Lake Powell Pipeline Financing

After disagreeing on the campaign trail about financing for the proposed Lake Powell pipeline, my opponent and I spoke last week with the head of the State’s water resources division, Dennis Strong. Mr. Strong confirmed that my description of the Lake Powell pipeline financing, as contained in the attached op ed, is correct.

My opponent has graciously agreed to help get out the truth on this point for the remainder of the campaign. He'll continue to oppose further water planning, for other reasons, but I'm grateful that he'll help dispell the incorrect facts that have been thrown around regarding the financial burden to the people of Washington County. In order for the public to meaningfully participate in the planning process, it is important to tether the discussion to facts and reality.

It’s nice that the give-and-take of a campaign served to clarify an important aspect of the proposed pipeline project.

Lisa Johnson and Rep. Hughes’s October Surprise

Rep. Greg Hughes soundly defeated Lisa Johnson two years ago for a House race in Draper. It would take something like weeks of bad press to close that gap. And that’s just what Rep. Hughes got, when an ethics complaint was filed against him a month before the election. Rep. Hughes was cleared of all charges (most failing 8-0 in the 4 Republican / 4 Democrat ethics committee). But, to understate the matter, it’s a tough task to make up for all the bad press.

Today, Johnson’s attorney revealed that she knew about the potential charges against Rep. Hughes in April. That sheds new light on a little on-line conversation I had in June with “CraigJ”. I pointed out that the 3 complainants against Rep. Mark Walker had all promised vengeance on House Rules Committee members. CraigJ was very animated in the commentary. I knew that Lisa Johnson’s husband was Craig, so I asked:

craigj,

Are you Craig Johnson, married to Lisa Johnson, democratic candidate running against Rep. Greg Hughes?

If so, that just might be the most precious thing I've ever heard!

If so, please tell: is Rep. Hughes the "legislator to be named later?" And when might that be revealed -- late September, October? Not that you've given any thought to whether that might help your wife's campaign against Greg.

I know that the motives of people trying to ruin other people shouldn't be questioned, and I'm sure you and Hansen, Mascaro and Allen wouldn't engage in a smear campaign to leverage an election, but it just might be fun to know if your wife stands to gain from all this.

You said, "It's a fabricated smear plain and simple." Apparently, it might not be quite so plain and simple.

Man, do I love politics!

Well, well, well. It turns out that CraigJ could have answered my questions at that point.

“Is Rep. Hughes the ‘legislator to be named later?’” Yes.

“And when might that be revealed – late September, October?” Yes.

“Not that you’ve given any thought to whether that might help your wife’s campaign against Greg.” Well . . ..

“It just might be fun to know if your wife stands to gain from all this.” Well . . ..

CraigJ responded,

And how dare you try to drag my wife into your sick charade! Neither she nor I are involved in any way with this ethics complaint. I'm sorry to say but I don't have any idea what the anonymous poster is talking about.

It's no surprise, though, that I see your friend Rep. Hughes as part of the problem with Utah politics and we are working hard to defeat him.

It is a sick charade. And, CraigJ, your lawyer just revealed that you knew exactly what the anonymous poster was talking about, when he wrote:

“Legislator to be named later”: I'll put $10 on Greg Hughes. The Democrats and Allen/Mascaro think they can take him out. (Not that I think Hughes is guilty of anything, just that I think he will be the legislator to be conveniently named later.

Who will take me up on this and what odds will you give me?

LisaJ is making ethics the center point of her campaign? Please.

Lake Powell Pipeline Financing

I've submitted a commentary to the Tribune's piece on me regarding the Lake Powell pipeline, describing how -- exactly as I stated -- the State does contribute to the pipeline. If the Trib doesn't run it by Tuesday, I'll publish it here. Since it had no qualms about broadsiding me and the pipeline project with errors (which are so easily checked in this case), I'm curious to see how interested the Trib is in getting correct facts before the public on this important issue. My guess: not very.

In the meantime, I've asked the author of the hit piece, to describe where he disagrees with the following Q&A. Anyone can participate. Here's the statute that provides the answers.

Who pays to construct the pipeline? (The State).

When is the State reimbursed? (When the District takes the water, not when the project is completed).

When will the District take the water? (In blocks, sometime between project completion and 50 years after).

During that time, who services the construction costs? (The State).

Hmm.

How much are those carrying costs? (a big chunk of change)

If the water district pays cash for each block of water it takes during the 50 years, how much will it pay in interest? ($0)

Hmm, again.

Lastly, the bill specifically references the water districts taking at least 70% of the water. If they take 70%, who would entirely cover the cost of the other 30%? (The State)

In my last post, I wrote, "I'm just disappointed that big campaigns continue to be so non-substantive. I had hoped that the Internet might change that. But, so far, I can't say that it has. It just seems to make the silliness more immediate and wide spread. I'd be pleased, if people would point me to signs suggesting otherwise." This present exchange illustrates what could happen in big campaigns, in terms of presenting verifiable evidence before voters.

My opponent and one of his backers are making claims about a real issue (financing of the Lake Powell pipeline; specifically, whether, as I say, the State will contribute "a big chunk"). I'm responding to those claims (and, as outlined, will respond with more detail, in my op-ed, to the questions I raise above). People can come here, read the competing claims, read the bill, and decide for themselves who is right.

Political disagreement is fine and dandy. That's what leads to choices, competition among those choices, and -- we hope -- progress. But, as seems to be the case in the federal arena, if those disagreements never lead to someone-is-right/someone-is-wrong conclusions, people get lost in the vapor, and they turn off.

I love that my opponent and his backers are talking about an important issue to the community, not about who I associated with years ago (juicy stuff, I assure you) or whether one of my backers is licensed to practice his trade, etc. That gives each of us the opportunity to present our case and challenge the other's case. Sticking to facts, gives the public the opportunity to follow the debate and come to some conclusions.

On this one, I happen to believe that my opponent simply doesn't understand the complexities of the financing plan for the pipeline. We'll see how people answer my questions above, and we'll see how people react to the op-ed I've written. Because we're dealing with actual statutory language on an actual issue, specific answers do exist.

UPDATE: The Tribune is going to run the op ed this Sunday. I'll link to it then.

Properly Vetting Joe the Plumber

In very serious times, I'm pleased to see that the substantive ideas of the 2 candidates' competing to lead the Nation are being analyzed. Oh, no, wait. It's Joe the Plumber who is now being vetted. It's about time!

I don't mean anything partisan by that. I'm just disappointed that big campaigns continue to be so non-substantive. I had hoped that the Internet might change that. But, so far, I can't say that it has. It just seems to make the silliness more immediate and wide spread. I'd be pleased, if people would point me to signs suggesting otherwise.

In terms of issues and opinions themselves, however, the Internet, of course, is an unmatchable public forum. That makes it all the more odd to me that the realness of the virtual forum hasn't made it yet to real campaigns. Why not? I'd have to conclude that people prefer the silliness -- all protestations to the contrary.

I was laying it on my Obama-loving bro-in-law last week that The One is so fluffy. He stopped me pretty quick, when he asked me what campaign advice I would give Obama to win the election. Given that people don't really want substance, I'd have to say -- from a political strategy standpoint -- that I'd suggest he boldly proclaim that he's for good things. If pressed, I'd have him go further and say that he is for very good things.

If you're disgusted with the triviality of the Presidential race, jump into a local race with both feet. The issues are important, and the dialogue tends to be pretty meaty.

Again, kudos to my opponent and the forums allowing us to speak. We're getting into some good issues. I'll put up entries this weekend on Dixie State College and the financing of the Lake Powell pipeline. We'll see if Bruce Wilson or someone at the Trib wants to jump in and defend their hit piece on me.

Free Speech and Freedom

I'm really enjoying being on the campaign trail with my opponent. As I mentioned previously, I believe we're giving people some strong differences of opinion on several important issues, while respecting the other's willingness to participate in the process. That approach invites voters to look more closely at a race, rather than send them running away screaming and holding their ears like many of the federal races seem to do.

In any event, I'm really struck right now by the greatness of our system that allows us to actively contest our differences and determine whose opinion will carry the day. On that note, though, I can't help but laugh that Sen. McCain's campaign is arguing that federal encroachments on free speech rights are interfering with dissemination of ideas. Ya. That's what tends to happen when government abandons first amendment agnosticism in order to pick winners and losers in public discourse.

Of course there are complexities to the McCain-YouTube DMCA story. YouTube and Google are free to decide how to respond to the takedown notices -- and are mighty enough to fully defend any principled choices they choose to make. But, even though I want McCain to win and I believe that YouTube/Google might be a bit more hasty to take down his stuff, it is nice to see that one of the senators who unanimously voted for this speech-regulating bill notices that it has some bad effects on legitimate speech.

Utah and the Economic Downturn

The time to prepare for a storm is before the storm. Same with economic cycles. Once a downturn hits, the thing most governments do is wish they’d done things differently leading up to the downturn.

As Rep. Dave Clark is fond of saying, calm seas don’t make good sailors. Those of us who were around in 2001-02 learned a few lessons. We determinedly plowed money into rainy day funds, citizens’ pockets (through tax cuts), and capital projects (instead of relying exclusively on bonding). And – as I’ve repeatedly said – when the downturn hit, we got in early to match budgets to the economy. Thank you, again, Gov. Huntsman, President Valentine, and Speaker Curtis for leading out. These steps allow us to maintain some of the important gains we’ve made in public education and higher education funding. While other states will have to take jolting actions, like laying off employees and cutting services (just what a downturn doesn’t need), we should be able to ride this one out with some trimming here and there. It won’t be easy, but we’ll get through it.

Of course, I’m quick to add that we don’t know how tough things will get. But, in any case, we should ride it out better than other states. While it is good sport to bash legislatures (and, heaven knows, I enjoy it myself), I’m proud of the work that my colleagues and I have done on the budget over the last few years. The battles were intense and hard fought, but they seem to have been worth it.

The goal is to be one of the last states to enter the downturn and one of the first to emerge. Utah is well-positioned to do that.

Campaign Debates

My opponent and I are having several debates. We debated at the Episcopal Church (really we gave speeches there), at the Elks Lodge regarding Veterans issues, and before a group of local estate planners. Here is The Spectrum’s coverage of yesterday’s Homebuilder/Realtors debate.

We will address Leadership Dixie on 10/9; Rotary on 10/13; the St. George Chamber of Commerce on 10/15; the Hurricane Chamber on 10/16; SunRiver on 10/21; and the Association of PUDs and Condos on 10/22. The Spectrum and Utah Public Radio will host a debate at Dixie State College’s Gardner Center on 10/27.

Though I’m a bit biased, I believe our debates are more substantive and, thus, more engaging than the yawners for the presidential contest. I’d bet that’s typically the case for local elections. It’s kind of crazy that local candidates get down to details, while candidates for the leader of the Nation ladle out fluff and sound bites.

A lot of things can get lost in campaigns. Especially perspective. With a month to go, I want to state that I respect my opponent, Brooks Pace. He’s a good person. I’m glad that he’s offered himself up to the process.

We differ significantly on issues. But I believe that we’re focusing on real issues in a respectful manner – unlike the Presidential candidates who are intent to yammer about small bore issues while our Nation is engaged in two military campaigns and trillions of dollars evaporate out of the economy.

Our debates are focusing primarily on the State’s role in addressing the economic downturn, public and higher education – especially the future of Dixie State College, infrastructure needs, the environment, and effectiveness. I’ll do a blog post on each of these issues over the next week or two. As I read over that list, those are major themes of this blog; so, maybe we’re addressing them in the debates, because I focus on them. If people want to suggest additional topics, that’d be great.

Comedians and Politics

I wonder why more comedians don’t rise in politics. Have many tried? Perhaps it’s just that they don’t want to mess with the mess. Maybe they’re too controversial, and lose voters one crack at a time. With our tendency to typecast, maybe people refuse to believe comedians could ever hold non-comedic thoughts.

But, great comedians are some of the smartest, most observant, and most communicative people around. When they get serious, they often say some amazingly spot-on things, with clarity that only the best thinkers and communicators could deliver. Forget the presidential debates. Let Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller go at it. It would be more substantive and more entertaining.

Instead, as I listen to Congress-types excuse themselves from ANY role in the financial mess or explain their blame only in partisan terms, it becomes more apparent that we do tend to elect jokers, just not the funny kind.

Joe Biden Sighting at Home Depot

I just saw Joe Biden at Home Depot. I'm not sure he's well. He was ranting that it was the most dangerous Home Depot we've had probably in American history, because vices were not where he thought they were and because he’d been forced down in electrical. When the manager asked him what he was talking about, he flashed some crazy, bleached out smile, said he had to kick Hezbollah out of hardware, and invited us all to Katie’s Restaurant without pre-conditions.

Why Won't Anyone Play With Bob?

Deseret News opinionist/reporter (oporter?) Bob “Combo Plate” Bernick opines/reports (oports?) that 63% of all legislative candidates did not respond to his questionnaire. (Though I’m being cheeky about it, Bernick truly is, simultaneously, a columnist and reporter for the D News; what’s better, he thrills to oport on, um, conflicts and integrity). My answers to the questionnaire can be seen here.

Regarding his snubbing, Combo Plate oports, “Perhaps they didn't like the questions. Maybe they figure that in today's online world, they can ignore a statewide newspaper.” A beat oporter should have a better grasp on his beat. Combo Plate either doesn’t know the reason or doesn’t share with his readers the real reason he got snubbed.

People on both sides of the aisle don’t believe that he or his newspaper is to be trusted.

Informing candidates about the questionnaire, Combo Plate reserved the right to edit answers and to use them in other stories. Given his willingness to make up stories out of whole cloth and his paper's willingness to back him in that practice, most candidates deemed it wiser to forgo that opportunity to get out their message than to provide Combo Plate with material for oporting.

As Democrat new media sensation JM Bell notes, Democrats don’t think Combo Plate plays it straight. (You betcha I threw JM a bone; darn right he’s smarting that Gov. Palin ;-) connected with the heartland again). JM writes to Combo Plate, “You use quotes, out of context and out of time, pulled from old notebooks when you can’t get someone on the phone, or, I guess, when you don’t feel like making the call.” Likewise, Republicans don’t think Combo Plate plays it straight.

Interestingly, in his comments, JM notes his confidence in Trib reporters Gehrke, Burr and Canham. I share that confidence, as I believe most Rs and Ds do. They can light up a politician as well as anyone can, but they dig for facts and work to inform their readers. Perhaps much “media bias” simply is a product of ineptness or lack of professionalism.

Also of interest, a commenter (1:20 p.m.) to Combo Plate’s oport says that the D News eliminated his/her comment explaining why the survey wasn’t answered. I’ve had that same experience with the D News, when I tried to submit a comment critical of the paper. For a group that quick draws free speech rights on a routine basis, it seems eager to suppress speech that questions its practices. By comparison, I’ve been blogging for just about 4 years, and I believe I’ve deleted 5 comments, none that were about me.

Official Position of Republicans and Paulson on Bailouts

Regarding bailouts, the Republican Party Platform -- adopted just a month ago at the convention -- states:

We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all. We encourage potential buyers to work in concert with the lending community to educate themselves about the responsibilities of purchasing a home, condo, or land.

In fairness, though, that position was adopted way back in August of 2008, before Secretary Paulson, the Oracle of the Potomac, warned that markets would collapse if a bailout weren't enacted.

At that time, the contrary prevailing wisdom for Republicans was the Oracle's July 2008 statement to Congress:

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also working through this challenging period. They play an important role in our housing markets today and need to continue to play an important role in the future. Their regulator has made clear that they are adequately capitalized."

Their regulator has made clear . . .. Okay. We'll continue,

"Market discipline is also critical to the health of our financial system, and must be reinforced, because regulation alone cannot eliminate all future bouts of market instability. For market discipline to be effective, market participants must not expect that lending from the Fed, or any other government support, is readily available. I know from first hand experience that normal or even presumed access to a government backstop has the potential to change behavior within financial institutions and with their creditors. It compromises market discipline and lowers risk premiums, ultimately putting the system at greater risk. For market discipline to effectively constrain risk, financial institutions must be allowed to fail."

Yes, by all means, let's listen closely to October Paulson, that unflagging source of wise counsel, instead of that moron, July Paulson, who told us that Fannie and Freddie clearly were adequately capitalized and that government bailouts were bad. Let's listen to him, and hurriedly throw something, anything, together as a bailout package before politicians have to stand before voters.

I repeat. These people are fools. Foolish, greedy financiers teaming up with desperate, short-sighted politicians -- all willing to kick the can down the road. At least past November 4th. Regardless what long-term effects result.