Real Fights, Slap Fights and the Supreme Court

Convention was great! Judging from the volunteers we recruited, Republicans are very excited for change.

A reason for that excitement is illustrated by the little slap fight going on between our senior senator and Mayor Anderson. People understand the difference between core toughness and silly grandstanding. Rocky is to be ignored. Federal tax burden, social security, immigration, federalism are issues that should be addressed.

As one delegate said, "I'm tired of the big speeches about toughness and effectiveness. I want a Senator who really will fight for what I believe, not be a doormat for Kennedy and the liberals."

To illustrate the delegate's point, here's what happened when conservative Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court, according to our senior senator's autobiography (p. 130):

Hours after his nomination became public, Senator Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor and gave a speech that would set the tone for the coming hearings.

As you know, of course, Republicans lost that battle.

So, after that, when President Clinton nominated 2 liberals for the Supreme Court, did Republicans rush to the floor to do battle? No. Instead, the red carpet was rolled out. Again, from our current senator's autobiography (p. 180), regarding a conversation with President Clinton:

I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg. I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. . . . their confirmation would not embarrass the President.

Winning in the Supreme Court is simply a matter of getting more points than the other side. Count to five, and you win. If the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary was willing to battle for two reliably-liberal judges (one the former general counsel of the ACLU), who was President Clinton to get in the way? Of course, Ginsberg and Breyer became the picks, and now the former ACLU general counsel is free to rule that international law is as good as the Constitution in shaping the Court's decisions.

Here is a 60-second AUDIO on this point. Feel free to share it with your friends.

State Convention

Stop by our booth this Saturday at the Republican Party State Convention. We'd like to visit with you and, if you haven't signed up yet to help with the campaign, we'd love to welcome you to the team.

It should be a fun day. We'll elect party leadership, vote on some resolutions, and, after convention, I hear someone is catering a retirement party.

Flat Tax v. Fair Tax

Our federal tax system is a joke. Not a funny one, but a joke nonetheless. Our taxes are much too high, and the complexity of the code begs for mistakes, abuse, and backroom dealings.

Good laws and legal systems are simple and transparent; people readily can know the law, follow the law, and watch how elected officials propose to tamper with the law. By contrast, the mess that is our current tax system creates a grotesque scene where lobbyists and elected officials can cut marginal deals in the tax code without the public having much real opportunity to weigh in. The deals only add to campaign coffers and taxpayers' burdens. The system must be simplified.

Two tax proposals deserve attention at the federal level – the flat tax and the "fair tax." Steve Forbes provides a thoughtful discussion on the flat tax, which would impose a 17% tax on personal income and corporate profits.

Another worthwhile proposal is the Fair Tax – which does away with the federal income tax (and many of its associated burdens), and puts in place one tax – a flat tax of 23% on all sales.

Both proposals would be revenue neutral to the government and, for most people, would reduce their total taxes paid. The point of both proposals is simplification – which leads to better compliance (meaning a broader base and reduced individual rates), more efficient use of resources, and economic growth. I would take either – as either would work better than the current mess, which wastes more than $200 billion and over six billion hours each year filling out tax forms, according to Forbes's article.

However, I think the better proposal is the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax proposal avoids corporate tax issues (corporate taxes result in double taxation and present serious compliance/collection issues), and it is much more likely to stay pristine after its enactment. We have experimented with flattening income taxes (with Kennedy and Reagan), but the siren song of lobbyists and special interests to add exemptions to the tax code has proven too much to resist for politicians.

But, remember, under either proposal, the tax rate is controlled by the size of government (unless we simply don't care about our deficit). Under either proposal, we have to trim what the federal government does and cut taxes proportionately; give the responsibilities (and the money) back to the states and the people; they'll do more for less. And the federal government actually might do the limited things it is supposed to do, and might even do some of them better.

Thoughts?

The Rule of Law – Cowardice

Last Monday, I observed that the Rule of Law is challenged by cowardice – politicians ducking tough issues. I wrote, "Think of immigration. Why are we stuck with flawed and dangerous immigration policy? Because Congress is too scared to deal with it." This is a theme I've been pounding on lately in public.

Well, according to Tuesday's Tribune: "Calling his colleagues in Congress 'gutless' for refusing to address immigration reform, [Orrin] Hatch mentioned his sponsorship of the DREAM Act, which allows states to grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants."

Okay. So where have the courageous politicians been hanging out the last 30 years? Surely not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which should have been dealing with immigration.

Immigration policy is seriously flawed. All sides of the issue agree on that. So, why hasn't the Senate Judiciary Committee addressed immigration reform in a serious manner? Cowardice, I would guess.

Rather than deal with the issue of immigration reform, the Dream Act perfectly illustrates how cowardice (or "gutlessness," if that is a more senatorial term) undercuts the rule of law.

Immigration policy sets up legal and illegal ways to enter the country. The legal way involves time and hassle. Many choose not to follow the legal path. To the degree we refuse the hard work of reforming immigration, but take the soft path of honoring and serving those who choose the illegal path, the stronger we send the signal to those who would follow the legal path that they simply are not too bright – they just don't get the American Way, which is to break the law and have lawmakers reward them for their illegal activity.

The Dream Act does nothing to secure the border or make immigration policy rational. Rather, it uses taxpayer money to heap tremendous benefits on families who are here illegally – 60 to 70% subsidies for higher education. Is this compassionate? Of course it is. Wise? Not if you believe in the rule of law.

What about those families who are following the legal path and who have been waiting and dreaming for a decade or more outside the United States for their chance at the American dream, including higher education for their children? Tough, I guess. They chose not to break the law, and now they have to pay the price for that decision. According to the rationale of the Dream Act, that's their mistake for following the rule of law.

The Rule of Law – Federal Activism

Do you care whether your voice is heard in government? If so, insist that the federal government get itself under control.

The Founders created a federal government of limited authority, leaving most decisions to the local level – where your voice can be heard. Now, though, Congress sees nothing it won’t address – except the issues it is supposed to address.

It’s a beautiful design. We should have 50 laboratories in which to experiment, find best practices, and meet the particular needs of a diverse nation. Utah doesn’t have to be New York, and New York doesn’t have to be Utah.

But Congress simply can’t resist the temptation to control everything. It’s just got to be the super legislature, city council and school board all wrapped into one. Why? Because Congress believes it knows best. It has completely lost discipline.

As I’ve discussed here and here, federal activism robs you of your rights. It waters down your vote and influence. Now, to affect significant policy for your child’s education, you don’t talk to the principal. You don’t go to the school board. You have to hop on a plane and lobby members of Congress (or their interns – if you’re lucky). Why? Because Congress figured it knows better than your principal and school board. What about you and your ability to influence policy? Well, c’mon, who knows better what your school needs – you or Congress?

One man said to me, “But what if my school board gets it wrong?” Then, vote them out! You could do that. You can’t vote to throw out Hillary Clinton. You can’t vote to throw out Ted Kennedy. You can’t vote to throw out John Kerry. So why would you have them control education in Utah, unless you figure voting is just a silly tradition?

Also, along with your ability to affect government, it should be plain that Congress shouldn’t take on extra work. It can’t find time to do the work it is supposed to do. I’d love to have someone lay out an argument that the immigration system isn’t broken. Why, then, has Congress refused to deal with the issue? Partly, because of federal activism; Congress must be too distracted doing other stuff.

And, as was admitted this week by the longest-serving member of the committee that should deal with immigration, part of the federal government’s failure to do its work is because of “gutless” politicians. Monday, I’ll discuss how cowardice undercuts the rule of law.

The Rule of Law – Judicial Activism

Judges steal your rights when they remove issues from democratic process and the reach of voters. This is serious disenfranchisement. In short, judges should interpret law, not make law. Leave lawmaking to the people we can throw out of office. This is what the Constitution specifies: Congress, not courts, makes laws. Right?

I started my Sutherland Institute speech with a math quiz: what is 2 plus 2? Four. Well, what if you really want it to be 3 or 5? Does it hurt anything if you bend the rules a little? I addressed how, today, we live in a political environment where, increasingly, outcomes are unpredictable. The outcomes are up for grabs. If we support the rule of law, we need to do so consistently. We cannot fall into the trap of making 2 plus 2 equal 3 or 5 as we might desire on a specific issue.

Conservatives dislike judicial activism. But do they dislike judicial activism all the time? Conservatives look at cases like Roe v. Wade and say that courts should not make laws. But, is that what we practice?

One commentor asked me to specify how we could do better in the Senate. Okay. Regarding the rule of law and judicial activism, I would improve our representation by consistently opposing judicial activism, not just when it’s convenient. Without that consistency, when a Senator says he opposes judicial activism on one hand but, then, asks the Court to be activist on the other hand, no one takes him seriously. He is ignored.

By way of example, technologists are well-aware of the bill Senator Hatch ran on behalf of Hollywood and the record companies (the INDUCE Act). In the first place, I oppose the bill. While it nominally goes after the problem of copyright piracy, it is so sweeping in its scope that it would outlaw technologies themselves (like MP3 players) and would stifle innovation. Though Hollywood would have benefited from the bill, small businesses (like most of Utah’s emerging technology businesses) would have been harmed. For these reasons, Congress decided not pass the legislation.

In my opinion, that should have ended the issue until the next session. But it didn't.

In a case pending before the Supreme Court, Senator Hatch teamed up with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to officially share with the Supreme Court their opinion on matters of judicial activism. They told the Supreme Court that the Ninth Circuit (which typically is not regarded as a great champion of the rule of law as it pertains to judicial activism) had erred when it determined that courts should “leave such matters to Congress.” To a conservative, it is easy to see why the Ninth Circuit did so. The Constitution specifies that copyright is an exclusive, enumerated power of Congress.

Senators Leahy and Hatch, however, argued, “The Court’s role in declaring law is mandatory,” even when Congress is actively looking into the matter. Either we believe in the rule of law or we don't. Even when celebrities and their money come calling, 2 plus 2 can't equal 5.

We can do better in supporting the rule of law and opposing judicial activism. Not just in theory and big speeches, but in practice.

The Rule of Law

Last week, I gave the keynote address at the Sutherland Institute’s symposium on the rule of law.

This week, I will post a few entries on the rule of law. Here are some background thoughts for those entries.

The Constitution intends to drive our divisive, complex and plain-ugly issues into the legislative arena for resolution. Other countries lack such a process and settle their differences in the streets with mobs and violence.

What happens in America, when the rule of law is sidestepped and complex issues are not addressed in the proper arena?

This week, I’ll present three problem areas, and I’ll tell you what I would do to uphold the rule of law in the United States Senate. In all three areas, your rights currently are being stolen and destroyed. Those areas are (1) judicial activism (judges completely removing issues from democratic process and the reach of voters), (2) federal activism (Congress removing issues from the real reach of voters by doing the business of local government), and (3) cowardice (elected officials hiding from complex issues).

Around election time, we hear allegations of disenfranchisement – usually nonsense allegations that don’t hinder anyone who truly wants to vote. The three areas I mention above, though, do take citizens out of the process. Citizens are prevented from meaningfully participating in their government by violations of the rule of law.

For example, on point one (judicial activism), Courts have largely stolen your right to weigh in on abortion policy. Why? Because the Justices figure we’re not as smart as the 9 of them.

On point two (federal activism), Congress has decided that it, not your local leaders, will decide education policy in Utah. Why? Because members of Congress figure they know better than Utahns what Utah schools need.

On point three (cowardice), think of immigration. Why are we stuck with flawed and dangerous immigration policy? Because Congress is too scared to deal with it.

Dare To Be Strong

I'll respond here to some of the comments left on the last post. When I say I'm going back to D.C. to make a difference, people ask "How?" and "What about the pressure to go along?"

In politics, like life, people are as tough as they choose to be. And it always surprises me that they don't choose to be stronger. By choosing to be strong on core conservative principles, I add value to the team and make life easier for myself. Politicians who have it the roughest are the ones easiest to sway; that's where all the pressure goes, because lobbyists and leaders know their chances of getting movement are best with the weakest members. Strong members, on the other hand, get more respect than pressure.

The members I like best (and who are the best) are the ones who know how to plant their feet. A great example of this is Rep. Stuart Adams (Davis County). I ran a big bill his very first session in the Legislature. We squared off and he stood to challenge my bill. As he spoke, I thought, "You punk . . . you're pretty good, aren't you?" The bill and the process benefitted from his strength and ability. Strength is rewarded with respect.

On the federal level, I think of Senator Bennett standing up for Utah and federalism on No Child Left Behind. That must have been enormous pressure. Is he weaker as a result? Not at all. He showed strength and courage. And he gets the respect and power that flow to a strong and courageous member.

Will I be successful in slowing or reversing the federal government's rapid rate of growth? Time will tell. But wouldn't you like to have someone back there who is at least willing to try and to be held accountable for the results?

My Big, Fat Federal Government

One reason I am running for the United States Senate is to reduce the size and burden of the federal government. One man asked me the other day, “What makes you think you can do that?” Because I’m willing to try and willing to be held accountable. If I don’t do it, please get someone who can.

From the very start, I have told my constituents that they should expect performance, not excuses. Setting that standard of accountability, I have worked hard to get in a position in the Legislature where I could affect policy and say, “For better or worse, I take responsibility for the product you see. If you like it, re-elect me. If not, replace me with someone who can deliver.”

For better or worse, I take shared responsibility for the Legislature’s actions to avoid tax increases in the big downturn by cutting programs, to shore up the structural deficits in the State budget this past year, and, as a result of those sound decisions, to pass a real tax cut this coming year.

If we don’t cut taxes this year, will I take responsibility? You bet. I’m there to help set the agenda, not go along for the ride.

All this factors into the “time for change” audio I posted this weekend. Utahns don’t like that our leaders have bloated the federal government so much over the last 30 years. Change means that they want someone who will take responsibility to change direction and not simply say, “Yes, it’s unacceptable, but it would be even worse if I weren’t there.”

Above, I mention “real” tax cuts, because the State actually balances its budget every year. We cut expenditures before we cut revenues. It would be nice to have more people in the Senate who have experience doing that in government.

At the federal level, tax cuts largely lack permanence, because there is so little attention paid to the expenditure side of the balance sheet. Why? That’s easy; program cuts make people mad. But, until the federal government skinnies up what it does, there always will be “need” for significant revenues. Sure, we’ll have some tax cuts, but, like night follows day, we’ll also have tax increases; the huge appetite of federal programs will always demand lots of feed. The only way to truly reduce the burden of the federal government is to reduce its programs – limit the things it does, just like the Founders intended.

Where will I start? There could be many areas. As I’ve mentioned before, the Federal Department of Education would be a great place to begin. Other than bureaucracy, if the money were returned to the people and the states, what would we miss from that $60,000,000,000 expenditure? What believer in states rights wouldn't want to gradually phase out the Department, trimming the expenditure along with the bureaucratic burdens and tax load?

Someone told me this week that he thought it was good that the federal government has a stick to whack bad schools. The Founders would disagree. Utah doesn’t need New York and Massachusetts Senators or federal bureaucrats whacking our local schools. We have Utahns to oversee our schools. Instead of proposing to run our schools, we need the federal government to stop siphoning off resources that individuals and local and state governments could spend far more efficiently on students, instead of bureaucrats.

Time for Change

Utah needs new energy and focus in the United States Senate. A friend put this 60-second message together for me. Give it a listen and let me know what you think.

Cottage Meetings

Wednesday, elected officials from Salt Lake County and Utah County set up several cottage meetings for the campaign. Two things are very clear. One, I'm going to have to get serious about exercising. (Lots of eating on the campaign trail.) Two, people are eager for change.

Volunteers continue to join up in significant numbers. I was talking with one man I had never before met. He said he greatly appreciated the past service we've had in the Senate, but he thought it was time for a change. He committed to help us in his community, and, then, he wrote the campaign a check for $2,000.

Today, I was driving down the street, and a woman jumped out in front of my car. I slowed down, waved, and started swerving around her. She moved out further in front of my car and motioned for me to pull over. I pulled over and rolled down the window. She handed me $100 and said, "Let's win this thing!"

I agree. Let's win this thing!

Money is fine; we'll need a little, and I greatly appreciate those who have given and those who will give. But we're not going to win this thing with money. We're going to win it with people. We want volunteers who will talk to friends and neighbors. We want people who believe it's time for change and who are willing to put in a little work to make it happen.

We're scheduling cottage meetings throughout the state. If you'd like to attend one or host one, please contact us. Let's win this thing!

Hello from Northern Utah

The legislature is meeting in Northern Utah today and tomorrow. Here is a podcast on the day (the first one I've ever done!).

UPDATE (8/2/05): Because I understand people are camping out to be the first to hear the sequel to yesterday's podcast on day 1 of the legislative site visit, here is a podcast of day 2.

I really do leave in awe of the great things going on in Northern Utah and excited to explore some of the ideas we heard on education, tranportation, and tax policy. Because we split into different groups and saw different things, it probably would make sense to have someone from each group give a report to the caucus next interim day on the highlights and suggestions from its visits.

Do You Want a Tax Cut?

Utah ends the fiscal year with a surplus of $180 million. (FYI, a good chunk of this money automatically goes into the general rainy day fund and the school rainy day fund.)

It is time for a tax cut.

I've written much about the fiscal decisions the House has been driving -- paying down debt and paying for roads as we go instead of with bonds. The point of this fight has been to better balance the books and put ourselves in position for a tax cut. Well, we're there. No structural imbalances, a chunky surplus, and (knock on wood) a sound economy.

Yes, I've read the many editorials saying we shouldn't cut taxes when there is so much need. Nonsense. Our tax rate is much too high. This hurts us when individuals and businesses consider relocating/expanding here. Our fat tax rate thwarts productivity and actually makes it harder for us to meet certain needs (e.g., public education and medicaid). By making the right cuts (personal income tax, in my opinion), we can ease the burden on our citizens and actually grow the revenue pie bigger by spurring more economic activity. Result of less government burden: better jobs, better wages, more revenue for government. Not magic; just simple economics.

In other words, you do better with your money than government does.

My suggestion: don't let us get away with not cutting your taxes this year. Have you called to let us know that you want to keep your money? You might want to, because we're receiving lots of calls from people telling us how they plan to spend your money.