The Dialogue, Part 1

 In our lives there are times, events, and phenomena which, while we may understand why they occur, cannot be reconciled with any aspect of truth or even reality. They are of such magnitude and depth that comprehension is impossible.

Events like these destroy our underlying beliefs in a number of ways; the shattering of norms, of concepts of human dignity and compassion; an abrupt changing in the rules of law we have come to accept and adopt as human rights.

Perhaps it is our own fault, for we have come to believe and trust in an America where right prevails over might; where the individual matters; where we celebrate freedom of thought and action (violence towards others not included).

America's system of government, slow, laborious, and time-consuming as it is, works as well or better than any other; yet it is a relative newcomer to the world stage. If it is viewed on a timeline progressing towards Jefferson's "more perfect union", we can see progress; not so much on a daily or even yearly basis, but as an overall effort, moving inexorably toward a time and place where all mankind will be equal, one toward another.

Our current elected officials, on every level of government, are failing us; the violence, hatred, and fear consume every news cycle, the senseless killing continues unabated. No, there is no one size fits all, one bill will fix everything solution; the problems are of great magnitude and will require great statesmen to begin the process of correction.

With minute exception, "our" elected senators and congressmen are not ours, they are owned lock, stock, and opinion by the despicably wealthy donors they have courted. This, in and of itself, is more than adequate reason to void the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United; an action that can only be undertaken by Congress itself. But, that is a discussion I will hold for another post.

The murder of 21 human beings in Uvalde, Texas has brought out the best, I suppose, in our public leaders. They have all offered sympathy, condolences, prayers, and tears. But, and it is a big BUTT, that is all they are going to do. Until such time as voters make Senators, Representatives and Governors feel the danger of not moving gun control forward, nothing will change.

So, you might ask, why won't voters make congressmen take action? Three words, alphabetically:

Abortion

God

Guns

These three immovable planks of the Republican party are the great dog whistles of our times. The mere mention of any of the holy trinity of politics will rile up the base; get them out and voting, not for any one candidate in particular, but against "them;" the ones who will put an abortion clinic on every corner, abolish all religion, and take away your guns. The Republican party has been very adapt at focusing American voters on fear, without ever using the word; they provide on our television screen, a dismal picture of the future if we elect "them."

Short of the reversal of Citizen's United, it will take a strong, principled, self-funded Republican to stand up to the gun lobbies millions and do the hard work demanded to pass meaningful gun control regulation in the United States of America. Frankly, I don't see Congress wiling to take on Citizen's United in the near future; and I am not holding out for a true statesman to come forward from the Republican party.

The most demanding work in politics is always left to the American voter, that is, you and I. Only by studious attention to detail and records, can we filter out the good from the spoils. We must decide what we want America to look like, not only to the world, but to our children and grandchildren and then act in accordance to our decisions. We must decide how many more human beings we want sacrificed on the alter of "gun rights"; how many more lives we can afford to lose as a poor example to the world of American Greatness, as an example of democracy at work.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments, opinions, and thoughts are welcome. Click on the pencil below to leave a comments.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Surface Transportation Bill

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (Sept. 7, 2011) entitled “Highway bill holdup in D.C. could cost Utah 8,910 jobs”, and a subsequent editorial has me asking, what is the rest of the story? As the sage said, “when in doubt, follow the money.” So that is what I did. Here, in my opinion, is “The Rest of the Story.”

The holdup is the re-authorization of the Surface Transportation Bill, which in essence is the mechanism for taking Federal monies and using the money to pay for roads and public transportation throughout the United States. Here in Utah, this money is used for new construction and rebuilding of highways and interstates, and partial funding of TRAX and other public transportation. At risk currently are (among others) the completion of the I-15 rebuild in Utah County, the completion of the Mountain View Corridor, and the payment of work already done on other projects; including the Front-Runner system, the Mid-Jordan and West Valley TRAX lines, all of which are currently in operation. Additionally, UTA depends on $50 million in annual appropriations to fund the operation of TRAX and Front-Runner, which was approved by previous congressional actions. The President has asked for a clean extension of the Bill, (including holding the Federal tax on fuel at 18.4 cents per gallon) which has been done 7 times over the past 2 years. This would give the “SuperCommittee” time to debate how and what government spending to reduce, and revenues to increase, in order to bring our Federal Budget into balance.

So, what’s the problem? The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by John Mica (R-FL) has proposed, rather then extend the bill as requested, that a new $230 billion, 6 year extension be enacted. This would cut, by 30% annually, the amounts authorized for the program. It would also eliminate any funding for mass transit. While we may disagree about the “value” of mass transit, it cannot be argued that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our pollution levels; both of which are addressed in part by the use of mass transit. Why would we not want to achieve these goals, which are promoted by both sides of the aisle?

The answer, again, is money. Not the spending of Federal money, but the donations to campaign funds of various politicians. Here’s the outline. (My figures are from the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org.), and are taken from the Federal Election Commission data available as of August 8, 2011.)

This House Committee consists of 33 Republicans and 26 Democrats. The fundraising of the members of this Committee follows: The Republicans collected $83,152,420 dollars from various donors; the Democrats collected $122,177,917. OK, so?

So, if you look at the industry groups that would be affected by either an increase in gas taxes, or a reduction in fuel consumption, you are drawn to three major industry groups: Agribusiness, Energy, and Transportation (as broken down by FEC data).

On the Democrats side: of the $122,177,917 in donations (yes, that is $122 MILLION) these three sectors donated $16,256,076, or 13.31% of the money raised.

The Republicans on the committee, although they raised less in total donations, fared better: the three sectors donated $21,756,523, or 26.16% of the total raised, to the members of this committee. These three industries, which have a lot at stake if the fuel tax is raised, or fuel consumption declines, made their case to the Republicans of the committee, who responded to the donations.

This brief discussion of the effects of political posturing does not begin to address the social-economic results of non-extension of the Bill; the jobs that will be lost, the businesses that will suffer the “ripple effect” of the unemployment, and the increased monies needed to fund unemployment benefits to those who will lose their jobs. It does not discuss in detail the roads and bridges that will not be repaired, nor the increase in cost to the public of mass transit.

It does bring me to some conclusions: we need aggressive campaign finance reform; we should require our politicians to be responsive to the needs of the public, not of the corporate donors; and we must have a reasoned, sound, and bi-partisan discussion of the Federal budget. All of the above having been said, I hope that the voters will let their Congressmen know how they feel about the extension of the Surface Transportation Program, as requested by the President of the United States.

Thank you for reading; if you wish to see the data I collected, email me and I will provide it. As always, comments and responses are welcome, please post them here!

Politics and Money

In my high school civics course, we were taught that individuals were selected by popular vote based upon their ability to convince the majority of voters that this candidate best could represent them in the local, state, or federal office that was open for election; and that, upon being elected, the individual would perform as to the programs and ideals that endeared him/her to the electorate. Is this still the case, or was it ever?

Current events tend me to be cynical regarding this lesson, for I now find our politicians using less of their time to talk to their constituents and more time to talk with those who may be able to open big pocketbooks, or who may be able to deliver large contributions to the favored PAC of the politician under review. As an example, observe the behavior of Utah state legislator Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman, UT), who now solicits paid speaking engagements outside of his jurisdiction, and more relevant to this point, outside of the state of Utah. In return of fees ranging from $1500 to $4500, the good conservative representative will attend, participate in, or lead discussions that support the points of view of those open pocketbooks. However, should you try to obtain an interview with him, in Utah, regarding his position on matters that have or will come up in the State legislature; you will find, as I did, that his schedule does not permit such activity.

The attendees at these out of state events he is willing to participate in will not vote in a Utah election; they are not affected in the main by his political acts, or by his votes in our Legislature. The only benefits received are (1) his support of the causes being presented at these events, and (2) his war chest for the next election.

I am not saying that Rep Wimmer is unusual, or that his actions have no precedent in politics. My theory is that money has become more important than the population our elected officials who are chosen, by the voting public, to represent the public's best interests.

The study of money in politics is not new; consider the effects of groups such as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or “Moveon.org”. Both (and untold others) funneled large amounts of money to support/destroy candidates over and above the actual position of the candidates. In an effort to get the “right” people elected, PAC’s have been able, legally it can be stated, to push huge donations and advertising moneys into areas without declaration of their intent to impact the voters in any election.

Why? The first, largest, and most complete answer is that running for office is extremely expensive. Consider the moneys spent to elect the President of the United States. This office pays $400,00 per year (plus benefits) and yet conservatively speaking, $1 billion was spent by the major candidates in 2008.

Certainly it can be argued that money does need to be spent, that the candidates need to have a public forum to spread their point of view and convince the electorate to vote in their favor; the media, being businesses, consider this a favorable source of revenue and naturally charge whatever the market will bear in return for airing advertisements. This is the natural order of the business of politics, and it is necessary for the candidates to raise sufficient funds to get their messages out to the public. The means and methods of raising this money, however, are the core of this discussion.

Can or should we limit the amount of money that individuals, groups, businesses, and PAC’s (as well as other unknown entities) can contribute to the election of officials? One of the candidates for Governor of Utah has proposed a strict limit of $1000.00 on any campaign contribuitions coming from all groups, businesses, etc. Is this a reasonable amount? A recent Supreme Court ruling now allows corporations to donate as if they were individual voters; however, a corporation cannot cast a ballot. Is this a proper step for our Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to take? Is this "legislating from the bench, as we often hear? It will certainly be interesting to see the politicians flip-flop on this issue, as it will get a real test this election cycle.

As always, comments are appreciated.