Hot Topics

One month after the session, the bills generating the most heat are (1) the driving privilege card for illegal aliens and (2) state employee retirement benefits (conversion of unused sick leave for health insurance).

Since I've already written a fair amount on both issues, I will simply refer you to my previous posts through the links provided above, and I will link to an article from the Trib on the driving card (in response to the bill, an illegal alien is leaving for Mexico -- "she is tired of working hard and still being treated like a second-class citizen") and to thoughts on the sick leave changes over at Utah Politics (Phil has 3 recent entries on the topic, with some interesting commentary).

Legislative Blogging

Representative Stacey Campfield's blog is causing quite a stir in the Tennessee Legislature. In his blog, Rep. Campfield blasts away at the majority party and at majority leadership. For better or worse, it is a major political move, especially for a freshman, and Rep. Campfield is now holding the microphone. It will be interesting to see what he does with it.

I wish I knew more about the partisan nature of the Tennessee Legislature. Without knowing that -- and without knowing whether the participation rights of the minority are being trampled -- I can't give much of an opinion on the tone of the blog. If the minority's rights are being seriously stepped on, Rep. Campfield has placed his caucus in a position to shout it from the rooftops and change matters.

Something has gone wrong in my life; this stuff is more exciting than March Madness. Maybe that's just because Utah got eliminated, BYU stinks, and Williams College couldn't win the St. George city league.

UPDATE (3/31/05): The Tennessean wrote a fine editorial on the scuffle. Also, a Tennessee political junkie comments on matters at South End Grounds. Apparently, an intern for the Tennessee Speaker decided to get in on the action and, not surprisingly, promptly got out of the action. I can't say any of this is particularly artful, but it has a vibrancy that is exciting. Politicians and government are far too removed from the citizens they affect. However Tennessee's bloggate turns out, the citizens of the state will get a close look at a few things they haven't seen before -- and, one way or another, they might be motivated to get involved and change (or preserve) a few things. This is only fitting in the home state of the Internet's inventor.

Welcome Aboard!

In less than 3 months on the job, Gov. Huntsman has figured out the correct solution to the nuclear waste issues involving Skull Valley (Utah) and Yucca Mountain (Nevada): fight against both sites. This is the right thing to do and the politically winnable thing to do.

The State has objected to storage of nuclear waste at Skull Valley on four fronts: (1) lack of control, (2) transportation issues, (3) storage upwind of our communities, and (4) lack of benefit. Given those concerns, it has always floored me that our political leadership has considered Yucca to be a good idea. With Yucca, Utah (1) still has no control, (2) has even greater transportation concerns, (3) still is downwind (though it is St. George, instead of Salt Lake City), and (4) still gets no benefit. I likewise found it amazing that Utah’s political leadership would stir up the troops against storing waste at Skull Valley with stories of Southern Utah’s downwinder history; and, then, they would champion policy to store the waste where the bombs were detonated. Wait, didn’t you just say...?

In my opinion, the biggest hazard involved in either project is transportation. Because the bulk of the waste comes from the east, storage at Yucca simply means that the waste would be transported through even more of the State than it would were it stored at Skull Valley. It would go through northern Utah, pass by Skull Valley, make a left turn, and then come through the rest of the State. In short, Yucca, like Skull Valley, has always been a sorry idea.

In terms of political feasibility, Nevada Senators Reid and Ensign are effectively putting the kibosh on Yucca. They have the political muscle to help shape a sensible nuclear policy (store it on site, until we are politically willing to reprocess it – really a no-brainer), which puts an end to Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain. Utah should join with them.

Yucca is not going anywhere fast, if ever. But Skull Valley keeps moving forward. Say Utah were to have some successes in its challenges to Skull Valley (which I, of course, hope it will); as long as Yucca hangs out there as a possibility, Skull Valley will have perceived need and will continue to be pursued. But, if Yucca dies (which it eventually will), Skull Valley dies with it. Utah should help Yucca die – before Skull Valley gets the rods. We’re really in a bad way, if Skull Valley proceeds and Yucca doesn’t – meaning we’ve got the waste and it has nowhere else to go. The increasing likelihood that this might happen and the realization that Yucca itself is bad for Utah is causing Utahns to become increasingly frustrated by Utah's prolonged fumble on the issue.

While it has been politically expedient to support Yucca and proclaim “over our dead body” to Skull Valley, Utahns are educating themselves on the issue and will demand logic and toughness from our elected leaders. Thank you, Gov. Huntsman, for letting some light into the room. The entire federal delegation soon will get in line.

UPDATE (04/05/05): Sooner than I thought. Senator Hatch now says, "I don't feel good about Yucca, either. I've never felt good about it. Its never fun for us to vote" against your neighboring senators, he said. "But had we not voted for that, I guarantee that it would be coming to Utah."

I'd love to be a reporter on this one and follow up on that last line -- the guarantee . How exactly did that vote slow down PFS, even a little? This is a complex issue, and the people deserve clear information. The reality is that the Skull Valley project has continued its march through the regulatory process, and the vote to send the waste through Utah and park it upwind of my community did not cause Skull Valley to miss a beat. To the contrary, it furthered the underlying logic of Skull Valley, which is to move the waste, temporarily, to a site close to Yucca Mountain, until that facility is completed. Surely, the guarantee does not refer to the hollow promise he was tossed that no federal money would be used (on a project that doesn't need any federal money).

To be clear, I like Senator Hatch and appreciate his service, but he needs to admit he was wrong on this issue and start digging in to help. Hand-wringing statements, like this next one, don't cut it: "The question is what do you do and what do you support to make sure it stays out of Utah?" Hatch says. "Right now, it's Yucca. But I wouldn't be a bit disappointed, in fact I'd be elated, if the NRC and the administration decide to keep it where it is and reprocess it." If that's what you now want, which was the right thing all along, make it happen.

Success in Public Education

Tuesday I had the privilege of talking with Larry Shumway, Superintendent of the Tooele School District. He showed me one of the coolest charts I have ever seen. It showed that 3rd- and 5th-graders in his district are off the chart in reading tests. It showed that 8th- and 11th-graders are doing okay. He asked me what I thought. I told him it looked like his 8th- and 11th-graders could use some work. He told me I was missing the point.

Four years ago, Tooele decided that it could make significant gains by better focusing its efforts and limited resources. It decided it would focus on K-5 reading, reasoning that other things (e.g., math, science, grades 6 - 12) could better take care of themselves, if the students developed excellent reading skills early on. The tests show their efforts are succeeding. The elementary school kids are super readers. If the district keeps this focus, as the students progress through the system, 8th-grade scores will soon reflect the success. Next, 11th-grade scores will reflect the success. In short order, the whole system will be thriving.

But what about current students in the higher grades? Aren't they being forgotten? It seems to me, that this focus does not hurt them. Had the district stayed on the path it was on, those students, I would guess, would be doing the same as they are right now. The difference would be that the other grades would not be having the success they are; instead, they, too, would be doing just okay. No grade would be super -- as all seem to be right now in the Tooele County elementary schools.

Help Wanted

I recently wrote about the Medicaid trainwreck that is unfolding for Utah. I've received some input since then and have come up with a few areas of targeted improvement -- further privatization of administration (and, as an incentive, sharing the savings with the companies we contract with) and reduction in frivolous utilization.

I heard a staggering figure. One private company manages 55,000 medicaid recipients in Utah. Of those, just 220 recipients are responsible for HALF the total emergency room costs (220 out of 55,000 rack up half the expense to taxpayers). And these are not catastrophic cases; they are things like 15 ER visits a month for some users, none of which merits hospitalization (drug seeking), or repeated visits for the sniffles. To reduce those ER visits, we need to figure out how to minimize outright abuse of the system and, perhaps, how to improve access to a primary care physician.

Also, an ER doctor told me compelling stories about the effect that potential litigation has on the services he provides. While he knows, in some cases, that one test is sufficient (and that is all most non-Medicaid patients would receive in those cases), he orders (and taxpayers pay for) several other expensive tests, as defensive medicine in the event there is a lawsuit. When we debate the effect of malpractice lawsuits, we often focus only on actually litigated cases and neglect the steep costs of defensive medicine.

In some cases, Medicaid provides Cadillac services that the taxpayers who financially support those services could never afford for themselves. Meanwhile, as a result of wasting our money through such poor prioritization, reimbursement rates suffer for other basic services, such as those provided by specialists, to the point that service providers won't accept Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients are people like you and me, our family members, neighbors, and our friends. The people have decided that Government should provide some medical services for those lacking financial resources. But I don't think anyone intended the current mess or would call the system superlative, as it currently stands.

Rep. Brad Last (House Chair of Health and Human Services) and I will hold informal meetings with interested parties to get a better feel for the problems and possible solutions. If you have ideas, bring 'em on.

Vetoes

Gov. Huntsman went easy on the vetoes. As he and President Valentine said, it is a tribute to the good relationship the legislative and executive branches currently enjoy. I briefly saw Rep. Mike Morley yesterday (the sponsor of the only piece of legislation truly vetoed -- 1 HB 42 (psychotropic drug administration)) and asked him if he had heard the news. He told me the Governor had called to tell him. That's cool. No doubt, Mike will work to override the veto (as all legislators should, if they believe in the legislation), but it goes a long way toward preserving the relationship, if the parties deal with each other squarely.

Another thing I really appreciate about how the Governor handled this tough part of his job is that he signed all the other bills, rather than let them pass into law without his signature. He didn't have to do this. He could have taken the symbolic hand-wringing position of "Well, it's law now, but, see, I didn't really like it and didn't sign it (but lacked the courage to veto it)." Instead, fully honoring his role, he figured if he had a role, he'd take ownership and put his X on it. That doesn't get him points -- except with people who like toughness in their leaders.

The Gov. did veto another bill (at the sponsor's request, because of technical flaws) and a few budget line items (again, for technical reasons), but these won't cause a stir. One mess up we need to correct involves the $18 million we appropriated for tourism development in SB 7. The Senate passed it, the House amended it and pass the amended version, and the Senate then thought it concurred with that amended bill; however, the bill in its physical possession at that time, did not reflect the amendments. Therefore, we actually passed different versions and the bill failed. No doubt, we'll revisit this issue in the special session.

Driving Privilege Card

The D-News ran a revealing story about the recent legislative changes to eligibility for a drivers license or driving privilege card. Apparently for a new angle, the article states that the legislation also affects Canadians. Seeing how it equally affects everyone here without a social security card who wants to drive, that would make sense. A little more research might reveal it also affects Germans, Japanese, and the British. The article asks, "What happens when [Larry McCulloch's wife from Manitoba who didn't want to give her name] drives across state lines and into Canada for a visit?" Bracing myself for some unintended consequence that the reporters discovered, I read on to discover that the answer is, well, nothing. Somehow, though, the unnamed wife of Larry McCulloch from Manitoba, who will not be affected by this legislation on her yearly trips to Canada, "is being punished because she is Canadian." The article even contains outrage quotes: "It bothers me," [Larry] McCulloch [from Manitoba] said. "Unbelievable." But the article never cites a reason for the outrage.

This legislation is significant and has attracted a lot of attention. I've had calls and conversations about it with employers, illegal aliens, government officials and many constituents. But this article leaves me with the distinct impression that the media might be poking just to poke.

To Veto or Not to Veto

Today is the last day for Gov. Huntsman to sign bills, let them slip into law without his signature, veto them, or, in the case of a Senate concurrent resolution, let it die without his signature. My preferences (which, not surprisingly, mirror my votes on the legislation) are that he veto the midwifery bill and sign the medical devices bill (for which I was House sponsor), the child drugging bill, child welfare reforms, and the Tooele County/State Trust Lands landfill resolution (for which I'm named on the bill as the House sponsor but wasn't; Rep. Rhonda Menlove was the sponsor).

I talked about the midwifery bill here. Since I haven't had any conversations with the Gov. or his people about the medical devices bill, I'm surprised by his reluctance to sign it; to me, it does a great job of limiting liability at the right point (i.e., when someone else makes the decision to reprocess a single-use device -- using their chemicals, sterilization techniques and packaging). The child drugging bill strikes a good balance between government and parents regarding administration of psychotropic drugs. The child welfare reform bill better ensures due process for families.

The Gov.'s reluctance on the landfill bill (household solid waste -- banana peels and old shoes) is very interesting. The landfill would mean significant revenue to School Trust Lands (and community councils). The only reasons I've heard for not signing the bill are (1) a desire to stop importation of waste to Utah and (2) to give a competitive advantage to the Goshutes (who have a competing landfill in the works), to discourage their acceptance of the spent nuclear rods. Reason (1) doesn't apply, since waste won't be imported. Reason (2) makes no sense, unless the Goshutes completely and officially disavow the rods -- which they won't do. Though I think the resolution will be signed, if it is not, things get interesting. Since neither reason stated above would comport with the State's fiduciary duty to generate revenue for the schools from the Trust, the beneficiaries of the Trust (who have been ripped off in the past) would likely sue the State (and win) for breach of its fiduciary duty .

God Bless

Every time I read a story about a premie, it brings back strong memories. Like Luke, our premie (Lucy) came 3-months too early and is our fourth child, with the ages of her older siblings being the same at her birth as Luke's siblings. I wish the O'Cambs well. Though they've been through more than we went through, I can relate to some degree when the father says, "It's been quite a ride for us." It continues to be one of the best rides my family and I have ever had. If you doubt that miracles still occur, please give me a call and ask about Lucy.

Computer Spyware II

Matt Canham wrote a good article on my anti-spyware legislation. I agree with Pete Ashdown's observation that the market will provide the ultimate solutions to spyware. In addition to those private sector efforts, this legislation should eliminate some of the profit for the worst offenders in the adware world, thereby decreasing the volume of adware. Where the effectiveness of this legislation should differ from anti-spam legislation (as mentioned by Mr. Paull) is that advertisers are liable for knowlingly purchasing a spyware advertisement:

(5) Except as provided in Subsection 13-40-201 (2)(b), an action for a violation of this chapter may be brought against a person who purchases or acquires advertising described in Subsection 13-40-201 (1) if: (a) the person against whom the action is brought receives actual notice from a mark owner of an alleged violation of Section 13-40-201; (b) the notice required under Subsection (5)(a) contains a detailed explanation of the alleged violation; and (c) the person against whom the action is brought fails to take reasonable steps to stop the violation of Subsection 13-40-201 (1) described in the notice provided under subsection (5)(a).

Of course, there would be offshore advertisers willing to violate such laws, but it would significantly decrease the volume of adware (and bother for Internet users) to first push the biggest problems offshore and away from the "legitimate" domestic companies engaged in the practices outlawed by my bill. WhenU, for example, who along with Claria lobbied against the bill (thereby leading me to believe that both companies do violate its provisions), has a prestigious New York, New York address, is run by a charismatic Princeton graduate and brings in tens of millions of dollars a year running spyware-based pop-ups for significant companies.

WhenU states, "Assuming the Utah bill was redrafted in a way that doesn't restrain any productive legitimate businesses, such as WhenU, we do not anticipate any other challenges." I would encourage WhenU to do some accurate polling with average Internet users on what is "legitimate" in this arena. If it does, I'd say it would find overwhelming support for the provisions of this bill. Hopefully, it then would take the simple steps required to comply with this bill.

Ridiculous -- and Pathetic

Utah's legal challenges to storage of nuclear waste in Skull Valley aren't going too well.

Senator Orrin Hatch says, "what is involved here is to prevent (PFS) from stacking this stuff above ground where two private entities, one of which is a shell corporation (PFS) and the other a small Indian tribe with less than 125 people. That's ridiculous."

Ridiculous, indeed. Two years ago, it was obvious that Utah's legal challenges to Skull Valley were weak. At that time, I suggested Utah also look for other alternatives (such as, reprocessing, alternative siting, incentives to generator states to keep the material). One of the harshest and loudest critics of such an examination was Senator Hatch. Privately, I shared my concerns with the Senator -- that storage in Skull Valley threatened the State by transportation through and storage upwind of vital communities, lack of control, and perceived interference with Hill Air Force Base. I told Senator Hatch that I thought it was important to study alternatives in addition to the faltering litigation. He told me that the issue was too politically hot to study, and he assured me that he and the lawyers had things under control.

This is a huge deal to the State. Now, though, it looks like his idea of having things under control was to sell out our natural ally (Nevada) and refute the idea that the waste should be kept where it was generated and not be dumped on the West. For what? For the Secretary of Energy's commitment to not federally fund the Skull Valley project. That's a pretty crummy deal.

The shell corporation (PFS) is backed by major energy companies sitting on billions of dollars to fund the Skull Valley project. They don't need any federal money to complete the project, nor would they want the entanglements federal money would bring at this point. In other words, Senator Hatch hooked our wagon to a dead horse.

Now, he downplays the potential that the matter could turn into a battle of which state has the most clout. "I don't think it comes down to politics," he said. "I think it comes down to doing what's right." It always has been a matter of politics, and it always has been a matter of which state has the most political clout. And that's why Utah is doing so poorly on this one.

Senator Reid (who, I point out, is succeeding in bogging down and defunding the Yucca Mountain project) wisely is maneuvering to keep the waste at the generator sites. Senator Hatch should admit he was wrong and attach himself to Sen. Reid's clout.

UPDATE (3/18/05): Thanks to LaVarr and Utah Policy for the link. If readers are interested in this issue, check out my 2/5/05 entry. The Wald article cited in that entry is very informative -- and, for Utah, disturbing. What I think our delegation should do is (1) mend fences with Reid and work toward keeping the waste in place and, simultaneously, (2) work on the Secretary of Interior to reverse the Bureau of Indian Affairs' decision to allow the Goshute/PFS lease, and (3) work with the states who will squawk about the waste being kept in their states (the generator states), to rethink America's current policy of not reprocessing the nuclear fuel rods, like other nations do. If we reprocess the rods, the waste problem largely goes away, since 92% of the uranium in the rods is able to be reprocessed. As LaVarr mentions, now that Senator Hatch is up for election, and now that the politically expedient route of doing nothing (well, other than throwing a few lawyers at the thing) isn't going so well, I hope the Senator will muster the courage to work this issue like he should have been doing the last several years.

Open Government

Though you never really know how accurate these things are, I was pleased to read that Utah ranks high in a report on the openness of state government. You can chalk up a huge part of our openness to my good friend and Utah's former House Speaker Marty Stephens. Openness was something he felt strongly about and fought for always.

Okay, you might ask, if Marty and the legislature feel so strongly about open government, why does the House Republic majority close caucuses? First, take a quiz. How many caucuses did the House majority close this past legislative session? Don't cheat and look below; take a guess.

We close caucuses to discuss things that relate only to the caucus -- like the health or welfare of a member -- and we close them to brainstorm on highly sensitive issues. For example, as I have written on a few occasions, we are facing plenty of problems in the Medicaid arena. To figure out the right answer, in addition to all the public testimony and public proceedings, we might want to close the doors and run through many scenarios, to find out where the caucus is. Premature disclosure of these discussion points could make us look overly callus or, alternatively, it could create false hope in vulnerable segments of the population. By closing the doors, we are free to broadly explore possibilities and, thereby (in my opinion), reach good results.

I'm in favor of closing caucuses in situations like those discussed above. The reality is that exploratory conversations are going to occur. If they can't happen with the caucus, leadership simply will make many of these sensitive decisions. You may not like hearing that, but that's the reality. I recently asked a member of Democratic legislative leadership how long he thought Democrats would retain always-open caucuses, if they recaptured the majority; he laughed and admitted "about a month."

I am excited to hear, however, that Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon is going to have open cabinet meetings. Elected leaders need to be optimistic; so, I don't mean to be too much of a wet blanket. But, I'll be very interested to see if this works (and skeptical that all decisions will be made in that setting). I do like and appreciate Mayor Corroon a great deal, and I wish him well in this experiment.

Answer: one caucus meeting.

Miscellaneous

I wrote about education funding today at Times and Seasons, where I am ending a 2-week stint as a guest blogger.

Tomorrow, I'm on the Cliff Donovan show at 9:40 a.m. At noon, Sara will speak at the St. George Chamber of Commerce on Art Around the Corner (the bronze statues around downtown that her Dixie Arts Foundation placed).

On Thursday, Gov. Huntsman is coming to town to sign some bills (4:30 p.m. in the County Commission chambers). After the bill-signing, the other legislators and I are hosting a barbecue for Gov. Huntsman and anyone in the community who wants to come. Please join us!

Medicaid

Today's Tribune has an excellent series of articles on Medicaid. This is an enormously important issue -- that I predict will present the toughest choices states have faced in a long time (even including the tough choices states had to make in the recent downturn to balance their budgets). The articles refer to the difficult choices, who receives Medicaid, questions and answers, possible fixes, a family on Medicaid, and an individual on Medicaid.

If the federal government gets even semi-serious about balancing its budget, it will need to look hard at Medicaid. Constituencies for programs (recipients and providers) will look to the states to make up any difference created by federal cuts. That will make for difficult choices. This year, for example, there are charges that the 5.6% increase to public education funding ($143.2 million) is inadequate (an "insult," as the educators' union president told me). Funding for Health and Human Services (mostly Medicaid funding), though, was increased 7.3% ($159 million) this year.

No doubt, if the legislature does not pony up the money to retain any Medicaid benefits cut by the feds, we will be called heartless. To the extent we do spend the money to cover those benefits, we will be accused of stealing that money from education. Though these decisions seem simple in isolation, it is helpful to have my constituents understand that they are fairly complex and that one part of the budget affects others. And that is a reason I love this blog.

Legacy Highway

The Deseret News editorializes strongly in favor of constructing the Legacy Highway.

Today, on The Daily Debate, Rep. Stuart Adams (a Legacy proponent) and Roger Borgenicht (a Legacy opponent) debate whether the Legacy Highway should be built ASAP.

To me, this is a no-brainer. Legacy is going to be built. It is simply a question of how much time and money will be wasted between now and then. Already, the delay has cost the State hundreds of millions of dollars, and, as people idle in traffic, the delay contributes to air pollution and wastes who-knows-how-many man-hours.

Computer Spyware

I'm getting a lot of calls and e-mails about my computer spyware bill (2 HB 104). Last year's bill (the first anti-spyware law in the nation -- or world, I think) addressed data mining -- requiring notice and consent. That was a big chunk to bite off, since most of the computing and Internet world mines a lot of data. This year's bill (which should be signed in St. George on March 17th) more-narrowly addresses adware; it prohibits downloading software onto a user's computer, if that software will use a trademark or URL of a website being viewed to trigger a pop-up advertisement; this is to be contrasted with a pop-up sent by the site being viewed itself -- which is the price of admission (and is easily blocked by Google toolbar).

Though this year's bill does not address trojans, keyloggers or other types of spyware, I think it should have great benefit. Far and away, the most bothersome type of spyware is adware. As I testified before the FTC last year, adware companies are engaged in an arms-race with consumers -- dumping adware on unsuspecting consumers faster than they can educate themselves about it or remove it. At that time, WhenU.com -- one of the leading adware companies -- had dumped 100 million copies of its software on consumer's computers, and 80 million copies had been removed. Though WhenU attempted to use this data to show that its products were easily removable (as my legislation required), it spoke more to the unwanted nature of the product.

While adware is a problem standing on its own (slowing down computers, frustrating users, and injuring e-commerce), it also invites other problems through its recklessness with users' security. Because the adware is designed to receive updated advertisements, it opens portals to users' computers, thereby making the users' computers vulnerable to all sorts of invasions. Adware has a significant stream of money behind it; it's not tough to find the big adware companies; therefore, it shouldn't be tough to get them to change their practices to conform to the requirements of 2 HB 104.

While I would guess that spyware companies (e.g., WhenU and Claria) will work to defeat the bill, I would hope that companies being burdened by spyware (like ISPs and computer manufacturers -- for example, Dell testified at the FTC hearing that half its "consumer complaints" are actually spyware complaints) will help advocate in favor of the bill.

Illegal Aliens

SB 227 (Public Safety Driving Privilege and Identification Card Amendments) has created quite a stir. The legislation establishes that illegal aliens can get driving privilege cards, instead of drivers licenses. Part of the impetus for SB 227 was a legislative audit showing serious problems, including voter fraud by illegal aliens.

One activist stated, "Whenever these people use this identification, they're going to be looked at as second-class citizens." This is a common thread in the statements against this bill -- two classes of citizens. Of course, the odd thing about such statements is that this bill affects people who actually are not citizens.

This situation highlights the serious problems with immigration policy in this country. National policy works to legalize high-end workers, while largely ignoring low-end workers. Low-end workers also benefit the economy. The jobs are here, and these workers come in droves looking for opportunity. So many workers come over illegally that we can't hire enough INS people to do much of anything about it -- meaning we have little say over who enters our country (would-be contributors v. would-be felons). If we had rational entry policy for laborers (meaning legal entry were more feasible), we could select those likely to contribute and we could more easily crack down on others entering illegally.

The federal policy puts states in a sorry position. We know illegal aliens are here -- performing jobs and, yes, driving; all of this, of course, is illegal; yet, we know INS has almost no capability or even desire to do anything about it. Even if the feds don't really care about the situation, in a meaningful way, or have the political guts to do anything about it, States should not endorse the illegal activity. For this reason, I think it has been a mistake to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens (making Utah a magnet for illegal aliens -- like the 62 who received drivers licenses last year from the same apartment).

Grading Gov. Huntsman

I'm asked over and over how Gov. Huntsman is doing. Extremely well, is the answer.

The Deseret News observes,

While former GOP Govs. Mike Leavitt and Olene Walker at times during legislative sessions would hold formal press conferences or give press interviews where they instructed legislators to toe the line on this or that gubernatorial spending priority, Huntsman stayed in the background.

The fact that he wouldn't blast away in the media is part of the reason he did so well. We were able to build relationships of trust and sit down, discuss what each branch and house wanted, work through our differences and move things forward. Part of the difference, in my opinion, is that Gov. Huntsman is more conservative than his predecessors and, therefore, felt more comfortable sitting down and having candid conversations with leaders of a conservative legislature, instead of using a more liberal press to do his bidding.

Utah has elected a long string of outstanding governors, and Gov. Huntsman is well on his way to being one of the best.

The End

The session ended and we all turned into pumpkins last night at midnight. The Deseret News and Tribune had nice recaps of what we did. Now that it's not such a rush, I'll elaborate on those actions, one issue at a time, in the next few weeks.

I think it was a great session. Public employees and teachers got an overdue boost, many health and human services issues were addressed, and several economic development projects were launched. And to let the taxpayers know we got it about right -- there's some complaining that we didn't spend enough. Of course, there is the grousing that we spent too much on roads, but, as I've stated before, that was money that was going to be spent; it was just a question whether we were going to use cash or credit.

My bills fared well -- except for the waste bill that crashed and burned. As my friend, Sen. Greg Bell, stated in a comment to the post below, there even was some movement afoot to reconsider the waste bill, which I appreciate; but on the last day, time is simply too short to get everything done. As majority whip, I was helping prioritize House bills over in the Senate. I bet I ran up there 40 times yesterday to coordinate activities and put out fires (each time huffing and puffing, because of the pneumonia I mentioned). Some good bills died at midnight without action, which is a shame but is the nature of the beast in a 45-day session.

Cuss and Swear!

Some days up here you can't even give candy to kids.

After sweating over my waste fees bill for weeks in the House, I watched it die a brutally ugly death in the Senate; 4 "yes" votes -- and that's probably because they felt sorry for me. The Senate sponsor (who, actually gave a great presentation) asked me if I wanted to work the members and move to reconsider. No, thanks. One thrashing a session is plenty.

The bill addressed a real problem in inequitable fees between public and private landfills, but it looks like the issue will have to wait until next year. It's a tough one politically, though, since all of the public landfills are being subsidized by the higher fees on the private landfill, and people typically don't line up to give away their subsidies.

I think I have pneumonia, and I'm excited to end tomorrow.