Obama Dollars and Utah Schools

Last night, I read that the Provo School District is considering using one-time federal money to expand kindergarten from half-day to full-day.  I asked on Twitter whether alleged ponziist Rick Koerber was in charge of finances for the district, raising the issue that it is irresponsible to expand on-going programs with one-time money.  SL Trib reporter Robert Gehrke retweeted my item, and correctly pointed out that the State of Utah is using one-time money for on-going programs.

I replied that a huge difference exists between using one-time money to fund on-going programs and using one-time money to start new programs.  I’ll elaborate.

“One-time money” means a revenue source that won’t be repeated (e.g., death tax revenues from a huge estate, federal stimulus monies (um, well . . .)).

“On-going expenses” means costs that will continue (e.g., salaries for long-term employees).

Right now, in an $11 billion budget, Utah has $313 million in on-going costs with no source of on-going revenue.  We hate funding things that way.  Utah is riding out the recession better than most states, because, in part, we have not done that.  We pay for on-going costs with on-going revenue streams.  We use one-time money for one-time expenses (e.g., roads, buildings).

So, if that’s been our practice, why does Utah now have a structural imbalance (i.e., more on-going expenses than on-going revenues)?  Answer: though we have made significant cuts to get our costs in-line with revenues, we have existing programs that we do not feel we should cut further at this time (e.g., public education).

We hope that the economy will turn around and that revenues pick up, so that those costs can be covered.  But, hope obviously is a poor budgeting strategy.  So, should the economy not rebound, we’ve identified actual money sources to fund the expenses (e.g., the rainy-day fund).

The hole for public education funding is about $50 million.  When you factor in the cost of simple growth in the student population, the amount of money we have to find – to stay level – jumps even further.

So, with that background, what should districts do with the $101 million that Utah might receive from the federal government.  It seems pretty clear that they should do what they have to do to stay level – use the money to retain people, add back training days, employ teacher aids on a 1-year contract.  It seems pretty clear that they shouldn’t expand programs – that would take money that then wouldn’t go the items in the previous sentence.  If revenues don’t come back next year – which they likely won’t – the new kindergarten teachers would have to be fired (unless more money was taken from other teachers, training days, etc.).

If a household is financially strained and has made real cutbacks, it shouldn’t use unexpected one-time money to buy JetSkis.  It should use the money to stay level.  The State has been working hard to keep important programs level (by significantly cutting some programs and by expanding almost no programs).  It shouldn’t shock anyone that we think the same course of action would be prudent for school districts.

A Cheer for the President

Last night, President Obama said, “As the leader of the free world, America . . ..”

Those words suggest a nascent understanding on President Obama’s part that most Americans believe that their Nation is exceptional, that their Nation does great things for the world, and that America doesn’t need to apologize for its pre-eminence.  He and Michelle apparently didn’t run in circles where that majority perspective was shared.  So, maybe he’s learning.

Past generations have put America in such a good position that it can weather brief periods of foolishness.  But, the burdens that this Administration is flippantly putting on future generations could permanently injure the pillars.  Therefore, I am hoping — maybe naively, I will admit — that President Obama is seasoning a bit and that he is realizing that stability (though not as sexy as “change”) has its place.

Elections will happen this November and in November of 2012.  I clearly want to bench Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.  But, we have this Administration for at least 2 more years.  Until then, our Nation needs President Obama to better align himself with those he governs.  I’ll cheer him when he takes a step in the right direction.

Education Excellence

When I first learned about 2009-10 test results for my neighborhood elementary school, I wrote about education excellence.  I had seen failure and excellence first hand.  In short, the previous principal neither expected nor demanded excellence; as a result, excellence was suffocated by excuses.  For years, we begged and clamored for a change in leadership.  It only came when funding was jeopardized by repeated failures to achieve annual yearly progress under No Child Left Behind.  (Incentives matter).

With Principal Steve Gregoire, I saw the other extreme of leadership.  Excellence became the expectation.  And it was achieved.  The school came alive – and test results reflected the leadership, with a 7% leap.  Fluke?  Who wants to bet me a steak dinner that next year’s report card will take a similar leap?

Forget for a second concepts like “expectations,” “excellence,” and “leadership.”  The important takeaway is that kids’ lives were improved, and their futures were enhanced.

Okay, now, please remember concepts like “expectations,” “excellence,” and “leadership.”  Because educational performance will not improve without faithful dedication to those concepts.

Death Panels and Epidural Panels

One interesting thing about the “Death Panel” hyperboliad was that neither side focused on the reality that Government death panels already exist.  I know, because I sit on one.

Medicaid is poverty-level health insurance administered by the states.  States and the federal government both fund Medicaid.  Because we balance our budgets, there is only so much state government money to go around.  State money must meet the needs of public education, higher education, transportation, public safety,  prisons, all state programs, etc., etc. – and Medicaid.

When I entered the Legislature in 2001, Medicaid commanded 9% of the state budget: a very large amount.  Now, however, even prior to the ObamaCare ramp up, Medicaid commands 20% of Utah’s budget.  That is money that will not go to public education, higher education, etc.  The growth in Medicaid is out of control.  It threatens everything else Utah does.

So, the Legislature has to get a better handle on Medicaid spending.  That, of course, means hard choices.  And, I mean really hard choices.  By funding one thing, and not another thing, some people will suffer.  In some circumstances, people will even die.  If you want your heart to absolutely break, sit through meetings of the Health & Human Services Sub-Appropriations Committee and listen to people’s stories.  If we don’t better fund mental health, if we don’t fund AZT, if we don’t fund the waiting list, people will suffer and people will die.

So, we fund a lot, meaning that we have less funds for education, etc.  But, we don’t fund everything, meaning that people suffer and die.

We could take more money from our citizens, but we already take a lot.  And, our indicators suggest that higher taxes chase away productive businesses and citizens, and, therefore, end up hurting the economy and hurting government tax revenues that rise or fall based on the economy.  So, we make hard decisions and try to balance.  Last week, Doug Wright provided an excellent example of why that task is so difficult.

Doug Wright probably is Utah’s most-listened-to talk radio personality.  He’s good.  I like listening to, and being on, his show – because he typically works to address the real complexities of issues, rather than ignore the complexities, treat them like something simple, and beat a simplistic message into the ground.  That’s why I was surprised by his reaction to preliminary discussions regarding Utah’s Medicaid budget.

Joe Pyrah reported last Wednesday that elective c-sections and epidurals would be examined (actually, “cut” was the reporting) as part of the Legislature’s budget considerations.  The next day, Doug Wright painted that as the dumbest idea ever and as legislators being unfeeling jerks to even consider it.  Even though Doug’s job is to be informed and to inform, he indicated that he does not appreciate the complexities in play; to his listeners, therefore, it’s just another story about legislators being idiots.

Many people think that Utah should just pay for everything; legislators should stop being a bunch of heartless conservative jerks.  Well, that’s not an option.  We have to balance.

Any Medicaid item looked at individually will appear absolutely necessary.  Each item will have advocates who need the program.  And, I’m not talking about fluffy stuff.  People who can’t see want glasses.  People with rotting teeth want dental care.  People who are severely handicapped want some help, and their families would like a little break.  And, of course, laboring mothers want to have elective c-sections and epidurals.  Are any of those things wrong?  Absolutely not.  If we’re hurting, we want the hurting to stop.  If we can’t pay for it, we want Government to pay for it.  But, are any of those important items immune from a prioritization process?  Absolutely not.

Utah’s revenues just might stay level this year.  However, growth of $200,000,000 is needed to fund the enrollment growth in 2 programs alone (public education and Medicaid).  In other words, we’ll need to find $200 million in cuts elsewhere, raise taxes $200 million, or find some combination of the two, just to keep those 2 programs level.  (A majority of Utahns do not want their taxes raised.  Trust me on that one.).

So, we have some tough decisions to make.  I doubt the media will choke up on its bat when isolated threads of the budget are pulled out of the broader context of the overall budget.  But, I thought it might be good to state somewhere that every item can’t be a holy grail – if we’re actually going to balance the budget.

And, one other thing, when we make these decisions, do we think about the individuals who will be impacted?  Yes.  We think about them a great deal, and we don’t make these decisions lightly.

UPDATE (08/24/10): Man, oh, man!  Check out the commentary to Kristen Stewart’s article on this issue.  (A thorough article, I should add).  Senator Dan Liljenquist might just get poked with sharp sticks when he leaves his house this morning.

But here’s the beauty of a functional government; with all the input, Dan will lead the way in helping Utah get this figured out.  I didn’t know him before the plane crash.  But, having survived it, having lost loved ones, and having worked to get himself back on two feet, he’s got amazing perspective, patience, and goodwill.  This commentary is much like that of one year ago, when he announced that he would fix Utah’s flagging retirement system.

He received tremendous amounts of data, commentary, and criticism.  He met with everyone.  He learned all he could.  He valued people’s input, and he adjusted and re-adjusted.  And, ultimately, he figured it out, and people strongly support the changes.  Now, state retirement benefits are secure, taxpayers are protected, and Utah is the absolute talk of the Nation when it comes to state retirement systems.  In a representative democracy, tough discussions are essential.

The truly bad thing about all this, though, is the timing.  I don’t know if it could be any worse.  The Trib commentariat is quite eager for Dan to have an unnatural encounter with a watermelon.  And, wouldn’t you know it, the Green River melons are just hitting their peak.  Dan, here’s hoping that Parker West isn’t allowed to add any items to this agenda.

Princeton Is a Safety School

It’s official.

Once again, my fellow Williams College brother and I, remind our other brother – who had to settle for Princeton – that he too could have been an Ephman, had he avoided that “B” in drivers ed.  Hands at 10 and 2; how hard is that?

P.S. – Amherst barely makes the list at number 3.  Lord Jeffs?  Get a real mascot.

Is Obama Smart Enough To Be President?

We’ll likely see this question asked a lot more.  President Obama’s intelligence likely falls somewhere in the middle of the pack for modern presidents.  That typically wouldn’t be a problem.  But, the combination of his sub-Clintonian intellect, his lack of experience (possibly the lowest ever), his incurious disposition, and his unbridled arrogance almost preclude the possibility that he’ll get things right.  But, we can always hope that someone of average intelligence, little meaningful experience, scant curiosity, and an unwillingness to learn will shine like a star.

Refusing to release his transcripts (humility, because they are so superb?) and lacking a track record of completed projects (other than campaigns and autobiographies) – candidate Obama was a blank slate.  Was he smart, dumb, or middling?  Well, he was articulate – easily as articulate as any first-semester law school wonder.

Before the exams, first-semester law school wonders mesmerize classmates with their incomprehensible brilliance.  They can answer every question, at length, with an eloquence beyond the grasp and understanding of their mouth-breathing classmates.  But, then, grades come out.  And, the first-semester wonders don’t do so great.  Their gilded oratory does not impress knowledgeable professors who, primarily, are looking for analytical substance.  Their classmates start to actually listen, and realize that the incomprehensible brilliance is simply incomprehensible, not brilliant.

Thus, the reaction to President Obama’s last Oval Office speech.  Though pundits spilled a lot of ink wondering how Obama had suddenly turned into such a vacuous speaker, he hadn’t changed a bit.  It was not a subpar performance in any respect.  It was vintage – the sweeping generalities, the false choices, the exaggeration of the moment, the lack of historical perspective, the petty opportunism, the vilification of opponents; it was all there.  The change?  First semester grades were in, and people actually were listening for substance.

Even though oratory is his strong suit, I don’t see President Obama ever making a speech for the ages.  Those pillars of civilization require perspective, depth, humility, and conviction that he lacks.  With boundless and baseless arrogance, Obama does not speak to the ages – increasingly not even his own.

Immigration: My Reply to Ethan

I asked Ethan Millard whether people could favor immigration reform without being racists.  He accepted the challenge.

I’d characterize Ethan’s response as follows: proponents of immigration reform view illegal aliens as subhuman and, therefore, scapegoat and harass them; Utah cannot accomplish true immigration reform; therefore, the best answer is to leave things alone.  I hope that’s a fair characterization, Ethan, because I do greatly appreciate your willingness to engage.

Here is my reply:

An Immigration discussion is necessary and, therefore, is not racist per se.

Like Ethan, some argue that legislative bodies should not discuss illegal immigration.  The only reason the issue is being raised, they argue, is because proponents are racists.  (This seems to paint immigrant reform proponents as subhuman and suggest that they should be scapegoated and harassed).  But, for that argument to hold water, a majority of Americans, our President, and our entire Congress would have to be racists.

Last week, President Obama declared border security a “top priority,” dedicating “unprecedented resources and personnel to combating the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in drugs, weapons, and money, and smuggle people across the border with Mexico.”  Sen. Chuck Schumer said the legislation was needed to equip the Government “with the boots on the ground and the resources necessary to combat the crime and violence.”  It passed both bodies on a voice vote, with no opposition.

Are the President and 535 members of Congress racist?  No.  Looking at the facts and the lawlessness that accompany our current immigration practices, they agree with a majority of Americans that something should be done.

Representative democracy requires the airing and examination of many perspectives.

“’Shut up,’ he explained” is a classic Ring Lardner line.  It is also a classic political power move.  Bully people who disagree with you.  If you vilify, marginalize, and silence them, you win by default.

To silence opposition to his healthcare Anschluss, President Obama declared that the time for talk was over (before bill details had been worked out) and, also, that he didn’t want to hear from the businesses that actually had the most expertise on insurance and were most likely to be impacted by his bill.  Likewise, Robert Gibbs has explained that people on the left and the right of the Administration should shut up.

Silencing opposition is a vile tactic.  It is anti-democratic.  Replacing ideas and discussion with threats and taunts leads to bad decisions, lasting division, and insurrection.

The will of the majority should decide the outcome.

Political elites tend to forget that they serve the people.  They represent.  They do not dictate – at least not for long.  Of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In our constitutional system, states can and, at times, should prod the federal government.

The United States Constitution has 4 main concepts: a horizontal division of power among separate branches of government, checks between those branches, judicial review, and a vertical division of power among a federal sovereign and state sovereigns.  We borrowed 3 of those concepts and created only 1.  Any guesses which one?

A huge part of the genius of the Constitution is to divide governmental power vertically between sovereigns – a limited sovereign (the federal government) and separate sovereigns with broader powers (the states).  If the people think one of the sovereigns is screwing up, they can take their case to the other sovereign.  By design, the federal and state governments are supposed to push, prod, and check the other.

Because the federal government will not act, Utah should openly examine the issue of illegal immigration.

Arizona has tremendous health and safety concerns, because of illegal immigration – just ask President Obama and Chuck Schumer.  The federal government turned a deaf ear to Arizona.  Gov. Brewer’s constituents won’t let her do that.  She acted, and she got the attention of the federal government – just like the Framers envisioned.

Illegal immigration presents challenges to Utah.  Crime, educational costs, and hospital costs are just three of those concerns.  We’ve asked the federal government to do more.  It has turned a deaf ear.  Utahns will not allow Utah legislators to do that.  If we won’t examine the issue, they will rightly find others who will, because we are their servants, not their dictators.

The Utah Legislature should enact legislation to reflect the will of the majority of Utahns, consistent with state and federal constitutional limitations and authorizations.

I’ve been asked many times whether my job as a legislator is to do what I think is right or to do the bidding of my constituents.  I used to think that was a good question and that the answer varied, depending on the circumstances.  Now, after having a bill overturned by referendum, I think much differently.

My job is to find out what my constituents want, and do it – so long as it is constitutional.  That being said, I haven’t been lobotomized.  They expect me to work hard to educate myself, to interact with them – learning and teaching, and, ultimately, to do their will.  As President Obama is hopefully learning, the intelligence that people respect in their leaders is the intelligence that allows the elected officials to learn, educate, and do the people’s will.

That’s what I intend to do on immigration issues.  We’ll see what Utahns want and what our constitutional duties allow and require.

Governmentalism — Against the People

Sometimes Government works for Government, not for the people.  Thus, a fawning media is a failing media.

The LA Times is amazed to realize that the current administration acts a lot like, well, any old administration, when it comes to its government-knows-best-and-the-people-don’t-need-to-know-anything attitude.

It editorializes, “It is a popular conservative myth to suggest that the “mainstream media” is a liberal lapdog to the Obama administration, that reporters favor the president and that he returns the admiration. In fact, this administration has pursued a quiet but malicious campaign against the news media and their sources, more aggressively attacking those who ferret out confidential information than even the George W. Bush administration did.”

If I were editor, I’d mark up that lede to read, “It is a popular conservative myth to suggest observation that the “mainstream media” is a liberal lapdog to the Obama administration, that reporters favor the president and that he returns the admiration he abuses them like a rented mule.  We’re sorry.  We’ll do better in the future.”