More Fire Blogging

The New Harmony fire is controlled. Rep. Brad Last and I met with state, BLM, and forest service leaders to assess the damage. Only 1 structure was lost -- an out-shed that was reduced to nothing but ashes. Another house had its plastic siding melted. The condition of the structures is amazing, considering the charred earth all around them. This result speaks to several things: the houses had defensible space (no trees within 30 feet) and were smartly constructed (flame-resistant materials), the streets were wide enough to allow firefighting trucks to get into and stay by the structures (to keep them wet), there was a good water system (so that there was water to keep the houses wet), a great coordination effort between the local fire department, the county, the state, and the feds, and -- importantly -- a good chunk of luck.

In 2004, the legislature passed Rep. Buttars fire suppression bill, which effectively will require many of these elements (defensible space, flame-resistant materials, properly designed streets, and adequate water) when fully implemented. The importance of these elements becomes apparent when one considers the safety of firefighters, the increased amount of housing in forested areas, and the cost to taxpayers of protecting these structures and other infrastructure (about $2,500,000, as of yesterday, for the Washington County fires).

Two additional communities in Washington County are currently threatened (though I'm told the threat is minimal at this time) -- Winchester Hills and Diamond Valley. The fires (which I just inspected at 8 pm) are north and mostly east of the communities; this is where we want them, as the winds have been blowing to the northeast. There is an awful lot of charred ground around these communities.

Merrill Saleen is the Incident Commander for these more-southern fires. It is nice that his group (and Rowdy Muir's group up north) can set up camp in the air-conditioned middle schools; for one thing, it lets the night crews come in out of the heat during the day to get some good sleep. Also, it is nice to have real showers, flushies, and electrical outlets for the serious technological equipment they use in fighting these fires.

Talking with these very experienced wildland firefighters, one thing becomes painfully apparent: concerning fires, this summer will be horrible. A big reason we haven't lost structures is because of the enormous resources we've thrown at these fires -- lots of tankers and helicopters and top-notch hot shot crews. Whatever the Incident Commanders are asking for, they're getting. As the fire season advances to the more-heavily wooded and larger-acreage areas higher up and further north, the available resources and crews will be spread out. Commanders won't be able to snap their fingers and have tankers and crews instantly pop up. And this will present a problem, since our very wet spring has produced an incredible fuel load.

Also, though it is a bigger topic than I have time for now, this situation is the product of the sorry condition of our forests and federal lands, brought to you courtesy of . . . (stay tuned).

UPDATE (7/1/05, midnight): I just went by the command center at Snow Canyon Middle School to get a report on the Winchester/Diamond Valley fire. It is burning toward Pine Valley Mountain but is largely under control. The winds have cooperated nicely. Though it is late, some of the crews were just coming in and getting their dinner.

Yesterday, I met with several county commissioners from throughout the state and state forestry officials to discuss the fire situation. Specifically, we talked about how existing funding might match up with the fires this summer. Most likely, it won't match up and will need to be supplemented. Just 2 years ago, we had to supplement the existing budget 11 million dollars to pay for the fires from the previous summer.

The state and the feds have worked out cost allocation to a very large degree, based mostly on who owns what percentage of the affected acreage. For private ground in unincorporated county, the state has set up a fire suppression fund. Counties are assessed $.01 per acre and $.001 per dollar of assessed valuation in unincorporated areas. This generates $450K/year, which the State matches, for funding fire fighting efforts on private ground. All the counties participate, except for Salt Lake and Weber Counties.

It makes sense that Salt Lake County doesn't participate, because it doesn't have many structures in unincorporated county that would likely be threatened by a wildfire and because the county has a lot of available resources to fight a fire (i.e., all the other fire departments in the valley). The (legitimate) rub for Weber County is that the formula works against Weber by factoring in lots of assessed valuation on commercial properties that would never be threatened by wildfire. Because Weber could have a lot of structures jeopardized by wildfire, we need to get this issue worked out.

New Harmony Fire

As we drove toward Cedar City, Sara and I called our friends in New Harmony at 6 p.m. They said they were fine. The fire was to the south, and the wind was blowing to the east. A town meeting had been called for 7 p.m., to brief the residents on the status of the fire. Everything looked fine, so Sara and I went on to Cedar for dinner. We were sitting outside at 7:30 talking with some friends and a huge smoke cloud passed overhead and thick ash started falling from the sky. The wind had turned north, meaning the fire would move toward New Harmony.

We hightailed it back to New Harmony. Flames 30 to 50 feet high, with bursts of about 80 feet, were cresting over the mountain and heading down into the New Harmony valley. A mandatory evacuation had been issued for the southern part of the town and a voluntary evacuation for the rest. Our friends, in their 80s, were concerned about their neighbors, who were in their 90s. The neighbor used to be a trapper and prize fighter.

My friend introduced me: "He's a legislator. He's the whip in the House."

The trapper shook my hand and asked my friend, "That's good. How is he at fighting fires?"

My friend: "Not worth a damn."

The trapper: "Well, maybe he can help me move the tractor."

We moved the equipment to open areas, grabbed a few things out of both houses (including my friend's medals from when he was a track star at Utah State) and got everyone on the road. Sara and I stayed behind to talk with some of the firefighters, law enforcement officers, and search and rescue members. We also met Rowdy Muir, who is in charge of the incident command for the Blue Springs fire. He and Dean Cox (county emergency response coordinator) invited me to attend the evening briefing in the back of the mobile command unit, as they went over security for the evacuated town, plans for people who might return, and various scenarios to fight the fire. Rowdy figured the fire would sit down for the night. Over a contour map, he then went over different strategies the crews would take, depending on what tomorrow brings.

Civilized society is an amazing thing. I hope I can help my children realize how it all fits together and appreciate how other people graciously and courageously serve us. Speaking of which, I find it interesting that the commenter to the last post who is so grateful for the service of the firefighters (if she is who I am sure she is) is at home with a handful of young children while she enthusiastically allows her husband to serve the world in Iraq.

Speaking of gratitude, I was touched by the caravan of Iron County Sheriffs cars that poured into New Harmony to help with the evacuation. Three cheers for Sheriff Gower and Iron County!

Fire

I took the kids camping and fishing and returned to see the County going up in flames.

Last night I went to the emergency response command center and was impressed by the way the various state and local entities (Washington County, UDOT, and the highway patrol) were coordinating emergency efforts. From there, I went to the firefighting operations center (Snow Canyon Middle School) and, likewise, was impressed by the coordinated efforts of the federal, state, and local entities, as well as the volunteer organizations. It was late and most of the crews had returned and were eating dinner and bedding down. I spoke with several of the firefighters, thanking them for helping out. They were covered with soot and tired from a long day's work. I was struck by how young they are. I pray that they are kept safe -- in this fire and the many more they will fight this summer.

Today, the weather cooperated and much progress was made.

UPDATE (6/27/05): As of 3 p.m., the West Complex fire is largely under control (about 60,000 acres burned). However, the fire that has been burning in Nevada just west of the Utah border climbed up and over the Mormon Mountains and is headed toward the Gold Strike Mountains and the Town of Enterprise. This fire has burned over 150,000 acres. The crews that were fighting the West Complex fire are pulling off to fight this "new" fire.

The Blue Springs fire is close to New Harmony (south of Cedar City). It is being fought well, but it could threaten New Harmony. I'm headed up there tonight to make sure that a friend of mine is prepared.

UPDATE (7/3/05): Here's a good Spectrum article on the camp and operations.

Having Your Say

It is absolutely exciting to think about the future of representative democracy. For my entire lifetime, something important has been missing -- the people. Politics mostly has been a one-way conversation. Politicians have presented themselves to the people in a format where the politician speaks and the people listen. And what we listen to is mostly shallow, evasive and downright insulting.

Cutting out the people is a big problem. First, it leads to stupid decisions; the collective intelligence of the people is much greater than that of any one leader, and it should be actively solicited. Second, cutting out the people undermines and weakens (makes vulnerable) the process itself.

The concept of politics isn't bad. It is a centuries-old process for solving disputes and charting the course for a society. The actual practice of politics, however, has turned beyond bad. The people who have been shut out, not surprisingly, act shut out. They turn off and no longer demand accountability or, even, answers to simple questions. As a result, it seems we move in circles.

But, I think change might be in the works. Check out Rep. John Dougall's website for a glimpse into the future. You might or might not agree with him, but you sure know where he's coming from. And do you see how he's just begging for dialogue by allowing public comments? Obviously, he believes he can't do the job properly without informing the people where he stands and without letting them critique and improve his thinking. Revolutionary!

The Internet is such a simple tool to use. As I look into the future, I can't imagine people will continue to let their leaders hide. They'll look over the fence and see that Rep. Dougall's constituents are invited (daily) to the party. They might start asking questions. Why are they being kept in the dark? Should someone else do the job who does value their input?

Great leaders are in touch with the people they lead.

Education and Opportunity

Higher education is a significant door to opportunity. For that reason, and because it is a potent fuel for the State’s economic engine, the taxpayers of the state subsidize about 65% of the cost of tuition for in-state students. This is an extremely chunky investment for the taxpayers of the State, and it is very important that we make sure it is administered wisely.

Utah and the nation as a whole do a good job of making higher education accessible, through low tuition rates (somewhere, even if not at the school down the street from you), through financial assistance by way of loans and grants, and through a range of institution-types (from prestigious research institutions to community colleges and applied technology centers). However, I believe we could make the system more accessible (which it should be, since all taxpayers contribute).

At 15, I told my dad I wanted to be a carpenter (like my grandfather) or a musician (like Eric Clapton, but with chords I’d learned from the Roy Clark Big Note Songbook). I simply didn’t have any interest in college. My parents and big brothers had a lot of interest in me going to college, got me excited about the college I ended up attending, and refocused my priorities. What would I have done, if they hadn’t ganged up on me? Who knows? Maybe something worse, something better, but definitely something different. (I might have just lost my argument, since many will think a carpenter, musician or just about anything else might have more societal benefit than a lawyer and politician).

What about kids who don’t have those resources at their fingertips? Is the system serving families where the parents didn’t go to college and might be pretty intimidated by the whole idea? How about the students who have to hold down time-intensive jobs during high school and might be more focused on the next paycheck than on SATs and ACTs? This seems to be an area where we could do much better. It seems that with a little creativity (and maybe with some private-sector partnering), we could swing open the doors to higher education a little wider. With the excellent help of a Dixie College administrator and student, I’m looking for ideas and would welcome input.

Birthday x 2

Yesterday I turned 40. I’ve been asking people today if I seemed any wiser. No one seems to notice a difference.

More importantly, my oldest daughter turned 11. About a month before my wife’s birthday, she starts asking, “What are you getting me for my birthday? Remember, I gave you a daughter for yours.”

My daughter seems to enjoy sharing a birthday, and for me it is absolutely the best. We had a good little party and received some nice cards and phone calls. For those of you who neglected to come over or send your regards, no hard feelings; you’re just off the list.

Congratulations?

I always love to see friends do well. I'm not sure getting Tasered and pepper-sprayed count as doing particularly well, but I guess some guys will do anything for a little attention.

Ty and I entered the legislature at the same time. He is wonderfully upbeat and game for stirring things up. As we celebrated Ty getting this job, I asked him if he thought Rocky would hold any grudges for a few caustic remarks Ty lobbed the Mayor's way. Now we know the answer to that one!

You Agree With Me. Don't You!

When I run polls, I find that people agree with my positions. My polls usually consist of one question: "Would you rather support my policy or get poked in the eye with a stick?" Research shows, support levels for my policies are amazingly high.

Okay, that's a little extreme, but it is a constant source of amusement how people who know better run polls just about that biased.

A poll was recently published, showing that Utahns don't favor a tax cut. But, as I noticed, and as Gazelem dissects, the question wasn't exactly neutral. It asks whether Utahns favor a tax cut or funding state "needs." Right there, you've imposed a value on the question. If it's a "need," we better fund it. Maybe the people being sampled would have responded differently, if they had been asked a more neutral question of choosing between tax cuts or funding other state programs.

But, maybe that's just my opinion. I'm curious where you stand on the issue of polling. So, I ask, "Would you rather have neutral polling questions or get poked in the eye with a stick?"

Early Voting

Two of the biggest turn-offs to voting (other than bad candidates) are inconvenience and delay. Though it seems a touch silly to focus on inconvenience and delay as democracy destroyers, after we saw what Iraqis went through to vote, it simply makes sense to speed up voting as much as possible, while not compromising integrity. Also, given the cost of the new federal HAVA requirements (to be born largely by the counties), the State is interested in reducing expenditures for new machines.

In attempting to increase speed and minimize costs, the legislature is primarily looking at two options -- decentralized voting and early voting. Decentralized voting expands your options of places where you could vote. Now, you can vote only at your precinct location. Decentralized voting registers electronically that you have voted, thereby allowing you to vote at any station, while preventing you from voting in multiple locations. This might mesh better with people's lifestyles where they spend most of their day well away from their homes.

Another idea is early voting, meaning you're not just limited to the actual date of the election; you would be able to vote for some period before that date (say, a few weeks or maybe even a month). We already have limited versions of this, and they seem to work well.

The D-News editorializes in favor of decentralized voting but against early voting. The editorial worries that early voting could damage democracy by changing the nature of last minute blitzes in a campaign and by unwisely allowing people to vote before 11th-hour developments might be unveiled (like "scandals or last-minute accusations") .

I'm not buying it. Campaigns are awfully long. Way too long. There is plenty of time to get out legitimate messages. Last-minute scandals and revelations often are nothing more than cheapshots delivered so that the other side does not have time to refute the allegations. In my book, such tactics disrespect democracy. For a candidate to respect the process, I'd say, get your information out early and give voters adequate time to process it.

The only interest to suffer from early voting would be the media. When last minute scandals hit, big media outlets dominate. Other outlets, like candidate mailers, small blogs, and word-of-mouth, simply take longer to circulate facts. Take for example, the Bush National Guard story. In the week that big media dominated the story (imagine if that had been the week of the election), a uniformly poor picture of airman Bush's military record was presented to voters. However, as other voices emerged, it became clear that the story was hooey. To the extend early voting might address the plague of last-minute garbage in elections, I say it's a good thing.

For Whom the Road Tolls

In politics, items sometimes move from simmer to boil with great speed. Could toll roads be such a case? Transportation issues are pressing, because of our high growth rate. But transportation funding is difficult. The primary funding mechanism for roads is the gas tax, supplemented by general fund money (which comes from the sales tax on all items). Estimates exist that it would take a $.20/gallon increase in the gas tax to pay for needed roads. That's sobering. Toll roads would add another option -- and would be a direct "use tax."

Initially, it doesn't give me warm fuzzies to think of converting existing roads into toll roads. However, new roads -- roads that wouldn't be built (anytime soon, at least) under existing financing mechanisms -- could be a different story. It is interesting to contemplate a new funding mechanism to expeditiously secure transportation corridors and get people flowing. Anyone who tries to move west from I-15 south of Salt Lake City or north from Salt Lake City in afternoon rush knows what I'm talking about.

UPDATE (06/22/05): Here's a D-News editorial on toll roads.

Did I Just See . . .

Last night I turned on the TV in my hotel room while I changed between meetings. Though I didn't have time to stay and watch (and believe me, I would have), I swear I saw 4-time world heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield on a ballroom dance Survivor show.

Just last week I told Sara that, even though I'm 40 (next Monday), I'm still sort of hip to mass culture around me (she laughed and I negotiated for "maybe not totally clueless"). And then this.

I mean somebody's gotta tell me what I just saw. I mean, I saw Evander go toe-to-toe with Big George Foreman and exchange bombs for 10 rounds. I saw him get back in the ring with a mad man who bit off his ear in their first fight. And then this.

Maybe, right when you get to 40, a switch flips. I'm confused. And a little scared. Maybe I just need a nap. And warm milk.

Federal Department of Education

In response to yesterday's post on education and constitutional law, someone asked me if I'd be in favor of eliminating the federal department of education. I was a little shocked that he'd have to ask.

Even if someone isn't swayed by yesterday's post on the constitutional structure of government (because, yes, of course, the federal government can do many things through the spending clause, if the states take the money), there are several other good reasons to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. or drastically reduce its scope and budget.

First, being in the trenches of funding public education in Utah, I don't see what the federal Dept. of Ed. does for states that states can't do for themselves. While we all think we're a little smarter than the average bear, I haven't seen evidence that Congress possesses wisdom superior to state legislatures or school districts. To the contrary, Congress as a whole possesses very little wisdom concerning the important differences that exist in each of the individual states. In education, it would be laughable to argue that one-size-fits-all concepts apply satisfactorily to all the states and subregions of those states. While you might (correctly) argue that No Child Left Behind has raised standards in some states, in others it is a drag on the system. Some times federal ideas work; other times they don't. If the feds take over an area of legislation, we get one shot to get it right. If the states do it, we get 50. If school boards do it, we get lots of chances. States and school boards actively compare notes and receive critiques from citizens and businesses that vote with their feet. As a result, states are better set up to adapt to changing circumstances and new information. I'm not aware of too many people who say they don't like how the U.S. does it, so they're moving elsewhere (at least not too many people we'll miss).

For the second point, I'll ask you to consider freedom of speech. That right importantly suggests that you can possess and express opinions on your government. Does it imply that you should have some realistic opportunity of meaningfully expressing those opinions to a decision-maker or is it enough that you can howl them into the wind? If the school principal is considering an issue, could you track her down to share your thoughts? Of course. How about if the school board makes the decision? A touch harder, right? How about the legislature -- could you sit down and discuss it with the 104 members? Tougher still. How about if Congress decides the issue -- how detailed will your discussions be with the 535 members of Congress? Meaningful freedom of speech is greatly enhanced by local decision-making.

Third, if you want to see the underbelly of special interest politics, the areas around Dept. of Ed. are great places to look. I'm not saying the Dept. of Ed. and its members are bad or the least bit corrupt. Quite to the contrary; I'm sure they are good people who value education and work hard to see it improve. But the Dept. of Ed. packs a lot of muscle and a big fat wallet. That attracts lobbyists and special interests by the thousands -- most of those probably being good people and organizations trying to do good things. But it becomes a place where ideas surface based on power and influence, not necessarily the best thing for the children and the schools. Are state legislatures any better? In my opinion, yes, to a large degree. Are school boards better still? In my opinion, yes. Why? See the paragraph above. Anyone who wants my attention can call me, stop by the house or office, or grab me at the supermarket. Anyone could grab all the school board members in an afternoon. We have to pay attention to individual's concerns.

Fourth, no one or no thing can waste money like the federal government. States come in a distant second. And school boards come in a distant third or somewhere lower on the list. My school board built a new administration building and decided to pay $600,000 extra to do the exterior in sandstone? Whether they should was the source of great and meaningful debate in the community. When the state builds a building, do raging public debates occur over the cost of the exterior? When the federal government builds a building, does anyone even question it, unless it obviously blows millions of dollars -- and, even then, are we going to force the decision-makers to defend the decision in a public meeting? Congressman, come sit in my living room and explain to me why you think my tax dollars should pay for a marble exterior on that federal building in Lockhart, Texas.

I'm far from the trenches of actually delivering the instruction, and maybe teachers and parents want to differ with me on the value the Dept. of Ed. provides the children. I'd love to hear it. I'm sure I could hear volumes from the entrenched interests in D.C. who love their power and influence (and are convinced that only they can do the job right). To me, it would make a lot of sense to eliminate or reduce distant bureaucracy and return the money and control to the local level. If Utah had it's pro-rata share of the money that currently supports DOE bureaucracy and bureaucrats in D.C., to stick that money into the classroom, we could do far better things with it.

Would I want to do away with the Dept. of Ed. or drastically cut its budget and scope? Yes.

Anti-porn bill

Monday I was on Cliff Donovan's radio show, talking about the ACLU's challenge to Utah's new anti-porn law. Actually, the challenge is to the new amendments to the existing anti-porn law, which deal with Internet porn. The bill's sponsor, Rep. John Dougall, discusses the bill and the legal challenge on his blog.

The only things I would add to John's thoughtful and well-linked comments are (1) the people want an effective way to protect youngsters (and often themselves) from porn, while using and enjoying the Internet, and (2) the full benefits and possibilities of the Internet will not be completely realized until such protections are in place.

Free speech is not a right to be trifled with. To the extent it is lost, freedom itself will be lost. But, free speech does not require compulsory listening. In other words, my right of free speech corresponds with your right to not listen to me. And vice versa. This is why John's approach makes sense. The bill does not ban or regulate content; rather, it tags content, allowing people to better determine the speech they receive.

Though I haven't heard him comment on this legislation, it is significant to note that Professor Lessig, one of the most provocative thinkers around and one of the most active defenders of Internet freedom, agrees with the tagging approach. Tagging simply brings a brick-and-mortar requirement into cyberspace. As Prof. Lessig states, "[T]he same burden already applies (constitutionally) to booksellers by laws that prohibit them from selling porno mags to kids."

Education, Immigration, and Constitutional Law 101

In establishing the Constitution, the people, through their states, gave certain powers to the federal government. These are called delegated or enumerated powers. Governmental powers not given to the federal government (all others) are called reserved powers. The rules are simple: the federal government acts in areas of its enumerated powers, and the states act in areas involving reserved powers.

Today, in the education committee we addressed 2 important issues. I wish that our committee broadcasting system already were in place. Today's hearing would have been very interesting to all Utahns and would have provided a great constitutional lesson. We addressed K-12 educational testing requirements, and we addressed college tuition for illegal aliens. Both issues potentially pack dramatic, life-altering implications. However, because of the constitutional structure of our Nation, the two issues must be addressed in different fashions.

Dr. Patti Harrington discussed the layers of testing we require of our K-12 students. She pointed out that the testing regime is an important part of the State's comprehensive assessment and accountability system (which we desire to implement, instead of the federal system dictated by No Child Left Behind). Can Utah do better? Absolutely. The push-and-pull with the federal government has prompted us to look more closely at what we're doing. We’re working to make improvements – as we should. Authority to govern education matters is a reserved power; it is a “state’s rights” issue.

We also discussed Utah’s existing law allowing illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition at our colleges and universities. The Committee took the action to advance a bill that would repeal the statute. Because this involves a very passionate issue, some might instinctively say “good,” and others might instinctively say “bad.” Whatever one’s underlying feelings are, the decision was driven by the constitutional structure of our nation. Immigration, unlike education, is an issue that has been delegated to the federal government.

The federal government has declared, as it can, that states shall not offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens. The House conference report states, “This section provides that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.” Likewise, Senate sponsor Alan Simpson stated, “Illegal aliens will no longer be eligible for reduced in-State college tuition.” Our Utah statute is at odds with federal law and, therefore, must yield.

A lot of the arguments against repeal were very emotional. But, as I stated in committee, “This is not an emotional issue; this is a Constitutional issue.” Also, it is a very serious dollars and cents issue. Because the federal law establishes that Utah can't give illegal aliens a tuition break that it doesn't give all Americans, there is a great threat that all out-of-state students who have paid more than the in-state tuition paid by illegal aliens for Utah colleges and universities could file a class action suit to get back that additional money -- $100,000,000 since the statute went into effect and growing at about $30,000,000 every year it stays in place in the future. Clear law and a serious threat of liability dictated the outcome.

One member of the committee stated after the votes that she thought the committee was inconsistent in demanding state's rights on one issue and deference to the federal government on the other. Rep. Christensen correctly pointed out that it is the Constitution that demands state's rights on the education issue and deference on the immigration issue. Our founders imposed an order; though I think the federal government has lost all concept of that fact, governments must act accordingly.

Legislative Blogging

Last week, I spoke to a group of legislators from around the nation on blogging. I was privileged to join Texas Rep. Aaron Pena (sorry, Aaron, you'll have to teach me how to do the tilde in Blogger) and Minnesota Rep. Ray Cox's blog coach Griff Wigley. Hmm. A blog coach: "What d'you mean you need to sleep 4 hours tonight, Urquhart? You worthless sack of slugs. The people didn't elect you to sleep. Get back at that keyboard and let me hear those keys click like the Kentucky Derby!"

Prediction: All elected officials will have blogs in 10 years. People are starting to get a little uppity about the fact that federal and state Constitutions mention something about them holding the power and controlling the shots. It seems they're starting to think they should get reports and updates like other bosses do. Imagine. I bet it will be comical that there was an era when the 3 of us gave a should you/shouldn't you speech on blogging.

I talked about the great democratizing roll of blogs, mentioning that it was like the things they're currently doing (town meetings and constituent mailers), only better and more effective. While I don't see blogs ever replacing those worthwhile activities, they do allow elected officials to effectively (1) communicate with constituents (I cited my budgeting entries of late-January), (2) advance an agenda or bill (I cited my local control/education funding bill), (3) gather input (I cited my health care entries and, especially, the comments to this one), and (4) communicate with the Media (I shared stories of members of the Media calling me to discuss my entries).

They laughed. They cried. It was better than Cats.

UPDATE (10 seconds later): Wouldn't you think the Blogger spell checker would recognize "Blogger," "Blogging," blog," and "blogs?" I'm just saying.

Why I Love Public Policy

One of my brothers is 18 months older than I am. Before a time I can even remember, we developed a quick and decisive method for resolving disputes. Though the particular nuances are somewhat complex, I think you'd grasp the gist, if I referred to the problem-solving exercise as a "fist fight."

Public policy demands something a touch more refined. But, it is important to understand and appreciate that the passions involved in public policy are every bit as great as those involved in other disputes. Where the stakes are high, in any setting, people care a great deal. It is a marvel to me that we have developed a system where those passions can be channeled and used in a peaceful, societally-beneficial manner.

I moved that Utah adopt a flat income tax. The particulars are described in the UPDATE to my 5/26/05 entry. Already there is serious opposition. What do I think of that? I think it's great -- and I hope a lot of others come forward to support or oppose the idea. In making the motion, I stated that, though it might appear too early in the process to make such a proposal, legislative process works best when an idea is on the table. That way, people can circle the idea and applaud it or devour it.

Where will we end up? I don't know. Maybe we impose a flat tax on "adjusted gross income;" maybe on "taxable income" after certain deductions and exemptions are factored in; or maybe we leave the structure mainly as is. My big goal is to get a tax cut. Beyond that, the manner by which we assess the taxes needs to be fair and as simple as possible; but this clearly is an issue with many acceptable solutions and an issue that will benefit from the input of many voices and perspectives. Bring on the debate.

I recently read that republics should be loud places, and I like what that suggests. Healthy republics receive a lot of input and create policy that is responsive to that input. People are now talking to their elected leaders about the tax system they want. Are you? If not, should we assume you will be happy with whatever system we give you?

UPDATE (6/10/05): The D-News's Bob Bernick writes,

If you are feeling down, thinking you are not appreciated at work, or your suggestions on improving the entity you labor for go unrewarded, be glad you aren't a member of the Utah Legislature's Tax Reform Task Force.

These 15 folks have this in store: They will work long hours over this summer and the fall trying to figure out the best way to reform Utah's long-standing — some would say antiquated — tax system. And when they finish it all, most likely they'll just see criticism and complaints; the whole Legislature is going to tear it apart. In the end, they'll even see their work product kicked around in newspapers and on TV.