A Letter to Burgess Owens, My(?) Representative in Congress

 October 24, 2025

Honorable Representative Owens,

My communication with you today is relative to the shutdown of Congress and therefore the inability of the United States Government to pay its bills.

I believe it is past time for you, the other elected Representatives from Utah, and the Republican Party in general to sit down with your Democratic colleagues and negotiate an end to the shutdown.

Yes, this means that you will need to fund the ACA subsidies. For a person with moral or ethical standards, providing/continuing insurance to families in need should be as automatic as eating. If there are indeed aberrations with how the program is distributed, that is to say, if there are non-qualified individuals receiving benefits, then root those individuals out. To deny insurance to the vast majority of recipients who use the system fairly because of the allegedly illegal actions of a slight few, is despicable behavior. It is the action of a tyrannical government, not the action of a democracy.

Allow me to say this in closing: I have voted in every election since 1976. I work on campaigns of candidates whom I judge to be good for the community. When considering my ballot choice, I vote not for the party, but for the person. I judge elected officials not on what they say, but on their actions.

I live and vote in your district, and I am not shy about expressing my content, or discontent, with any elected official.

Respectfully,

Robert M Hartman

As of  10/31/2025, I have not received a reply. I will post it when, and if, I do. 

As always, thank you for reading, please leave your comments below. 

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

The Dialogue, Part 2

 Ok, let's talk about abortion. Put down the gun and pitchfork, let's just talk. Here's some facts: Abortion peaked in 1990 with 1.6 million abortions legally performed. In 2019 (the latest year complete data is available) the number was between 630,000 and 890,000, depending upon who you ask- the CDC or the Guttmaker Institute. Either way, the number is down 50%. The raw number is down, even as the population continues to increase. To me, that shows the effectiveness of sex education, the availability of contraceptives, and the involvement of both partners. That's all good news.

The bad news, in my opinion, is all of this talk about "right to life" and "protecting unborn children" that comes from the mouths of Republican politicians is so much bull byproduct as to make one puke. The Republicans are no more interested in right to life than they can fly; if you want evidence look at all the attempts to destroy the Affordable Care Act. You are likely to suffer greatly from the lack of medication or die a from easily preventable disease if you don't have insurance. Review the Republican efforts to keep the minimum wage artificially low; if you can't afford to buy food and pay the rent, well, that's too bad for you. If you are a veteran of the U.S. Armed Services (thank you for your service), only 1 Republican Senator (Marco Rubio-FL) has your back-all the rest are against the Honoring Our PACT Act, relative to the damage caused by burn pits. Right to life, indeed. One plan discussed by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) would cut benefits to Social Security by 1/3, raise the eligibility age, and threaten Social Security with defunding every five years. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) fearing the wrath of Senior Citizen Voters, took that page out of the bill.

Right To Life?

I'll skip the fine print and go right to the heart of the matter: in 2022, there have been 218 mass shootings, with a sad total of 221 dead and 831 wounded but survived. This data covers January 1, 2022 to May 29, 2022, and include the shooter if wounded or killed. Congress moans, prays, and sends condolences; but nothing of value happens. Congress could act, but no, this is not abortion we are talking about here. It's only 221 living people -you know, the ones already born- dead because Congress won't do it's part.

My point? Abortion is not a right to life matter for the hypocritical morons in Congress; it is much more important than that. It is a control issue; the mostly white, mostly male congress demands to control what a woman does, or does not do, with her own body. Please don't bother to mention religion in reference to this issue, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution takes that off the table. Don't try to tell me that a woman cannot be responsible for her own choices; women are no more or less responsible actors that males.

No, it is a control issue; and as long as the voters elect these same sad Republican congressmen hypocrites, they will continue to demand control over a woman's body, and the right to make her own choices. Now that Roe vs Wade is in danger of being overturned, the choice of our Congressmen will become more important than ever.

Personally, I don't want Congressmen hypocrites making decisions for my wife, children, and grandchildren. They are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments, thoughts and opinions are welcome. Please click on the pencil below to make a comment.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

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

A Macro Kind of Guy

 I've always been a big-picture type of person, you know, the type that looks at a subject like education as being more than just teachers and students in a school. 

To me, being pro something means you are in favor of it, whole-heartedly.  For example, being pro-education means you want the best education for the greatest number of people possible, so they can succeed and contribute to society in the greatest conceivable way. 

Which is why I think of pro-life in a variety of delineations. For example, a truly pro-life senator would work to rein in exorbitantly high drug prices so all Americans could enjoy the life-improving effects they provide. As a side note, this would also improve his standing with the voters. 

A for-real pro life congressman would stand up and say, "Enough is Enough," and work to enact and enforce gun control measures, because being pro-life means not getting shot up in a shopping mall. The lives he saves with this effort could vote for him in gratitude. 

The House and Senate, working together on a pro-life stance, would increase Head Start and SNAP benefits, programs designed to give less fortunate children a better shot at succeeding in life. When those children grow up, they can talk about the positive life-changing effect those programs had on them as youth. 

The direct correlation between education and a better life is well-proven. How great would it be if the pro-life Senators and Congressmen came together and improved the funding for all levels of education, even so far as providing free community colleges? It sounds like a win-win to me, the building and construction trades are begging for trained employees, and those jobs provide good pay and benefits. It would indeed improve life and provide a way out of poverty for so many people! 

And yes, pro-life does mean providing world class pre-natal and maternity benefits to women, regardless of martial status. It also means providing them a path to adoption or safe, unfettered access to abortion if desired; no government intervention is required, because the woman's life and future are also an integral part of "life." 

I'm looking forward to your comments and opinions! Thanks for reading.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

   

 

Litmus Test

 I remember, as I am sure you do, the litmus test for Supreme Court Justices, how they would vote on abortion; the test then turned to gun control, then gay rights. The republicans decried these tests, at least when democrats would bring them up.

Now the dour faced Republican party has a litmus test of it's own, one that could destroy the party; indeed, it's even now fracturing and splintering as the more vocal members of the party apply it to legally elected members of Congress.

I'm referring, of course, to the Big Lie. It now is apparent to any thinking person that you must swear allegiance to former President Trump's continued falsehood of election fraud, and agree with him that the election was stolen, and that President Joe Biden is not,in fact, the legally elected President of The United States of America, if you want to remain in Congress, or as governor of your state.

How the leaders of a party traditionally based on conservative values-the rule of law, strong military capabilities, unbreakable ties with our allies-can, in a space of 4 years, redefine the party into a cult based upon one man staggers the imagination.

America had never been, even in it's infancy, a cult worshiping one leader. We are a country founded upon the rule of law, and a strong believe the the core value of democracy; that right of the people to decide their leader in free, honest, and open elections.

The great challenges that faced our country during the pandemic forced our state and local officials to explore and expand opportunities for voters to cast their legal ballot, and I truly believe those leaders performed a Herculean task successfully; more Americans cast their ballot than in any preceding election.

Those American voters, and you are most likely one of them, elected Congressmen, Senators, and Governors of both parties to office; indeed, both houses of Congress are more equally balanced than at any time in recent history. And yes, those American voters elected Joe Biden President of The United States of America at the same time.

For the first time in decades, both parties have an equal opportunity to present their policies and values to the public. Both parties have the ability now to entice voters to support them, based upon what their parties can do for America.

Instead of giving Americans ideas and policies that could benefit all of us, the Republicans have chosen to present a party of cult worship.

I don't think this can end well for the party of Lincoln.

Thank you for reading, your thoughts and comments are always welcome!

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

All Men Are Created Equal

 This is not the 1950's Jim Crow era; it is 2021. Why do we continue to tolerate police officers mistreating our fellow Americans who happen to be not white? We have all the over-use of force by officers; we have listened to the cries of mothers who lost a son or daughter, or children who lost a father.

Yet, any attempt at police reform, or changing the law on qualified immunity, runs into a big roadblock; it is labeled "Republicans in Congress."

What is it about treating all Americans with respect and equal courtesy, regardless of color, that seems to be so difficult for some policemen, and for some members of Congress?

See, there is this "Declaration of Independence" paper that was signed so many years ago, by so many of our Founding Fathers. It states ". . . all men are created equal. . .". There are no provisions, subsections, or amendments to that statement. None whatsoever.

All men are created equal.

The corollary is also quite simple: All men are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

It really is that simple. It should not be difficult for law enforcement agencies throughout the country to take this simple statement and make it a part and parcel of training, of how it's business is conducted, and how the officers work. If an officer, regardless of rank or position, has a problem understanding this principle, he or she should be released from duty; and not be allowed to join with another law enforcement agency.

Lacking any action from Congress, in 2020 the State of Colorado passed SB217, which limits qualified immunity in respect to law enforcement officers. The law specifically states that qualified immunity is not a defense and limits the applicability of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. As Congress is unwilling to act, forty-nine other states and the District of Columbia should follow Colorado's example, without delay.

If you feel strongly about this issue, please let your state and federal representatives know it. They won't do anything unless we, the voters, put pressure on them.

As always, thank you for reading. Thoughts and comments are appreciated.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

A Very Strange New Year

The events of the first 13 days of 2021 have been, to say the least, difficult. It is incredible to me that one man, however talented, could rile so many people to a state of open rebellion against the United States of America, and then deny he was responsible for the outrageous attacks on the very bastion of our democratic republic. Where was Donald Trump when his various schools taught civics, the rule of law, and personal responsibility? 

I believe this quote is credited to Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House from 1977 to 1987. “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.” Even if I am incorrect, and it was not Speaker O’Neill, it is a quote well suited to this time in history. President Trump lost his bid for re-election. A more elegant and graceful gentleman, and there have been many presidents who were, would have simply and graciously accepted the vote of the American People, and prepared for his successor to take on the mantle of President of The United States of America.

 President Trump, however, has taken on the role of a spoiled, querulous child and maintained that he won the election, going to far as to file sixty-odd lawsuits challenging the validity of the election. None of those suits stood the test of court scrutiny. He has stirred rumors, cast dispersions on the character of other elected officials, and called upon his supporters to attempt an overthrow of our legal election of a new president. In doing so, he was aided and abetted by members of both the House and Senate, who insisted on challenging the results in states other than their own, even after they had been forced to shelter during an attack upon, incursion into, and riot in our nation’s Capital building.

It is troublesome to see and hear so many people fall under the spell of a megalomaniac; who take as gospel his words, even when the words are devoid of facts; to see our country reach such depths of distrust and division that it will take years to recover our sense of balance and our position in the world.    

As I watched the events unfold on January 6^th, I remarked to my wife, “My God, we have become a banana republic.”  The irony of American politicians, who in the past have called out elections and transfers of power in other countries was not lost on me.

Democracy is not self-sustaining; it requires hard work and constant attention. Our founding fathers recognized this fact; it is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. I leave you with this quote:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 

Thanks for reading; your comments, as always, are welcome.

R. M. “Bob” Hartman

Ten Hot Summer Days

Ten hot summer days. In that space of time, 34 people were killed in mass shootings, and another 63 were injured. The alleged (?) shooters were white males, between the ages of 19 and 24. Two of the shooters are dead, the third is in jail. Although different guns were used, they all were high-capacity "assault rifles," and all were purchased "legally;" however, there is some evidence they may have been illegally transported across state lines. We may never know if the three gunmen knew each other, though some evidence suggests the killer in the El Paso murders may have been influenced by the Dayton shooting. Certainly, we will never positively know what factors drove the Dayton and Gilroy shooters to commit their crimes, as they are dead; but we may gain some insight into the thought patterns of the El Paso killer; he is still alive.

None of the above facts will bring back the 34 victims of these killers, nor will they erase the images captured in the minds of those wounded or who witnessed the shootings. And none of the above facts will do anything to stop the carnage that seems to be overwhelming our country.

There are things that can be done to reduce the risk of these types of mass murders re-occurring, and while they are small steps, they may be a beginning to some solutions. I'd like to express my thoughts on some of those ideas. You may say, after reading this, these ideas won't work, and I agree they will not solve all the problem. But, what we have been doing so far certainly hasn't worked very well, has it? It's time for some critical thinking.

The first, and perhaps the easiest one to implement, is to require national registration at the time of purchase or transfer of any and all firearms. This includes sales at gun shows, pawn shops, and sales by private individuals, including collectors. Believe it or not, only six states and the District of Columbia currently require firearm registration; and not all firearm types need to be registered, even in those states. Currently, seven states completely prohibit the registration of firearms. The other 37 states neither require or prohibit registration. This legislation should also include an insurance clause; that is, you must be able to prove liability insurance for the firearm. The legal age to purchase any firearm should be the same in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia. This does not mean that young Sally and Johnny cannot learn how to handle a firearm, or hunt; it just means they cannot purchase or own a gun.

I said this idea would be easy to implement, but the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act" of 1986 prohibits a national registry. So, this portion of the Reagan-era law would have to be overturned.

Some say this is the first step toward confiscation of privately owned firearms. Get real, people. You are required to register and insure your vehicles, which are also capable of killing and wounding people. It's not that different after all.

The three shootings under discussion meet the federal description of domestic terrorism, to wit: they are a)"dangerous to human life"; b) intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or c) influence government by "intimidation or coercion" or "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." While federal law defines domestic terrorism, it does not make it a federal crime to commit acts of domestic terrorism. Wait a minute, we have a law defining acts of domestic terrorism, but no federal penalty for committing such acts? Yep, you got it. The FBI can become involved to assist state agencies, but the individuals responsible for these acts can only be prosecuted under state laws. Why does this matter? First, the FBI does not have to get involved in cases of this type, although I understand they are involved in these three. Second, the FBI can look beyond state borders at the relationship these types of criminals may have with other like-minded individuals, and bring charges where appropriate. Third, if domestic terrorism is a crime under federal law, stiffer penalties are a distinct possibility.

The second thought I propose then, is to pass a law making domestic terrorism a federal crime. Congress, can you stop pointing fingers at each other long enough to get this done?

Third, and this thought strikes very close to home for all of us: every person in America should demand of our elected officials that they do not denigrate populations of social backgrounds, wealth, country of origin, race, or sex as a whole. That is to say: Our President, and other elected officials, should never say or imply that all people from Pluto are murderers, rapists, or thieves; or that those with green skin are low-lifes, losers, or pathetic. This type of speech is antithetical to American ideals.

Besides, speech of this nature makes simple-minded people self-righteous, and then they do bad things. Very bad things, which can affect all of us in ways we cannot fathom.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments are welcome.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Data on firearm registration taken from https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registration_requirements_by_state

Retrieved August 6, 2019; it is "as of Jan 1, 2019"

USA PATRIOT ACT, 2001

The Weather

The view from my window this morning, looking over the Wasatch Mountains, was of broken light clouds on high, with some dark, snow-bearing clouds over the Wasatch peaks. Utah, like much of the country, had a wet winter, with snow totals at one of the ski resorts exceeding 700 inches, a new record. The sun was shining through, and I thought perhaps today would be a break from 14 days of rain; however, that was not to be the case, and my grass will have to wait for another day to be mowed.   

It seems that our Capitol is mired in pettiness; with both sides blaming the other for refusing to act like adults. While the country waits for aid to assist with natural disasters, our roads and bridges continue to crumble beneath us, and our allies wonder if we are still their friends; our government battles, not along lines of ideology, but instead on personal picks and grievances. It appears to me, and I think to many Americans, that “our” elected officials and governing body have traded what is good for America for what is good for them, personally. Even today, an infrastructure bill that was bipartisan in design and approval was halted, because one representative, Texas Republican Chip Roy, got upset about what wasn’t in the bill. (Money for the border wall.)

This has become all too typical of Washington today. Bills that should pass, like this one that would help not only our infrastructure, but our job market and the economy in general, are held hostage for the President’s pet project. The value, or not, of the wall was not in question in the legislation, in fact, it was not mentioned in the legislation. So why hold up money for needed work? Would it be so hard for Congress to pass needed legislation and then, in an appropriate manner, discuss the funding of the now-infamous wall? Will this Congress, and this Administration, go down in history as the Congress that couldn’t get anything done for the citizens of this great country?

I had hoped this bill would pass, all seemed in order, and then perhaps Congress could take up other meaningful legislation and begin to move our country forward; but that was not to be the case.

Instead, like my lawn waiting for sunshine, America will have to wait even longer for Washington to clean up it’s act.   

As always, your comments are appreciated!

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

And we have a Winner!

It’s great, folks, really great! The House Republicans have passed, and sent to the Senate, the American Health Care Act. This bill will reduce health-care related costs and taxes by $5640 annually for those Americans who make $200,000 or more each year. Companies that employ 50 or more full time workers will no longer be forced to offer health insurance to the employees. This will definitely help make America great again.

Now, if you have winners this big, you naturally are going to have some losers. But who are they? The losers are you and I, the American people. Here are a few facts for your consideration.

If you make $10,000 annually, your health costs will rise by $1400 yearly. Those fine Americans that make $50,000-$72,000 will only see health costs increase by $60 annually, unless you get pregnant or have a pre-existing condition.

We are going to get rid of some of those pesky regulations that Obama put in the ACA. We are going to start by allowing insurance companies to charge you more, or deny you coverage entirely if you have any pre-existing conditions, such as being a victim of rape or domestic violence, pregnancy, cancer, or heart conditions, to name a few.

Insurance companies are corporations, and corporations are people, too. They don’t want to be forced to cover pregnancy, mental health care, or cancer screenings as essential services. The American NoHealth Care Act gives them the choice of covering them or not. I’m no expert, but I really don’t expect the insurance companies to willingly cover them any more as essential services.

If your insurance lapses for 63 days or more, say when you are unemployed, insurance companies can charge you higher premiums for pre-existing conditions than before.

Medicaid, including CHIP, is a health program that provides basic services for low income Americans. This program will be capped under the American NoHealth Care Act, which will force people close to the poverty line out of the program. They will then have the option of paying more than they can afford for health insurance, or just get sick and go to the emergency room. Now, that is what is known as freedom of choice? NOT!

These are just a few of the facts relating to the American NoHealth Care Act. Here’s a couple more, and they might hit home with you. This bill was passed without any Democratic votes, and in fact 20 Republicans voted against the bill. Are you represented in the House by a Republican? (Sadly, I am, and I am not happy about her vote. I voted for her opponent in the election.)

Did you vote for that Republican?

Think about it.

As always, thanks for reading. Please feel free to post comments or thoughts.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman 

Unusual Weather

It is raining today in the Salt Lake Valley; this is unusual because, in March, we usually have snow, not rain.

But the unusual weather today in Utah is not as bad as the weather inside Congress in Washington. Today, the representatives in “the people’s house” will vote on the American Health Care Act, a bill that is publicized as the beginning of the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act; the same Affordable Care Act that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would repeal on Day 1 of his term in office. Well, he didn’t get to repeal the ACA on Day 1, and right now (8:11 AM MDT), it looks like he won’t get the AHCA passed by Congress today, either.

For this piece of legislation to pass in the House, the Republican party can afford only 21 no votes from its members. As of Wednesday night, 24 Republicans have publicly stated they will vote no. No Democrats have indicated they will vote yes. Right now, there is strong opposition to this bill from the health care sector and insurance companies, both groups that are normally strong supporters of, and donors to, republican politicians and the republican party.

It is also opposed by the AARP and the March of Dimes, because it would raise insurance rates on older Americans and drastically cut funding for Medicaid and health insurance subsidies, subsidies that have allowed millions of Americans to afford health insurance. CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, is also a part of Medicaid. What about the children? Oh, yes, they don’t vote. But, their parents and grandparents do.

Those states that accepted ACA money to expand Medicaid to previously uninsured residents would see that money disappear, which would put state governments in a lose-lose scenario. The states would either raise taxes, to replace the lost federal money, or cut recipients off the Medicaid roles. Neither of these choices would be good in the next election for the existing state politicians. To understand the value of federal funding for Medicaid, consider this fact:

Fourteen states receive the minimum of federal Medicaid money ($1 from the Federal government for every $1 of state money; while the remaining 37 (including DC) receive 50.1% to 73.1% of their Medicaid moneys from the federal government. Eleven states (ID, UT, AZ, NM, AR, MS, AL, SC, KY, WV, DC), all of which are nominally “red” states, receive between 67% and 73% of their Medicaid money from the federal government. (source: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured)

Can the Republican members of Congress from those states vote yes on this bill, and then look their constitutes in the eyes in the 

next election cycle?

There is a tsunami approaching Washington DC right now.

Your comments, as always, are welcome.

RMH

http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-financing-how-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-implications/  retrieved March 23, 2017 at 9:05 AM MDT