effectively. Gill beats Miller 53-47.

I must admit that I was rather entertained when, earlier this week, the right wing bloggers went so far as to call Representative Jim Matheson a “lap dog.” for Speaker of thr House, Nancy Pelosi. This, coming on the heals of the ever-so-clever “Matheson=Pelosi” lawn signs that have popped up over the past week shows that there is a coordinated, if somewhat unofficial, push by the right to pan the moderate left Matheson as the worst socialist, communist, liberal, Democrat this side of Hillary Clinton.

This, of course, should come as no supprise. In a hyper-polarized election season were Democrats in general, and moderate Democrats in particular, are under attack by Republicans in their attempt to take back the House and Senate.  To their credit, it is working in many cases.

Utah, however, is a different story.

Those far left, Pelosi loving Democrats already did the work for these mud-slingers this past spring when the Claudia  Wright campaign attempted to boot Matheson in convention and during a primary. Hyper, and not so hyper, leftist supporters of Wright pointed to the fact that Matheson was not being liberal enough, sighting that he only votes with the party on important issues half of the time. Matheson, in an attempt to counter by stating that he has voted with his party over 90 percent of the time.

So which is true? Well, the answer is both and neither when determining if Matheson is a lap dog. On issues important to the Democratic party, he is about as reliable as 1972 Ford Pinto. On issues as mundane government, he is on par with his fellow Congressmen.

When looking that these facts, it shows that Matheson does, in fact, vote the way his constituants want him to. Remember his recent no vote on heathcare? No? Well the left does, and I can tell you lap dogs do not vote againts the Presidents flagship legislation.

But, not missing an oppritunity to distort the facts, Matheson haters point to his 92.3 percent “Democratic” voting record as a great sin against the nation and proof that Matheson is only able to vote on an issue when his superiors tell him how.

Furthermore they point to the fact that Matheson voted for Pelosi as Speaker as proof that he is a lap dog, while failing to tell voters that his only other option was the Minority Leader Boehner. Debates on who will hold leadership positions take place long before an official vote takes place – and these debates take place behind closed door where we would never know how Matheson (or anyone else for that matter) really feels. Asking Matheson to “vote against” Pelosi is like asking Jason Chaffetz to vote for her – it simply isn’t going to happen.

But these attacks will, most likely, fall short. Five Thirty Eight predicts that Matheson will beat his opponent by 10.1 points…with a margin of error of 9.4 points. At worst, Matheson wins by slim 50.35 to 49.65 percent. This, of course, is not the most impressive of margins, but it also assumes that just about everything goes wrong for Matheson, something a seasoned campaigner such as himself most likely does not have to worry about.

So keep barking far right, but Matheson is no lap dog.

I have been thinking about the recent uproar surrounding the immigration debate and the anger being generated by the far right about how them illegals are ruining the country – I am looking at you tea-baggers. But, sometimes in the same hate-filled rants, they tout how the free market is the savior of all our problems and that the government just needs to step out of the peoples business.

My first question is this: how is it, far righters, that you are able to so gracefully speak out of both sides of your mouth like that?

You do know that illegal immigration is a direct result of the free market? Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are a result of the very basic free market principals of supply and demand. On the producer side, the owner of a company demands labor at the cheapest price possible and, in many cases, that demand is supplied by immigrant labor.  On the consumer side, we demand our products and services to be as cheep as possible, and this is only made possible due to the cheep labor immigrants provide regardless of their citizenship status.

Next question: is it possible that your dogmatic thought has no thought behind it?

Then, if that logical fallacy isn’t enough, the vitriol is often followed up with some sort of statement about claiming that the founding fathers, through the Constitution, are the solution to all of our problems and that this is evidenced by the fact they included the 10th Amendment to ensure that the states would be able to regulate certain powers and that the government would not be able to stop the states from protecting themselves.

Problem is that, naturally, these zealots probably have not read the 10th Amendment and/or are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Here is a brief recap of the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now the funny thing is immigration is, indirectly, delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states that:

(The Congress has the power) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Now it is true that immigration rules are not directly naturalization rules, but, thankfully, the Supreme Court has said that it does not make sense for the government to make laws regarding how an immigrant becomes a citizen, but can’t regulate how that person came here in the first place.

I will grant you that the U.S. government has not done a bang-up job regarding immigration, but it is still their job.

Lets recap: the free market will fix everything, except for immigration and that the government is too big to handle this issue even though it is expressly written into the Constitution as is never wrong.

So my last and honest question to the far right: how do you reconcile these obvious flaws in your thinking?

Is it possible that this is a more complex issue that requires more thought than just kickin’ em’ out?

You may or may not be following the debate currently taking place in our own back yard.  Arizona just passed sweeping immigration legislation that has ruffled a few feathers (to put it mildly). The most controversial provision allows law enforcement to question any individual about their immigration status, regardless of why the officer initially wished to speak to the individual.

Today, the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Representative Stephen Sandstrom (R – Orem, District 58) wants to pass a similar law for Utah.

Before ripping into Rep. Sandstrom, some history. In 2008, the Utah State Legislature passed SB 81 – a law that, among other things, deputizes police officers as immigration officers. Now, I am not going to harp about that law, as it has already passed (mostly because it has already passed into law – but expect more criticism if this pushes forward).  No, let us focus on the current proposed bill and its potential impact.

If a law similar to Arizona were to pass in Utah, not only would police officers be able to question you for any reason about your immigration status, they could immediately arrest you based on your answer. “Well, how is this different from any other questioning police officers do?” you may rightfully ask.

First of all, immigration control is not a state issue. Indeed, if there is any issue that is a national one, it is protecting its boarders – people (not just citizens) are free to move within the boarder with no resistance.  This concept is outlined in the commerce clause of the Constitution. Second we need to consider not just the word of the law, but also the nature of the law as to why it is not right for officers to have this extra power.

Now, not many people know this, but when I was younger I actually trained to be a police officer. I only stuck around one day, but they taught me something very important: all murderers have black hair, large ears, dark eyes, and like to wear ties. If I am to see anyone matching this description, I should immediately question them and possibly arrest them if I think there is a slight chance they could have committed a crime.  Is it fair? No, but almost every murderer (I was told) matches this description.

This, of course, is absurd.  But when I say “illegal immigrant” do you think of someone who looks like Representative Sandstrom? Or do you think of someone who looks like Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck? And be honest. Both are citizens, both are law makers, but if you knew nothing about either individual aside from their name and face and you were told to start questioning people about their immigration status, who would you harass?

Congratulations, you just committed racial profiling. It is part of human nature and it is not how our justice system should work.

This law leaves the door wide open for mass “questioning” of individuals as part of a systematic way to get rid of individuals. Now, Representative Chavez-Houck could, in theory, be caught up in such raids numerous times, only to be released – but not before being away from her friends, family, job, and life in general. What if we started rounding up murderers who matched my description? Would you still say the law was fair?  After these individuals were rounded up, they could immediately be hauled off to a federal jail, despite the fact that this is well beyond the Herriman City Cops jurisdiction.

This leads me to my next point. Why is it that Representative Sandstrom, a member of the far right Patrick Henry Caucus, is so eager to enact such a law? After all, he just spent an entire legislative session trying to buck off the federal government, stating that they have overreached their bounds in almost every aspect of our daily lives. Now, he seems more than happy to have the state take on this particular aspect of federal regulation even though, again, it is not within Utah’s jurisdiction to even touch this matter thereby overreaching its boundaries.

We are required to provide basic services to everyone within our boarders, whether or not  they are here legally. Illegal immigration is, therefore, a fundamentally different issue than murder. Laws, such as Arizona’s take us down a very real path of racial profiling, fueled by distrust, hate, and anger, towards a future that very much looks like Nazi Germany before the start of the Holocaust. Our history shows that rounding up individuals and interning them is not a foreign concept in America – indeed, we do not even need to leave this states boarders to see Japanese internment camps a mere 100 miles away from the Capitol building.

I am a firm believer that we have become better since those days, but I am also a firm believer that we could easily go back if we are not careful. There needs to be a solution to the illegal immigration problem, but it needs to come from the federal level. Legislation is on deck (after the Wall Street reform bill) to discuss this very issue.

Representative Sandstrom, let the feds do their job – provide input, but don’t make Utah look backwards and don’t send us down this rabbit hole.

I constantly hear those on the Right complain about the freeloaders and moochers who use the system to avoid actually working. Well, to all the commentators out there, let me explain my story in brief in a feeble attempt to break your close-mindedness.

I am:

• White
• Male
• Middle Class
• College Educated
• In debt because of this
• Actively seeking a job that is not in a call center or service industry
• Not qualified to receive unemployment
• An otherwise contributing member of society

Truman said it best: “A recession is when your neighbor looses his job, a depression is when you loose your job.” Well, let there be no doubt, I am in a “depression” as we speak.

I want a job, I want to contribute, and I want the society I have been a part of (and paid into I might add) to help me at this moment. No, I am not a welfare queen or a trust fund kid who does not care – no, I am young, I want to work, and I can’t.

This recession is not about bloated government spending, it is not about socialism penetrating our hospitals, it is not about how our rights have been taken away. No, this recession is about good, honest, hard working people struggling to keep their head above water, and I am thankful that this administration is trying to make changes that allow me to do that.

The role of the government should never be to tell me how to live my life, it should be to give me the tools I need to ensure I make this nation a better place. Frankly, I feel a lot of talking heads and politicians have lost sight of this.

And 50 years of prosperity followed…

I will come out and say it, right off the bat, that President Obama was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the work he has done up to this point…but that is not the point of this posting.  No, the point is that we live in a political climate where something as praiseworthy as receiving one of the most prestigious awards in the world is met with scorn by political opponents.

It is obvious, at this point, that most far-right Republican leaders, pundits, and organizations are more concerned with Obama failing than our nation succeeding – or to put it much more harshly, these people want our country to fail in order to prove a point.  These people are putting personal gain above national need.  There is a word for this…it is treason.

Yes, treason.

They are showing disloyalty and a willful desire to disrupt the workings of the state that goes beyond the sacred right to protest.  During the Bush administration many left commentators questioned policy and actions of the president by standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs how they wish that more would be done or less would be done…but at no point did commentators wish that he failed at his job.  Fairly or unfairly, many of the people protesting simply felt that he already had failed.

This is not what we see today.  Rush Limbaugh, one of the de facto leaders of the Republican Party, famously wished that Obama would fail; organizations cheer when Chicago looses its bid for the Olympics and panic when the nation’s leader tells children to stay in school; Glen Beck blatantly accuses the president of racism; Teabaggers bring firearms to rallies in a clear act of intimidation towards the nations leader and supporters and Congressmen shout at the President when addressing the nation.

On the playground we call these actions bullying, on the national stage we call it sedition. It is not how our Republic should be run.

I sincerely believe that this is not the mindset of the majority of Republicans who disagree with Obama – they have legitimate concerns about the policies he is putting forth, just as the left had concerns about the policies of the Bush era. But I also believe that there is a sizable minority of Republicans who are overtly undermining our democratically elected leader in order to insert a radical agenda that benefits only them and not the nation.

It should be noted that our system has a more peaceful way of removing leaders that is the epitome of patriotism – the act of voting. We as a nation either support or oppose the President every two years and decide if he is failing our nation every four. But I don’t know of any true American that wants our nation fail simply because they don’t like the leader of the country.

I am proud of my liberal ideology, and I am not afraid to express my displeasure at the policies that any leader puts forth. But if I had to choose between country and party, my country will win every time – I am an American first and foremost. I would never wish for my leader to fail and, by extension, our country to fail to do otherwise would mean that we all have failed.

E pluribus unum indeed.