From Peg McEntee’s article on April 18th:

Denice Graham is back at work in the Utah Department of Transportation after being summarily sacked by administrators who accused her of leaking confidential information about a bid for a $1.1 billion contract to rebuild a stretch of Interstate 15…

When the truth came out about a botched bidding process, $13 million in compensation to a construction company and big bucks from the winning bidder to Gov. Gary Herbert’s re-election campaign, only one person — Graham — was blamed.

But in February, the state’s Career Service Review Office issued a scathing ruling that UDOT Executive Director John Njord’s firing of Graham “exceeded the bounds of reasonableness and rationality and amounts to an abuse of discretion…”

…Graham was accused of leaking “confidential” information that wasn’t actually confidential. A bidder on the I-15 project had called to find out whether a competitor had won the bid, and Graham went to a UDOT website and gave the caller the names of the top three contenders.

Flash forward to Robert Geherke’s article today: UDOT wanted to silence politics around fired worker’s case.

The Utah Department of Transportation made an unusual request of a reinstated employee wrongly terminated in the wake of an Interstate 15 contracting scandal: Tell the Democrats to shut up about it…

Graham returned to work at UDOT on April 2 but has been negotiating with UDOT over more than $67,000 in back pay. As part of the negotiation, UDOT asked Graham to tell Democrats to stop using her case for political purposes and state that the judge erred in reinstating her.

The letter (used to make the request) asking the Democrats to stop using (Graham’s) case was drafted by Assistant Attorney General David Pena…”I hope you will respect my wishes and discontinue using my likeness and story in any political mailings, e-mails, etc.,” read the letter that Pena asked Graham to sign.

Still don’t get it? Let Pat Bagley sum it up:

When this story originally broke, I asked the question: Is Governor Herbert Inept or Corrupt? Around the same time, I predicted a scapegoat was not far behind (though I was foolish enough to think that the head of UDOT would take the fall and not some lackey – ah the folly of youth).

It is clear now that UDOT and Herbert’s office showed, at best, extremely poor management skills. In reality, I always say that if it looks, sounds, and acts like a duck, it probably is. The act of demanding that Graham shut up about the situation just adds to the reasons as to why the “just following orders” line doesn’t pass the smell test.

Every true citizen should honestly ask themselves if this is how they want state government to be run – with companies winning bids after giving contributions, loosing bidders being paid off to not complain about the corrupt process, and hard working civil servants taking the fall for it all.

It may not seem obvious, but the ship that is Utah is leaking; and it is happening because of complacent and disenfranchised voters mechanically electing people simply because that is how it has always been done.

We, as voters, need to realize that incumbency does not equate to inherent ability; simply that, at some point, an individual (through dumb luck or determination) found a way to get more votes than the other guy.

It is time we send a message back, and the first step is to get mad as hell at our elected leaders for trying to silence Denice Graham  for telling her story.

If you agree, start by signing Alliance for a Better Utah’s petition demanding that Governor Herbert stop punishing Ms. Graham for doing the right thing by serving the public – The petition can be found here.

And for those of you who may complain that this is simply being blown up because it is good political fodder, I retort by saying that you are damn right it is – our governor…OUR GOVERNOR, who represents us, didn’t know about (or tried to cover up) a $13 million (let me say that again – THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLAR) contract. Pointing that out is not dirty campaigning, it is allowing the voters to know how their government is spending their money. Democrats should point this fact out because, in this case, the truth hurts and pretending it will go away should not be an option if you are in favor of good governance.

So here is my official, unofficial list of the ten worst bills to come out of the legislative session. More discussion coming soon!

• 10) HB187 – Agricultural Interference Bill by Rep John Mathis (R-Vernal) – This is the bill that caused, once again, national head scratching over the bizarre antics of the Republicans in the Utah State Legislature.  This bill makes it a crime to, if you suspect violations on a farm, take pictures or video of that suspected abuse and send it to the authorities.  Let’s be clear – many of the past meat recalls were prompted by whistle blowers who videotaped improper procedures in slaughterhouses.  50 million Americans Americans get sick from tainted food each year, and of those, 3,000 die. And Rep Mathis wants to make it harder to report violations? I was confused, until I realized that the AGPAC, the political action committee, was a major donor to his campaigns.  He, of course, just called them his “good Ag friends.”

• 9) HB87 – Billboard Revisions by Rep. Melvin Brown (R-Coalville) – This bill is a direct response to Salt Lake City limiting the number of electronic billboards that can exist within their city.  Utah Republicans are all about small government…when it suits their interests.  But what interest does Brown have in making sure billboards stay up in a city 50 miles away from his home? Perhaps the campaign contributions the billboard companies gave to help reelect him.  Salt Lake City passing a bill that might force the industry to alter their practices in Utah’s capitol city?  That sure would be inconvenient.  Luckily, they have Rep Brown to ride to the rescue, and impose his will on all of Salt Lake City.  Small government indeed.

• 8) SB34 – Production and Sale of Food in Utah Revisions by Sen. Casey Anderson – You know you’ve done a bad job writing your bill when half of the actual text of your bill is other people writing about how unconstitutional it is.  But we understand, Sen Anderson is a freshman senator, and may have forgotten that we all have to abide by the Constitution.  That’s the only reason I can think of for why Anderson would write a bill that says that the state law trumps the federal law. I’d like to suggest that Sen Anderson Google the Supremacy Clause.  We’ll wait.

• 7) SJR5 – Joint Resolution on Education by Sen. Stewart Reid (R-Ogden) –  TThis resolution wants to rewrite Utah’s constitution to take education out of the hands of the state school board, and put it under the direct political control of Governor Gary Herbert.  Because he’s done such a great job with UDOT, the DABC and the rest of the state? Governor Herbert, and the Republican governors that preceded him, have categorically failed to fund, support, or prioritize education in Utah.  That is the biggest argument, in my book, to keep education as far away from Republicans as possible.

• 6)  SB208 – Healthcare Compact by Sen Stuart Adams (R-Layton) - The Republicans like to give bills fancy names like “healthcare compact” to their bills, but what they mean is “kill Medicare and Medicaid.”  This bill would end Medicare and Medicaid as we know it for Utah’s seniors, by wresting control of the programs away from the federal government and into state control.  Do you want the Utah State Legislature and Governor Gary Herbert in control of your Medicare and Medicaid benefits?  Neither do I.  Our seniors have worked hard to earn these benefits.  Shame on these Republicans for trying to take that away.

• 5) HJR 9 -  Joint Resolution on Monetary Declaration by Rep Brad Galvez (R-West Haven) – Really, guys?  Gold? This resolution supports the use of gold and silver as “natural currency.”  Really? Again?  But then, considering the issue comes up year after year – maybe the better question is: who are all these constituents that are apparently clammoring to pay for their Big Gulps in gold and silver?

• 4) HJR 3 – Joint Resolution on Federal Transfer of Public Lands by Rep. Roger Barrus (R-Centerville) – Here we have another Utah Republican who apparently hasn’t read the Constitution all the way through.  This resolution demands that the federal government give Utah control of all the publicly owned lands in Utah, including all the national parks and monuments.  And I’m sure that the next step is to build condos in Bryce and a golf course in Zions.  We’d all be laughing at this completely ridiculous resolution, except that the Republicans are using it as a bait-and-switch excuse to not fund education. Again.  And that is absolutely not a laughing matter.

• 3) HJR 10 – Joint Resolution on Legislator Eligibility by Rep. John Dougall (R-American Fork) – What do you do when your buddy accidentally moves out of his district and has to quit the Legislature?  Why, run a bill that makes it legal for legislators to run in ANY district in the state, no matter where they live!  Isn’t the point of our “constitutional compound Republic” that we are represented in the legislature by our neighbors – people who understand the issues that our neighborhoods and communities face?  This bill would make it legal for a person in Box Elder County to run, and win, in a district in San Juan County.  Republicans in the Legislature have already shown during redistricting that they could not care less about true representation for Utahns, but this is bordering on the absurd.  Our legislatures, from our communities, representing our issues.  It’s not really that hard to understand.

• 2) HB 155 – Drug Screening for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Recipients by Rep. Brad Wilson (R-Kaysville)– It’s that same, tired old story.  The myth of the low income family that just sits around on the public dole.  The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or TANF) is designed to help those who have fallen on temporary hard times to ensure that they are able to keep their kids fed and clothed – and because these families have had the audacity to have had a parent laid off, or someone in the family get sick, Representative Wilson wants them drug tested.  He apparently thinks they’re all “going fishing.”

• 1) HB 363 – Health Education Amendments by Rep Bill Wright (R-Holden) – Currently, over 90% of Utah families opt-in to have their children attend sex-ed classes during school.  Due to the Senator Wright’s bill, as a parent, even after you’ve signed a detailed waiver saying that it’s all right for that instruction to happen, you are out of luck.  This bill that makes it optional for school districts to teach sex ed at all. And for those that chose to, he’s muzzled them so severely that school districts and teachers are unable to give our kids any of the information they need to stay safe–even answer questions. Teachers can now be fined or jailed for answering students questions.  It is a shameful example of agenda-mongering and abuse of power from some Republicans in the Utah State Legislature, and it’s our kids who will pay the price

I don’t even know where to begin on this one folks.

With SJR 7 – Joint Resolution on Priority Status for Bills, Senator Margaret Dayton (R – Orem – District 15) is such an overt attempt to squelch the rights of the political minority that it sounds more like the fiat of a third world dictator than that of a modern democracy.

SJR 7, in no uncertain terms, would give any bill proposed by the minority party in the legislature automatic “second class” status. Furthermore, it comes up with absurd requirements for drafting legislation to begin with.

The resolution does three things: makes bill drafting a “first come, first served” affair, places a priority of bill drafting by legislators when requesting bills, and requires that any bill that is prioritized by majority vote of an interim committee be drafted first.

So, lets look at the situation.

I am a Democratic lawmaker who wises to pass comprehensive education reform, so I go to legislative research (the folks who actually draft the legalese part of bills)  and ask for this bill to be put together.  Well, that is just super, but, unfortunately, your Republican colleagues don’t want to see this happen, so they made sure to flood leg research with dozens (if not hundreds) of fluff bills beforehand, thereby tying up resources to get your bill through in a timely manner – your bill is diligently worked on, but not released until it is to late. All because of the “first come-first serve” basis. Yes, even if your bill is a half-cocked mess, you still get priority over a bill that has been well researched and ready to go out of the gates.

But, lets suppose you came to the front of the line and ask that your bill be properly prepared. Whelp, that still is a problem because, again, Republican leaders have come up with a backup plan. Flood leg research with committee (read Republican dominated) requested bills.

Oh ho – but SJR 7 specifically says that those bills are to be drafted on a first come, first served basis before committee bills are recognized. But does anyone honestly believe that, in a culture where legislators already throw their weight around to get their bills out, they will somehow not do the same when there are seven or eight of them?

This bill is designed to do one thing, and one thing only – make it harder for Democrats to get their bills out and, therefore, make it harder for them to pass any legislation that they feel is important. Dayton has been known as a bully for years, and this bill is just further proof of that.

To contact Sen. Dayton, Click Here or call 801-221-0623

Impact: 1

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Man, things are kind of dusty around here – I mean, it has been a while since I have done anything on this blog…but man, the cobwebs!

I want to let you know that the BTW series will be back for its fifth installment starting tomorrow. It should be an interesting session, if only because of the new batch of freshmen legislators will be stepping in to fill the shoes of legislators who are pursuing higher elective office.

But that does not mean that we will be devoid of terrible legislation; a quick glance at the Leg’s website shows that there is plenty of bills out there that deserve a little more attention.

On that note, I tried something new last year and added a -5 to 5 point scale to “score” bills.  I would like to bring that back but refine it slightly.  At first it was simply called an “urgency score” however, upon reflection, this phrase did not really get the convey what point I was trying to get across.  This year there will be three scores: impact, need, and overall.

Impact will be scored on a scale of 0-5. A score of 0 indicates in my not-so-educated opinion that the bill will have little to no impact on the “average” Utahns life; conversely, a score of 5 would mean that the bill has a very large reach that affects most (if not all) of the population.

Need is scored on a scale of 0-5 as well. A score of 0 implies that I feel that the bill is not needed at all, but is (most likely) a message bill that is not designed to address any real issue; a 5 indicates that I feel that this is urgent legislation that needs to be passed to ensure a “better” Utah (again, in my own eyes).

So, as an example, a bill that would, say, designate a state hand gun would receive an impact score of 1 and a need score of 0. A bill to raise taxes to fund schools would receive an impact score of 5 and a need score of 5.

The final metric is the elusive “overall” score. This score ranges from -5 to 5 and is my reflection on the bill overall.  A score of -5 means that I think it is a horrible bill and should be scrapped before it even makes it out of the gate; a score of 5, as you can probably deduce, means that I feel it is vital that the bill is passed as soon as possible.

So there you have it.  Bills To Watch 2012 kicks off tomorrow. You will note that I have added a “Bills to Watch 2012″ tab to the top of the webpage for easy access to a listing of all bills covered.  If you have a suggestion for a bill you would like me to watch, please feel free to email me at curtis.haring@gmail.com or message me on twitter: @blueinredzion. Stay tuned for the ride!

…I have just been busy is all.

Bills to watch will be back with vengeance soon enough.

Dear members of the Utah State Legislature,

I was troubled (but not surprised) by a recent blog post by Speaker Lockhart posted regarding the redistricting process and the complaints that have arisen from it.

In essence, she speaks down to the complaints of those who feel that the process has been unfair – emphasizing that the process has been perfectly legal. This, I feel, is a true statement; however her words (and by extension the words of the body) reflect a hubris that many are truly complaining about.

This complaint is nothing new – indeed some form of it has existed since the dawn of civilization. But the degree and duration of such holier than thou attitudes seem to have increased over the past five or so years (certainly it seems this way for as long as I have been following the Legislature). This seemed to have reached its peak with the HB 477 debacle – but, in the eyes of many, both Republican and Democrat, the redistricting process has been some cruel encore presentation.

It appears that the Legislature has, once again, willfully ignored the will of (at the very least) a sizable minority of the people in an effort to maintain political power at the expense of the citizens of the State of Utah.

It is said that politics is dictated by those who show up. And time and time again, from all corners of the state, those who chose to show up to the public meetings regarding redistricting overwhelmingly asked that communities be kept together; that city, county, and regional lines be kept together as much as possible. On top of this we drew maps, joined coalitions, and aired our concerns to you – all in the hopes that you would listen.

But no one was really all that surprised when you attempted to push through a federal map that had been unseen by the public – amended from a basic map that did not conform to the wishes of those who voiced their concerns.  Were we angry? Yes. But in reality we were disappointed.

We were disappointed that you continue to hide behind disingenuous defenses.  For example, it is true that a “community of common interest” is an intangible that can not easily put down, but to quote Justice Stewart “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”

We were disappointed because in one breath legislators say that they should be in charge of the process because they know the state and its citizens, and in the next they seem to say that they cannot see the difference between Salt Lake City and Monticello because the term is too vague.  Having lived in this state my entire life, I can tell you that they have very little in common – yet this concept seems to evade you. Furthermore, having lived in this state, I can tell you that there are four unique regions: Salt Lake Metro, Provo Metro, Ogden Metro, and rural Utah.  Of course each area has its own unique quirks, but it seems bizarre that you can’t even find a general boundary to agree upon.

We were disappointed because you continue to hide behind the argument that an urban/rural mix would ensure that all of the states interested would be represented by all of its representatives.  I would posit this point to you: The Constitution specifically set up the Senate for the task of representing the interests of the state, not the House. Indeed, the House was designed to be as representative of the passing whims of as many varied and different interests of the districts. Representatives were designed to represent the specific interests of specific people – the idea being that the multiple, various, and in many cases opposed, viewpoints would have to debate issues on a national stage.  By spreading a Representative out across various urban/rural districts, you are asking those in Congress to simultaneously vote for a water bill that helps the urban and hurts the rural area of the district, to vote for an urban rail line and not improvements to a country road, to fight for inner city school programs and against country development programs – the list goes on and on.

We are disappointed because you argue that no independent commission is unbiased…yet somehow neglect to mention the fact that you too have very specific biases that enter into the equation. When this is brought up, you state that, because you are elected officials, the voters can ultimately hold you accountable. Two points: First, the bias an independent, bipartisan commission may favor one political party over another, however this bias is reduced by having equal representation on both sides, thereby making it more likely that they will listen to the concerns of the citizenry. The second point is that the legislature still  has ultimate approval of any map; so even if an independent commission did propose a map, you still would vote on it and still be responsible to the voters.

We are disappointed because we know your bias is much more immediate and much more personal. An independent commission could be created and dissolved in relativity short order. You, however, in order to do the business of being a legislator, must make deals to advance your agenda – and to that point, sometimes advancing your agenda means advancing your career. We know you are too close to the process and that you can’t admit that you have a horse in the race beyond representing the people.

And this brings me back to my ultimate point: we are disappointed because you can rightly claim up and down that the process is legal, but we all know that you can not claim that the process is fair. You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth, thumb your noses at legitimate requests from community members, and act as if you are above the process when we all know you are not.

So, in the end, we are not angry – just disappointed and hurt that you feel you can continue to treat us this way.

You will do what you will do, but you need to know that why we are upset, not why you think we are upset.

With deepest sincerity,

Curtis Haring

I wanted to take a break from my media decisions series for a brief interlude to the events surrounding the Tim DeChristopher sentencing on Tuesday as I have now had an opportunity to gather my thoughts. I suspect that there will be a higher than average amount of discussion in the comments section – so I simply ask that everyone remain civil. Please feel free to disagree with one another, but insults and disrespectful comments will not be approved and/or removed.

***

Dear Peaceful Uprising and DeChristopher Supporters,

When I first heard the news of the protests going on outside of the federal court house and the subsequent blocking of the intersection of 400 South and Main street during rush hour, I snarkally comment on Facebook and Google+ that “I thought it was odd to show you want to protect the Earth by blocking a mass transit line and creating an artificial traffic jam, thus causing dozens of cars to idle.”

Though I stand by that statement, I realize that it was an inflaming comment that did little to advance the conversation. The more I contemplate the place where that comment came from in my own mind, the more I realize that I am not so much angry at you – rather I am disappointed.

I remind you at this point (as I often have to do in these conversations) that I supported the actions of DeChristopher. His actions, though spur of the moment, served to bring new light to the issue of public lands in particular, but also stewardship in general.

Up until that point, the discussion on environmentalism had somewhat plateaued.  Yes, Al Gore had scared us about climate change and we were all starting to switch out our light bulbs, but only a select group of people were out there trying to push back on things like the Clear Skies Initiative (the most impressive piece of double-speak I have ever heard).  With DeChristopher’s actions, the debate about sustainability returned to the headlines.  People were again talking about the environment and an impressive amount of political capital was created.

Out of this new capital, you emerged, and they showed great promise to really advance the debate.

Your opening salvo as an organization was to find an individual to run against a sitting Democratic congressman. Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t say that he had not all rubbed us the wrong way from time to time, however it did seem odd that you chose to attack the most friendly member of the Utah Congressional delegation.

This, I believe, is where my disappointment started to emerge.

Yes, these actions upset me, but what was lost in the conversation was that I did respect what you were doing.  As a point of fact, I made it a point to come to your candidates election night party in order to give a heart felt congratulations to campaign staffers for putting up a good fight – I know how hard it is to work on a campaign, and I certainly know how hard it is to loose after all that effort.

But during that time accusations ran wild of payoffs, litmus tests were verbally administered, and graffiti (albeit in chalk) defaced the entrances of the Democratic Party. It soon appeared that as a group (or prominent members of your group) either lacked basic civility towards your opponent or chose to purposefully ignore it.

Soon, you would refocus on the DeChristopher trial. Standing outside the federal courthouse in vigil, I again supported the solidarity you displayed, but as your members disrupted the court proceedings by shouting during the trial and reading of the verdict, it again became clear that civility and respect was simply not part of your plan.

During the time between the verdict and Tuesdays sentencing of DeChristopher, members of your organization split off from a peaceful protest in order to disrupt the workings of the peoples house in Washington D.C. As the saying goes, the third time is a charm – and I grew tired of trying to defend your actions.

Although it may be unspoken, the ethos of the group is clearly one of disruption rather than discussion.

In the end you lost an initial supporter. But, who am I? Well, I am an informed citizen who reads the paper and stays up to date on issues; but I am in the minority.  Most people are too busy to really pay attention to politics and you had not really connected with the general public.

Then Tuesday happened.

DeChristopher was finally sentenced, and the reaction of many of your supporters was to block that mass transit line and snarl traffic in downtown Salt Lake during rush hour. Suddenly you made your presence abundantly clear to hundreds of people that night and thousands more as they watched the news, read the paper, and hopped online. Most people will not look at that action with much goodwill. Why? Because most people will see that you caused people to miss time with their family or made it harder to relax after a hard day.

This is where my disappointment becomes complete.

Time after time you have been handed opportunities to advance your case, and time after time you seem eager to not only squander those opportunities, but go out of your way to do so. Time after time you are given golden opportunities to shed light on some serious issues and raise awareness of those issues to the general public, but you seem to squander them on poorly executed publicity stunts. Time after time you have been put in a unique position to change the debate, and time after time you come up with ways to alienate allies and potential converts.

My disappointment comes from squandered potential.

At this point, one has to wonder what good you have done. Ideally, if you really want to make the change to the planet and the way we function, you have to know that you need to cause people to want to make that change. You have to know that this will only be achieved through social and political means. This is where you differ from those you claim as your own: King, Gandhi, Milk, Anthony, the Founding Fathers, they all knew that civil disobedience was just one part of social change, not the entire strategy and that you need to persuade just as much as you prod. All too often you seem eager to cause disruption for disruptions sake, but no strategy to change policy is apparent.  You appear both as a rudderless ship and a boxer wildly swinging.

Some have said to me “What would you prefer? Writing letters has not worked, protesting has not worked, getting people we like has not worked. Would you prefer that people stay at home and simply accept our fate?” To these people I say no. You should be harassing elected individuals, you should be raising hell, you should try to get people you like elected – what you shouldn’t do is assume that change will happen overnight and become petulant children when doesn’t. You must fight, but you must not be naive.

For better and for worse, our democracy was designed to be slow. Nothing happens overnight or in a vacuum. Things take time. But, one of the amazing things about our democracy is that things can and do change; but change only happens when you have enough people on your side.

So, please, go forth and fight, but for heavens sake, be smart about it. Stop, breathe, and think about a real strategy for advancing your agenda to preach beyond the choir. I have read your goals and ideals, heard your speeches, and talked to supporters – and it all seems like a wish list, not a plan.  Remember, the victor in politics is the one who has the better plan to gain a majority.

I know you have the ability to do so. You have very smart and very capable people who have already stepped forward.  Smart people like Ash Anderson, Deb Henry, and Claudia Wright are just some the individuals I know and respect within your organization.

We do need to fight for our future, and we should care about the pressing environmental issues facing ourselves and our children. This issue is a deep and pressing one, but we are on the right side of history.  The key to victory is to ensure that we present a common narrative that all can get behind and creating a majority.

In the end, make it so that I can defend your ideals, rather than your actions, to those who may be open to joining the majority.

This month I have the to suffer the joy that is renewing my car registration. The fee is a stone cold $170 to legally drive on Utah’s roads for another year. I will, of course, pay this fee, along with any sort of costs to test my cars safety and emission standards because I rather enjoy not being pulled over for expired tags.

There is a part of me, however, that wants to have a little fun.

You see, during the last legislative session, Representative Brad Galvez (R – West Haven- District 6) successfuly pushed through HB 317, a bill that makes gold and silver legal tender in Utah. I am just thinking how great it would be to walk up to the DMV with a little more than a tenth of an ounce of gold in order to pay my dues.

Of course, there are a few problems.  First and foremost, you have to pay with gold or silver that was minted by the federal government and the money would only be worth the face value, not the value of the gold or silver that actually resided within the coin.  So I would need to buy 8 $20 “common” gold coins at $1,650 a pop, and one $10 coin at $816 – sadly, as much as I would like to prove a point, I don’t know if I could justify spending $4,000 more than I actually dropped to buy the car just to renew it for another 12 months.

The other hitch is that the law says that I can’t force the poor soul at the DMV to actually accept my gold as payment – though, if they clerk were smart, they would gladly accept it and swap it out with the $20 in their pocket – in the eyes of the state they are equal.

So, alas, I guess I won’t show up to the DMV with nine ounces of gold after all.

“But wait,” you say, “you mean to tell me that the legislature took up valuable time debating a bill that structurally does nothing more than prove an absurd point but gets nothing done?”

Yes, I am afraid to burst your bubble on that one.

Representative Galvez, along with 18 far right cosponsors, knowingly spent the states resources on a bill that would do NOTHING, other than prove a point that we don’t need the gov’ment telln’ us what ta’ do!

*Sigh* I guess I will just have to settle with using a gold card instead.