How Long Should the Lt. Gov. Serve as Governor?

As I wrote below, it seems very clear to me that the Utah Constitution specifies that a Lt. Governor would serve only until the next general election, after taking over the position of Governor, meaning that the people would not go more than 2-years without the chance to actually elect their Governor. That might be a legal disagreement that won’t be resolved, short of legal or political action.

In terms of what is best for the State and the people’s franchise rights, do you think it would be better for the Lt. Gov. (new Gov after the replacement) (1) to serve out the remainder of the term (no matter how much time is left, even if it is all 4 years) or (2) to serve until the next general election comes along?

Gubernatorial Succession

If a vacancy occurs in the Governor’s office, what should happen?

Under the Utah Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor would fill the vacancy just until the next general election. Then, the people would be allowed to elect their Governor.

This past session, a proposed Constitutional Amendment was run that would change things – making it so that that the Lieutenant Governor would fill the entire 4-year term, rather than just the remaining time until the next general election. (Some claim that such a scheme would merely clarify what the Constitution currently means; I don’t see it that way).

Figuring it made sense to follow the federal pattern of the VP or Lt. filling the unexpired term, I voted for that bill, focusing on extraordinary situations that could create a vacancy in the Governor’s office, like death or disability. Recent events, however, have caused me to rethink the issue.

Rumors are circulating that Gov. Huntsman endorsed Sen. McCain’s presidential bid in exchange for a promised cabinet spot. Is that true? I don’t know and, for the purposes of this discussion, I don’t care; it doesn’t matter. The point is that the possibility itself raises an interesting hypothetical that must be considered.

If a sitting Governor were to angle for such a deal, he would be campaigning for election at the same time as the presidential candidate – not with real plans to serve as Governor, but with plans to get elected, turn the reigns over to the Lieutenant, and jump to the presidential administration. In such a scenario, if successful, the voters would not get a real chance to vote on the person who actually would serve as Governor or ever intended to serve as Governor that term. That would be highly abusive to one of the people’s most basic and essential rights – the right to actually elect their governmental leaders.

Again, I have no idea whether Gov. Huntsman cut any kind of deal to support Sen. McCain’s presumptive presidential bid so early. But, that has no bearing on what Utah should do to ensure that the people’s franchise right is secure. Succession laws need to deal with situations generally, not with individuals. I have asked Legislative Research to give me an opinion whether the Utah Constitution needs to be amended to protect against such a hypothetical situation.

UPDATE (7/26/06): I just did an interview on this issue and blogging in general on Utah Public Radio. Lee Austin always gives a great interview.

Editorial Writing

Slant plays little role in making editorial writing good or bad. The writing either solidly and clearly makes a point or it doesn't. In my opinion, editorial writing should be slanted. Otherwise, what fun is it and what purpose does it serve? But, to be more than dressed-up tabloid fodder, the writing needs to be disciplined.

Thursday, the Spectrum published an editorial condemning President Bush's decision to veto the bill dealing with federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. It should not surprise my seven faithful readers that I support the President's position on this issue and, therefore, disagree with the editorial.

However, the editorial was written excellently. It solidly makes its point that the President got this one wrong. It does not content itself to preach to a choir or merely cloud the issue by degrading motives or intellectual pedigrees; rather, in scholarly fashion, it seeks to pursuade those open to reason, by elaborating on specifics. Thinking-people are more apt to be turned by that, I would hope, than by an unbridled screed against all things conservative.

Even though I disagree with its conclusion, I can't argue that the Spectrum's editorial doesn't advance the dialogue and improve people's ability to make an informed decision. I am increasingly troubled that our public dialogue has lost much reason and temperance, and I appreciate the Spectrum's effort to use its voice to shed light on this important and, yes, complex issue in a responsible way.

Gov. Huntsman Endorses Sen. McCain

It looks like Gov. Huntsman has endorsed Sen. McCain for President. I can readily see why the two would be drawn to each other. But I wonder why the Governor would make such an endorsement so early.

Tax Reform

A few months ago, Rep. John Dougall developed an income tax reform idea as we talked in my office. We agreed that it would make sense either to have a flat tax or to simply drop the top rate on our existing system. “What about creating a bifurcated system and doing both?” he asked. “Drop the rate a bit on our current system, set up a separate flat tax system, and let each taxpayer pick which one he wants to use.”

I told him he was crazy and that it wouldn’t have a prayer of moving forward.

The Governor and Senate leadership now endorse the idea. Further proof of my political genius.

What?

George Pyle, a member of the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board, wrote an editorial Sunday that was very weird (and I'd be tempted to say offensive or perhaps even libelous, except that it doesn't fully lend itself to be understood).

Last Thursday, the Trib's editorial board basically called St. George a hole that shouldn't grow anymore. See here.

I invited the Trib's editorial board to come take a closer look. I wrote, "I am happy to arrange lodging and meals and put together an itinerary of some places that I think few spots on earth could rival." George Pyle called me that day and asked if I was serious. Good for him, I thought, responding that I was serious and that I appreciated his call.

Sunday George wrote that he googled my blog and that I had bribed the editorial board, but then he clarified that he didn't actually google my blog and that I hadn't bribed the editorial board. George can lecture all he wants about those lofty journalistic ethics, but that's pretty weird and inappropriate. Was that a shot across my bow for questioning the editorial board's wisdom, a failed attempt at humor, or just the product of a tight deadline? Whatever it is, it's awfully weird.

Regardless how its nose might be out of joint at the suggestion, the editorial board should do a little research on my community. If it wants, the board can book its own hotels and restaurants. Pay double or triple, for all I care. But to slop out base generalities about an entire community and then malign a representative of that community with criminal intent when it is invited to learn more about the community is small. The next time the Trib's editorial board dusts off one of its hackneyed pieces on allegedly shallow and thuggish behavior (by the Legislature), I'll have to remember that it has some expertise in the area.

Transportation Research

I took a friend's rented Shelby GT-H for an inspection of the state's transportation infrastructure. Sweet.

Unfortunately, the research was inconclusive. To really assess the situation, I'm afraid I'll still need to test how the roads handle a Shelby/AC Cobra 427 S/C or a 1966 GTO. C'mon, someone, be civic minded and give me a call.

As for second-, third- or fourth-hand, breaking-down pieces of junk, I've tested the heck out of our roads with those.

Preterm Births

My youngest girl has lost her first 2 teeth, can swim 3 laps at the public pool, and is very excited to start the first grade. As I’ve discussed elsewhere on this site, she was born at 26-weeks gestational age, weighing about 1.25 lbs.

The D-News and the Trib had articles on an apparently steep increase in the percentage of premature births. Looking at some of the background data (which, given the times and places of the research, might include my girl), it appears that researchers don’t have an explanation for the increase. This troubling trend has significant human and financial implications.

Last month, Sara and I went on a tour of the beefed-up Newborn Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at Dixie Regional Medical Center. A lot has changed nationally in NICUs in just a few years. NICUs are brighter and louder (doctors previously believed that much lighting at all could cause retinopathy and that much sound at all unduly stressed the infants), infections are down (by the simple, ubiquitous installation of dispensers for alcohol-based hand cleansers), and brain trauma is greatly reduced (apparently by closer monitoring and treatment of blood pressure in the first few days).

An Invitation to the Trib's Editorial Board

The Tribune editorialized that St. George is “a giant strip mall punctuated by water-guzzling golf courses.” This must be based on ignorance. Though we do have a variety of retail stores and several tremendous golf courses, the board members either have not spent much time down here or never got off the major thoroughfares.

I would like to have them down here to show them some fabulous areas off the main arterial roads. Right by my house (I live just off Highway 18 across from a retail center) are pristine areas that are unimaginable to many urbanites. We could even walk there, if that would somehow add to the experience.

Also, as far as I could decipher it, the editorial board either doesn’t think Washington County should plan for the future (and, I guess, should do something to freeze time) or the board thinks a good plan is not on the table.

It is naïve to suggest that growth in such a desirable community could just be stopped. Were it to be stopped, housing prices likely would race even further through the roof – chasing off any and all non-wealthy citizens. That would represent a sad change for the community. Already, the area is experiencing an affordable housing crisis -- which land could help ameliorate. A plan is needed to address these complexities. Remember: failing to plan is planning to fail.

So, I invite the members of the Trib’s editorial board to come down to St. George. Seriously. I am happy to arrange lodging and meals and put together an itinerary of some places that I think few spots on earth could rival. It sounds like I better leave off the golf, but that’s fine. There are plenty of other things to do.

Also, I would ask that the board put together its suggestions for the future of Washington County. As it should know, planning is complex. I’d ask that it deal with the realities of people actually living here and wanting good educational, recreational and occupational opportunities. The suggestions don’t need to be anything formal, but details of course would make it better.

I’ll put together a more formal invitation and we can coordinate on dates and the agenda. But I’m thinking late September might be good.

Bring Your Facts, Please

People often ask me what makes a successful legislator. Granted, they might be asking me just so I will reflect on the topic and become one. Everyone has a different approach. Me? I rely on good looks and charm -- which might explain why people want me to reflect on the topic.

Two things that are essential to success are hard work and a command of the facts. All important matters come down to those 2 things at some point. If a legislator outworks the opposition and knows more than the opposition, chances for victory are increased. Of course, credibility, communication skills, personality and interpersonal skills, and political smarts (which mostly is common sense and experience) factor in strongly. But, hard-working legislators who know their facts will rack up a lot of victories.

No doubt, political philosophy plays a huge role. But, I have seen successful legislators across the spectrum. The two things they all can do is outwork others and, in the process, get a commanding handle on the facts.

Do the facts always win out? Of course, not. It's politics, not Jeopardy. But hard work and facts win out far more often than some people might think.

I thought about this subject when I read Rep. Brad Daw's reply to one of Don Gale's editorials. Mr. Gale lofts up some fluff on the Founders' philosophies (meshing perfectly with his, of course), and Rep. Daw swats it into the 10th row. Brad is very soft spoken and one of the kindest people I know, but, as his reply shows, he does expect people to have their facts straight.

Rocky's War

Rocky is going to protest the President. Yawn.

I'm sorry for even noticing. But I think it does illustrate why Rocky is such an ineffective mayor. He seems to be bored by the mundane idea of actually accomplishing anything. Rather, he is consumed by looking like he is fighting great battles.

Of course, if he cared about raising concerns with the President, he'd meet with him and raise his concerns. Mayors of great cities do it all the time. But, Rocky is not interested in raising concerns with the President. People wouldn't see it. And he needs the audience.

So, in order for people to see him raise great concerns, and in order for people to hear him speak truth to power, he contents himself with shouting his gibberish into the breeze, instead of actually sitting down with the President in a civil fashion. Odd.

But, enough of that. On the bright side, I note that Mayor Anderson's style has effected change. Good businesses continue to move from Salt Lake City to St. George, helping create one of the most vibrant communities in the country, and Sandy might be getting major league soccer.

Maybe after Rocky saves the whales, he'll get after some municipal issues.

More on Medical Malpractice

Charlie Thronson adds more to the medical malpractice debate. He writes:

This is the story of Vaginal Births After Cesarian Section:

1. In the old days, C-sections were performed with a long, vertical incision, cutting through the uterine muscle (where the muscle fibers are arranged horizontally) and creating a scar that was very susceptible to rupture. This led to the phrase "once a C-section, always a C-section."

2. A new technique came along, called the Pfannenstiel incision, which was a low, transverse "bikini" incision, far less disruptive of the uterine muscle. It became the delivery method of choice for those undergoing C-sections.

3. In the 1980's, faced with a rising C-section rate, rising health care costs and seeking to reduce medical expenditures and maximize profits, health insurance companies and hospitals began to push VBACs as an alternative to routine repeat C-sections. In addition, physicians began to utilize Pitocin (oxytocin) to stimulate uterine contractions and speed labor in VBACs, even though the manufacturer of Pitocin warned that the use of the drug in the face of "prior uterine trauma" (i.e., C-section) was contraindicated.

4. Predictably, the rate of uterine rupture went up, resulting in catastrophic injuries or death to both the fetus and the mother (from uncontrolled bleeding). It is my understanding that the rate of uterine rupture in a VBAC is somewhere between 3 to 7 %. The studies have shown that the child must be delivered within 18 minutes or less after the time of the uterine rupture to avoid permanent brain damage or death. The problem is that the first signs of uterine rupture are often not picked up by the nursing staff, and the physician generally cannot stay around the bedside all day, waiting to see if the uterus is going to hold up. So VBACs have sort of fallen out of favor because of safety and convenience reasons. Mothers who have carried the child for 9 months and taken meticulous care of themselves and their unborn child often don't want to risk their lives or the lives of their newborn to save a few hundred dollars (and not face a care requirement in the millions of dollars if things go wrong). The issue often comes down to adequate informed consent, and the physicians who do VBACs use what is called the "Phalen Consent" (named after it's originator, Jeffery Phalen, an early proponent of VBACs) which sets forth in very clear detail what can go wrong if the uterus ruptures. It is a good document, not "happy medicine" and give the patient the information she needs to make an informed decision.

So this really is not an issue of "defensive medicine." It is an issue of choice, full informed consent and "risk versus benefit." This happens every day in medicine (and in every other facet of life--smoke detectors, life insurance, hang gliding, wearing seat belts, buying a trampoline, quiting a job and starting a business, etc.) I am sure there are physicians who will not do VBACs, knowing what they know now about what can go wrong, and how often--I wouldn't do one, or have one done. I also wouldn't stay on an airplane if the pilot came over the intercom and told the passengers that the plane had a 7% chance of crashing that day. The decision to do VBACs is the physicians' choice too. Many of them think it is just too risky for their patients.

Since we were originally talking about Medicaid, the question remains whether is is cheaper for Medicaid to pay for repeat C-sections, or take care of catastrophically-injured babies. I don't know the financial answer to that one, but I do know the humane answer.

Thank you, Charlie. I'll respond in the comments below.

Media Shield

Much talk on shielding journalists from court proceedings confuses two separate questions:

1. Should journalists go to jail for the act of publishing information? (almost never)

2. Should journalists be required to divulge the identity of people who commit espionage? (at times)

On question 1: The New York Times editors likely won’t be prosecuted for publishing classified information about tracking terrorists’ financial transactions. The first amendment gives the Times wide latitude to exercise its judgment on what it will do with information. Even if it exercises that judgment poorly. Even if it determines that a lame scoop trumps national security interests.

People, though, are free to question the editors’ judgment and patriotrism. If people conclude that the conduct of the Times was abhorrent, they are free to cancel their subscriptions. And, it should go without saying that they are free to exercise their first amendment rights by criticizing the Times as being run by dough heads.

On question 2: Should the New York Times editors be required to disclose who leaked the classified information? Of course.

A serious crime was committed. If Bob at the CIA divulges classified information to his neighbor, Bob should face the consequences. Does it somehow immunize Bob from those consequences, if he divulges it to someone else who, then, broadcasts it to others? Of course not. In both cases, Bob broke an important law and should be brought to justice.

Think about it. If some group wanted to commit espionage, how should it go about it? Smuggle out documents and information? No. That would be so 1950s. We’d go after the spy and might be able to stop him from divulging our classified information in the future. In the 21st century, the ideal way for America’s enemies to commit espionage is to simply have someone whisper the classified information to the New York Times. Let the Times divulge the classified information on page 1. Either way, they get the classified information they want. But, under the second approach, if anyone tries to uncover the identify of the spy, the fourth estate will wrap itself in the flag to protect his identity. And the subversive can continue divulging classified information as long as elected leaders cower to media bullying.

“Ah,” the media would say, “The person divulging our nation’s wartime secrets is not a traitor or subversive. He’s a red-blooded, question-authority-and-speak-truth-to-power patriot.”

Huh?

We have no idea who the person is or what his intentions are. How do we know he is not intent on aiding our enemies? How do we know he is not a card-carrying Al Qaeda zealot? How do we know he is not intent on harming America as much as he can? Of course we don’t know any of that. The only thing we know when classified information is leaked is that laws have been broken and that our enemies now know things they shouldn’t. Whether the spy is a dedicated enemy of the state or a simple idiot, he needs to be stopped before he divulges more classified information. And the way to do that is to swear in the reporter and ask who divulged the classified information. As much as reporters have a right to chase Pulitzers, Americans have a right to know who’s helping our enemies.

I have read objections that requiring reporters to identify spies would stifle the flow of information. Nonsense. It only would stifle one very specific act: espionage.

Information is classified to protect our great Nation’s interests against those who, believe it or not, would love to destroy us. And I’ve got a scoop for the Times. Those interests include the continued protection of the freest media in the world.

In the partisan dreck that consumes America – and in each side’s zeal to subvert the other – we have lost sight of the fact that those who work to subvert America must be stopped. Despite the dulling rhetoric – Democrats aren’t working to subvert America, Republicans aren’t working to subvert America. People who leak classified information are working to subvert America. If we can’t stop navel gazing long enough to find out who those people are, then heaven help us.