Podcasting and Technology

Yesterday, I was on Jennifer Napier-Pearce's InsideUtah podcast. My portion starts at the 8:18 mark. We talked about my background, the need for change, responsiveness to Utah issues, bloat of the federal government, and -- not surprisingly on a podcast -- technology.

Technology makes my campaign possible by levelling the competitive playing field. What used to take hundreds-of-thousands or millions of dollars (contacting people and getting out the message) now takes some volunteers and technology (and some money). The democratizing potential of this is nothing short of revolutionary. While campaign finance reform largely has been culling the pool of potential candidates down to incumbents (who receive the bulk of PAC and special interest money) and multimillionaires (who can self-finance), technology makes it so that a guy with a couple thousand in the bank and 4 kids in a 1,400 square foot home thinks he has a shot at the United States Senate. What a time!

One commentor called me Don Quixote. I prefer to think of my campaign as a frisky little start-up with something that people really want. What do people want? Energy, focus, and responsiveness. We don't want the past approach of expensive billboards, autodialiers, soundbites, and "just shut up and pay your taxes." We want a future where government works for us and communicates with us. We want to be heard and we want real dialogue.

I would guess every leader believes he or she governs in the best time ever. I don't know how the raw potential of representative democracy could be better than it is now. When I first took office, I was one of the few legislators to have a website. It was cool for the time, but it was very static and people could not interact on it. Now, just 5 years later, I can let constituents know what I'm thinking on an issue and receive their input. They can introduce me to new concepts, criticize my reasoning, and work on moving me to a new position, and my constituents can watch it all. I can talk about my race for the Senate, and people can react. They can even call me Don Quixote, and I will hear them. Doesn't that just beat the heck out of talking to a billboard or autodialer? Press 5, if you disagree.

Abortion and Stem Cell Research

Conservatives must guard the moral underpinnings of the pro-life stand. That stand is: LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT BIRTH. Pre-birth creation is sacred.

Will pro-life conservatives surrender their stand to a frontal attack? Of course not. But, are pro-life conservatives adequately guarding their flanks? No.

Abortion advocates will not convince a majority of Americans that abortion on demand is acceptable – at least not immediately. So, they seek ways to suggest that pre-birth creation is not always sacred. They argue that sometimes an embryo is nothing more than a farm product – a mere commodity to be harvested and used.

What if abortion advocates could get the federal government to officially recognize that position – that pre-birth creation is not sacred? That would undercut the pro-life stand.

Currently, the greatest threat to the pro-life stand is the effort to use taxpayer money to conduct scientific experiments on human embryos. Once the federal government takes the official position that embryos are no longer sacred – that, instead, they are farmable products – the battle is redefined.

As President Bush stated, “This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake.”

I will not make that mistake. I will be consistent in my efforts to oppose abortion and to support the underpinnings of the pro-life stand.

UPDATE (7/30/05): Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is moving much closer to a veto-proof majority.

It is important to note that science is not standing still at the present. Without taking this step, science is leaping forward. Enormous advances are being made through non-embryonic stem cell research (this is where all the cures are being found). Also, research methodologies are being developed to produce embryo-quality stem cells (pluripotent stem cell lines), without growing an actual embryo for a couple of weeks just to harvest it. See here and here.

And it is important to note that currently nothing prevents embryonic stem cell research. Congress is simply deciding whether the federal government should fund it. The market is not shy about funding scientific advances that might yield health care remedies. If the potential advances from harvesting embryos were to significantly outweigh the actual advances being realized through non-embryonic stem cell research, doesn't it seem like the market would get things going without needing the tax dollars of conservatives who believe embryonic stem cell research is ethically wrong?

UPDATE (8/3/05): Travis Grant makes some additional observations.

Positions

Before I post them on the website, I will post position statements on this blog. Feel free to poke, massage, critique or otherwise provide input. Together, we'll figure out the best way to phrase and present the conservative message. Thanks!

Black Gold, Texas Tea

With oil and gas prices so high, many wells are being drilled in Utah. This is great for Utahns who work in the industry and for local economies. Also, this is great for the State's economy and the State's tax revenues.

As I've written several times before, the key to increasing funds for government-provided services, like public education, is not to take more money from people. Our taxes already are too high. Taking so much money discourages productivity. The key is to decrease the tax burden and grow the economy.

I've already heard that my campaign's emphasis on RESPONSIVENESS TO UTAH ISSUES is boring. So be it. Splash often obscures substance, but that doesn't mean substance is unimportant. Let me give an example.

Here is an article charging that BLM personnel are not taking enough time to review environmental impacts before drilling permits are issued in the Uintah Basin. Obviously, such charges will be used as a club by environmental groups out to curtail drilling. Already permits (and jobs and revenue) have been throttled by BLM's inability to process applications fast enough. This news potentially means even slower turn-around and less economic activity and government revenue.

What would I do as a U.S. Senator? Simple. As officials from the Uintah Basin have been asking for some time now, I would move more BLM personnel to the Basin to process the applications. Result: more permits and more consideration of environmental concerns. Not magic. Just effort. This doesn't take seniority. It takes focus. This issue wouldn't land me on CNN, but it would be significant for Utah.

Pioneer Day

Happy Pioneer Day! My wife's grandfather (several greats), John Pack, was in that first hardy group to enter the Salt Lake Valley. He was an advance scout and later hosted the establishment of the University of Utah in his living room. It's fun to have married into that heritage.

We were up in Cache County yesterday and ended up campaigning another of John Pack's descendents. Small world.

We watched the Great Race in Mendon. The many legs included grandmas on scooters, stick horse racers, a riding lawn mower grand prix (I had never before seen a mower with a tachometer and wheelie bar -- which actually was needed when the clutch was popped), a log saw, a dunking booth, sack race, three-legged race, many other marvels, and, lastly, a pie-eating contest (whole cherry pie). The red team came to the pie-eating stage in fourth place out of four, but pulled out the victory when some young iron-gut inhaled the pie in about 2 minutes.

I think I'm going to love the campaign trail.

Off and Running

Wow! Day 3 and the pace already is frantic.

We received an e-mail that said, "Let me know what I can do to help. I'll definitely vote for you, and I'll get everyone I know to vote for you."

If this guy knows 2,000,000 people, I'm set.

We're collecting volunteer information at the campaign website. If you have offered to help, we will contact you shortly. The response was bigger than we expected, and we're trying to get our arms around it.

Here is why we will win. Yesterday, someone asked if he could volunteer. He then handed me a detailed campaign plan and promotional material he had obviously spent a chunk of time putting together. "We need a change," he said. There are people who believe we can do better, and they are approaching me with their talent and energy.

Here is how this is shaping up. They have money (gobs and gobs). We have people. Our people will beat their money. Fortunately, this is an election, not an auction.

I am putting together position statements on several issues. While I refine those and get them up on the site, this Deseret News article captures my position on several issues.

United States Senate

I'm running for the United States Senate. We need to swing wide the doors to the federal government and let people have a look and a say. It's time for change.

For more details, please go my campaign website.

Medicaid Prescription Drugs

Medicaid is the fastest growing part of Utah's budget. A few facts: Medicaid is state health care for the poorest segment of our population; Medicaid involves significant federal matching funds (about $3 from the feds for every $1 Utah spends) -- though these matches likely will shrink, if the feds get serious about balancing the federal budget (as they should); and the system needs reform. On this last point, former Gov. Leavitt (current federal Health and Human Services Director, of course) and legislators like Rep. Becky Lockhart get high marks for putting a good system in place for Utah: better than most, but still in need of reform.

While health care costs in general are skyrocketing, the greatest increase is for prescription drugs. State Health Director Dr. David Sundwall proposes to reduce Medicaid prescription costs in Utah by using a Preferred Drug List ("PDL"). On a trial basis, the Health Department ("Health") would determine which drugs perform the same function for a few specified medical conditions (e.g., drugs X, Y, and Z that all treat acid-reflux). Then, the State would negotiate the price for drugs in that class (including joining with other states to drive the price down further). The lowest-priced member of the class would be the State's preferred drug for that condition.

To give doctors the flexibility they would need, the program also would allow doctors to quickly get authorization for a drug other than the one on the PDL, if, for example, a different drug interacts better with other medication the patient is taking.

Opponents of the PDL argue that it limits patients' choice. They argue that other medical costs, such as doctor visits and hospitalizations, could actually increase as patients switch from one drug to another. And, they argue that the PDL simply will not save enough money to merit the experiment.

Next Tuesday, I will be voting on whether Utah should utilize the PDL. I'm leaning toward allowing it. Thoughts?

Senate Race

In Sunday's D-News, Pignanelli & Webb discussed whether I will run for the United States Senate. Because this story is rolling forward, I'll now make a couple of observations.

First, I appreciate the service Senator Orrin Hatch has given Utah and America. He is a good man.

Second, I believe it is time for change. The seat could use new energy and focus. Because this seat should stay and will stay Republican, that means I welcome viable options on the Republican side of the ticket.

As for me, I am considering a run. My family and I will reach a final decision by next week.

Access to Justice

As I've touched on before, most Utahns (and Americans) really only have access to two branches of government -- the executive and legislative. Though we have outlawed financial barriers that interfere with citizens' participatory rights to those two branches (e.g., poll taxes), access to the judicial branch is severely limited because of cost. Rather than having a meaningful opportunity to assert and defend rights, most people encounter the civil justice system only when some better-heeled Utahn (or American) or business wants to use the system's machinery to grind them into powder.

Access to justice is too expense, because we've made the system so complex (in a Quixotic quest for perfection). The average person can't navigate it. However, we have cruelly limited the pool of people who can help the average person navigate that complex system. By law, only lawyers can help. Economics 101 teaches that limiting the pool of suppliers in such a way inflates cost. So, by limiting the supplier pool, we have placed help (and access to civil justice) beyond the reach of most Utahns (and Americans).

A key to improving access to justice, therefore, is to broaden the pool of service providers. Let non-lawyer specialists provide law-related services in more areas. We have done this successfully for tax law (accountants) and real estate conveyancing (real estate and title agents). Consumers and the economy have benefited. Why not do it in more areas?

Though it is more detailed than I have time to write or you have interest to read, I have -- shall we say -- "bumped up against" the bar association and the courts to expand the pool of providers. In somewhat disjointed movements, the legislature, the courts and the bar have lit upon an experiment to allow non-lawyers to provide representation in small claims courts. For example, a father could help a daughter or an experienced neighbor could help a nervous friend. I think we'll see the system work better. I'm pleased that Justice Durham signed the Order in June allowing the experiment to move forward.

While I believe the courts and the leaders of the bar do want to improve access to justice, I simply think we are not looking hard enough at the right tool for the job -- the marketplace.

Strength

Yesterday, I mentioned the importance of tough political stands. Today, I read an article from a local journal about Dixie State College that illustrates the point.

Washington County is the fastest growing part of the state. The community's opportunities and needs are rapidly changing. Shortly before I took office, it became obvious that the mission of the community's college also had to change to keep up, similar to what had been happening with Utah County and UVSC. The Governor at that time and the Board of Regents strongly objected to turning Dixie College into a four-year institution. And that, of course, is pretty tough opposition.

But the community knew that it had to happen. Then-Rep. Bill Hickman (now, Senator Hickman) bowed his neck and muscled the change to 4-year status though the legislature.

It was the right thing to do. The four-year status has helped attract great businesses to the area and helped increase the standard of living. And the change was good for the students and the institution. In fact, the Regents have just established an expanded mission for Dixie State College, authorizing 10 additional baccalaureate degrees. Importantly, the change to 4-year status has not hurt SUU, which some feared it would. To the contrary, SUU recently received praise as being one of the 10 best institutions in the nation in terms of value to the student.

Like a pitcher, like a doctor, like anyone in a performance-based environment, elected leaders need to figure out how to succeed, not put a shiny gloss on defeat. When Bill's community and constituents needed a big win, he came through. Not by compromise. Not by selling his position short. But simply by relentlessly banging away and by refusing to take "no" for an answer. He taught me an important lesson: a lawmaker cannot be effective, unless he is willing, when necessary, to stand absolutely firm behind a position and unless he is strong enough to bring others to that position.

Dougall the Prolific

This morning, Rep. John Dougall and I were on KCPW talking about how blogs help legislators open the Capitol doors to constituents. But I've gotta tell you, John is bringing me down.

I've always known he has incredible energy, but John is setting an impossible standard for the rest of us to keep up with. While I'm trying to encourage other legislators to use this incredible tool to improve constituent communications, I look over at John's 4 entries a day and figure I might just quit myself.

If only John would come out of his shell and tell us how he really feels about things. Again, I love it. A huge part of the reason America is so divided politically is that many of our political leaders equivocate instead of lead. Rather than stake out solid positions on issues (other than the predictable hot-button issues), they muck around in the middle. If there are no firm positions, the marketplace of ideas will only offer squishy fruit. The people get frustrated by the lack of firm leadership and by the inability to tell where, if anywhere, their leaders propose to take them.

The Iron Hand

My thoughts and prayers go out to Great Britain. The British are a strong people, and I believe they will rise to the challenge with renewed conviction.

Probably like most Americans, today's massacre pushes my thoughts back to 9/11. I was chairing a meeting at the Capitol, scheduled to start right after the towers fell. I didn't want to be there. Nobody wanted to be there. I talked with my committee members and members of the public who were there to testify, and we decided we should carry on; we weren't going to let them stop us. That decision didn't change the world, but I'm proud we carried on.

The next day, at a high school assembly, I talked about the price of liberty and America's historic willingness to pick up the tab. I talked about Gettysburg and shared President Lincoln's testimony to liberty. I talked about Lincoln's assassination and shared Herman Melville's defiance:

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand;
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

I said it would be appropriate to weep all they want, but to remember that, for the sake of the world and our own future, America must bare the iron hand. Then, I asked them to bow their heads as I offered a prayer. After, my wife overheard one boy say, "He can't do that, can he?" His friend (who my wife said had sagging pants and ratty hair) answered, "Well, he just did. And I'm glad."

Enough of the nonsense. Enough of Bob Geldof and Live8. Enough of Dick Durbin and hand-wringing over the creature comforts of our enemies. For those who argue that the actions of America and Britain have spawned today's bombings and other terrorist attacks, get a clue. It is our liberty and our success that spawns these pathetic acts. If we want to protect that liberty and success, we better bare the iron hand.

UPDATE (later): To pay respect, I see we raised the British flag at the State Department. Bravo!

Miracle

I've been busy and didn't even notice that Nancy Perkins and the D-News mentioned Sara and our little girl in an article on the Newborn ICU at the Dixie Regional Medical Center. This facility will be a tremendous benefit to families in the area.

The Senate

Last Friday, Utah Policy wrote:

Urquhart Exploring Senate Bid

Very interesting things are happening in the U.S. Senate race. Republican State Rep. Steve Urquhart had lunch Thursday with Democratic Senate candidate Pete Ashdown. It was one of those lunches where two potential political opponents meet to get to know and size up one another.

The reality is that Urquhart is very seriously considering the prospect of challenging Sen. Orrin Hatch for the GOP Senate nomination. If Urquhart pulls the trigger, this would be the most serious intra-party challenge of a big-time incumbent in many years. A number of top-level Republicans have been challenged within the party, but it has generally been by far-right, non-mainstream candidates.

Urquhart is plenty conservative, but he’s also mainstream, smart, hard-working and gutsy. If he goes for it, he’s going to be tougher than a lot of people realize. While the conventional wisdom is that Hatch is unbeatable, Urquhart could give him a race.

People have been calling nonstop for more details. Okay. I had a cheese sandwich and bean soup.

God Bless America

I am grateful for courageous Forefathers who championed liberty and independence, a strong President who made the right decision on terrorism at the crossroads, and tough-minded Americans who make America great. I'm grateful for a Constitution that promises freedoms and for service men and women who give those promises muscle. And I'm grateful that I can worship a merciful God who I believe oversees this all. Happy Independence Day!

Friends Like These

In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, we learn that "friends" can be the worst enemies. Remember that lesson when you watch the western lands burn this summer. You might end up asking, "Et tu, Bromus?" (Bromus tectorum -- cheat grass).

The forests and public lands are in awful condition. If they were a building, they would be condemned. They are in this sorry condition largely because of the actions of their "friends," the environmental extremists.

You want healthy lands? Tune out the extreme environmental groups and listen to the cowboys.

Modern cowboys are the enlightened stewards of the range. Like true scientists and stewards, they get excited when they talk about habitat, vegetative diversity, and healthy watersheds.

Extreme environmentalists, like bounty hunters, get excited when they talk about numbers -- acres of wilderness and the number of cattle they can remove from the range. The health of the range? "Oh, ya. Well, sure, that too. I mean, totally!"

Large-scale environmentalism, as it pertains to western public lands, is not about a healthy environment. It is about power and control. Nevermind that the range they fight for is gradually being destroyed by their efforts to "save" it; the fight is not about the land; it is about power and control. It's about who's still standing when the dust settles.

True stewards of the commons focus on the health of the land. Stewardship requires species diversity, robust watersheds, and the restoration of native grasses, shrubs, sagebrush, and non-coniferous trees. The bounty hunters' focus on numbers shuns such considerations -- who cares what it is, as long as we bag it and there's a lot of it!

Because policymakers lack the vision or spine to take on these powerful environmental bounty hunters, the myopic vision of these groups prevails. The result is an explosion of monocultural vegetation on the public lands that is environmentally disastrous: monocultural cheat grass dominates the valleys and plateaus, instead of diverse native grasses; monocultural pinyon-juniper stands dominate the foothills, instead of varieties of shrubs and sagebrush; and monocultural conifer stands dominate the mountains, instead of aspen and vibrant understories. As a result, animal populations suffer, fires become catastrophic (in both human and environmental terms), and the rivers intermittently trickle (from the watersheds' inability to cycle water) or choke (from eroded soils caused by unnaturally hot fires).

Yes, before the Taylor Grazing Act, we overgrazed too often. We also got too carried away with the Smokey-the-Bear-thing and built up an enormous fuel load by maniacally suppressing every fire everywhere. And we messed up by treating sagebrush like the enemy. But, what is it that we think we learned from all this? Extreme environmentalists would have us believe that we learned cows (and more to the point, cowboys and people in general) are bad. They are wrong.

We learned that people can do stupid things. People tend to get carried away with themselves and their own agenda and, as a result, do bad things to the environment around them. The cowboys have learned this. They have moved away from those former practices. They are concerned about vegetative diversity and healthy watersheds. They live off the land and want to do it on a sustainable basis.

It is the extreme environmentalists who apparently have learned nothing about managing the range. Though they profess to hate the excesses of the past, they are the ones currently throwing the equation out of balance. Why will the Dixie National Forest soon burn so hot that it will sterilize the dirt, thereby hindering healthy revegetation and increasing erosion that will choke the rivers and streams with soil? Because environmental extremists (aided by wimpy policymakers) prevented timely forest thinning when a beetle infestation started (remember, we want to get away from the overgrowth situation we created by past flawed policies). An artificially overgrown forest is a problem in and of itself regarding fires. Worse, it unnaturally allows for widespread infestations, like the beetles that have destroyed the forest from Cedar City to Soldier Summit.

Will it grow back? Sure. Will it burn and grow back as healthy as it would have, had it been thinned? No, not even close.

Worse still, the public lands are on a management path that will cause them to burn more and more each year in unhealthy ways. Because of costly and time-consuming environmental concerns that preclude wise reseeding projects and because critical resources are squandered fighting endless lawsuits brought against land management agencies by environmental extremists instead of putting those resources toward the land, cheat grass is taking over the West, creating unhealthy and expanding fire cycles. It burns hotter and more often than the rest of the ecosystem, and the only thing that can successfully propagate in such conditions is . . . cheatgrass. Thus, cheatgrass will take over more land, burn hotter and more frequently than the rest of the ecosystem can handle, take over still more land . . ..

Extremists say, "Leave nature alone. It will heal itself." Again, they are wrong. The ecologist for Yosemite National Park properly refutes such nonsense. She states, "The exotic invaders put a different spin on things," Fritzke said. "This is the beginning of something that could be very bad. We can't just walk away and let the forest grow on its own. It needs help."

Man has altered the environment and will continue to do so. To act like we are not part of the equation is silly. Humans manage the range. This requires forest thinning, chaining and active seeding.

Next time you hear extreme environmentalists talk about more wilderness, ask them how they're managing the land they've already locked up. As you watch the catastrophic fires this summer, ask yourself who gave these groups the keys.

Typo

Check out this article on my spyware bill. I'm surprised that the editor didn't catch that the typist's fingers were off the home keys the entire time.