Steve Urquhart

Sorry, Parents

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:28:00 +0000

My sex ed bill failed to get out of committee today. So, what does that amount to?

Well, read it, and I'll give you my post mortem.

The bill attempted to do two things: (1) it would have clarified that contraceptives are part of the current curriculum (they already are; I wouldn't have changed anything there), and (2) it would have dramatically improved the quality of notice that parents receive regarding that instruction and opportunities to participate in that instruction.

So, failure means that (1) contraceptives STILL will be part of the current curriculum. But, (2) parents don't get the benefit of the improved notice and participation provisions.

I'm not so sure that opponents of the bill thought that one through, but the process has spoken for now.

Sex Ed Bill To Be Heard In Committee

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:44:00 +0000

*** UPDATE (2/20/10): the bill I will present in Senate Education Committee on 2/22/10 can be found here. The post below is pre-empted to some degree, as of this update. ***

Below is the bill that I will present in the Senate Education Committee next week. New language is in bold. Non-bolded language is existing law.

Thanks to all for the help. Not everyone is satisfied with the language. Some demand that the word "contraception" not be used. Since the bill addresses contraception, I am not willing to do that. I realize that this might jeopardize passage of the bill. But, I believe that not using the word "contraception" in a bill that provides tools for parents to use when discussing contraception with their children and in a bill that is intended to clarify that contraceptives can be taught under our current curriculum would be evasive and, likely, confusing.

I encourage all -- whether in favor or opposed to clarifying existing language -- to stay at the table and keep talking.

Here is the substitute I will present:

53A-13-101. Instruction in health -- Parental consent requirements -- Conduct and speech of school employees and volunteers -- Political and religious doctrine prohibited.
(1) (a) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements under Section 53A-1-402, that include instruction in:
(i) community and personal health;
(ii) physiology;
(iii) personal hygiene; and
(iv) prevention of communicable disease.
(b) (i) That instruction shall stress:
(A) the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases; and
(B) personal skills that encourage individual choice of abstinence and fidelity.
(ii) (A) At no time may instruction be provided, including responses to spontaneous questions raised by students, regarding any means or methods that facilitate or encourage the violation of any state or federal criminal law by a minor or an adult.
(B) Subsection (1)(b)(ii)(A) does not preclude an instructor from responding to a spontaneous question as long as the response is consistent with the provisions of this section.
(c) (i) The board shall recommend instructional materials for use in the curricula required under Subsection (1)(a) after considering evaluations of instructional materials by the State Instructional Materials Commission.
(ii) The board shall prepare instructional materials for any state curriculum objectives related to contraception that comply with state law and school board rules. A local district is not required to use such instructional materials in the classroom.
(iii) A local school board may choose to adopt:
(A) the instructional materials recommended under Subsection (1)(c)(i) and (ii); or
(B) other instructional materials as provided in state board rule.
(iv) The state board rule made under Subsection (1)(c)(ii)(B) shall include, at a minimum:
(A) that the materials adopted by a local school board under Subsection (1)(c)(ii)(B) shall be based upon recommendations of the school district's Curriculum Materials Review Committee that comply with state law and state board rules emphasizing abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibiting instruction in:
(I) the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, or erotic behavior;
(II) the advocacy of homosexuality;
(III) the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices; or
(IV) the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage;
(v) The prohibitions of Subsection (1)(c)(iv)(III) do not preclude a discussion related to curriculum objectives about contraception that complies with state law and state board rules.
(B) that the adoption of instructional materials shall take place in an open and regular meeting of the local school board for which prior notice is given to parents and guardians of students attending schools in the district and an opportunity for them to express their views and opinions on the materials at the meeting;
(C) provision for an appeal and review process of the local school board's decision; and
(D) provision for a report by the local school board to the State Board of Education of the action taken and the materials adopted by the local school board under Subsections (1)(c)(ii)(B) and (1)(c)(iii).
(2) (a) Instruction in the courses described in Subsection (1) shall be consistent and systematic in grades eight through 12.
(b) At the request of the board, the Department of Health shall cooperate with the board in developing programs to provide instruction in those areas.
________________________________________
(3) (a) The board shall adopt rules that:
(i) recognize that parents and legal guardians have the primary responsibility for instructing children in sex education and school instruction and provide opportunities for interaction between students and their parents and legal guardians in any sex education unit;
(ii) provide that the parental consent requirements of Sections 76-7-322 and 76-7-323 are complied with; and
(iii) require a student's parent or legal guardian to be notified in advance and have an opportunity to review the information which will be used in the classroom for which parental consent is required under Sections 76-7-322 and 76-7-323. If the local district does not use the board instructional materials regarding contraception, such materials must be readily available for review and use by parents and legal guardians, and the district must inform parents and legal guardians how the materials can be accessed.
(b) The board shall also provide procedures for disciplinary action for violation of Section 76-7-322 or 76-7-323.
(4) (a) In keeping with the requirements of Section 53A-13-109, and because school employees and volunteers serve as examples to their students, school employees or volunteers acting in their official capacities may not support or encourage criminal conduct by students, teachers, or volunteers.
(b) To ensure the effective performance of school personnel, the limitations described in Subsection (4)(a) also apply to school employees or volunteers acting outside of their official capacities if:
(i) they knew or should have known that their action could result in a material and substantial interference or disruption in the normal activities of the school; and
(ii) that action does result in a material and substantial interference or disruption in the normal activities of the school.
(c) Neither the State Office of Education nor local school districts may provide training of school employees or volunteers that supports or encourages criminal conduct.
(d) The State Board of Education shall adopt rules implementing this section.
(e) Nothing in this section limits the ability or authority of the State Board of Education and local school boards to enact and enforce rules or take actions that are otherwise lawful, regarding educators', employees', or volunteers' qualifications or behavior evidencing unfitness for duty.
(5) Except as provided in Section 53A-13-101.1, political, atheistic, sectarian, religious, or denominational doctrine may not be taught in the public schools.
(6) (a) Local school boards and their employees shall cooperate and share responsibility in carrying out the purposes of this chapter.
(b) Each school district shall provide appropriate inservice training for its teachers, counselors, and school administrators to enable them to understand, protect, and properly instruct students in the values and character traits referred to in this section and Sections 53A-13-101.1, 53A-13-101.2, 53A-13-101.3, 53A-13-109, 53A-13-301, and 53A-13-302 and distribute appropriate written materials on the values, character traits, and conduct to each individual receiving the inservice training.
(c) The written materials shall also be made available to classified employees, students, and parents and guardians of students.
(d) In order to assist school districts in providing the inservice training required under Subsection (6)(b), the State Board of Education shall as appropriate, contract with a qualified individual or entity possessing expertise in the areas referred to in Subsection (6)(b) to develop and disseminate model teacher inservice programs which districts may use to train the individuals referred to in Subsection (6)(b) to effectively teach the values and qualities of character referenced in that subsection.
(e) In accordance with the provisions of Subsection (4)(c), inservice training may not support or encourage criminal conduct.
(7) If any one or more provision, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be unconstitutional, the balance of this section shall be given effect without the invalid provision, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word.

The Political Assault on Science

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:45:00 +0000

Two of the more interesting issues I’ve dealt with during my 10 years in office are Intelligent Design (“ID”) and Anthropogenic Global Warming (“AGW”). Having stood against the thundering herd on both issues, (here and here) I believe I can make a few salient observations.

At the end of the day, ID and AGW are two manifestations of the same cancer. ID is rooted in conservative politics. AGW is rooted in liberal politics. But, at their heart, both issues are assaults on science. Though both issues parrot the language and appearance of science, both issues constitute policy posing as science.

Both issues repulse scientific method and inquiry. On the one hand, Intelligent Design is beyond scientific inquiry, because it is unknowable and, therefore, is unchallengeable – a matter of faith; the things we do not know must be of God; normal scientific inquiry is repulsive, because informational gaps themselves complete the tautology; God is in the gaps. Inquiry is blasphemy. I call this approach God Against Science.

On the other hand, Anthropogenic Global Warming is beyond scientific inquiry, because, Zeus-like, it was born fully mature, an answer instead of a question and, therefore, is unchallengeable – a matter of authority; the things we do not know do not matter; normal scientific inquiry is repulsive, because informational gaps are exclusively the back alley of heretics; the Devil is in the gaps. Inquiry is blasphemy. I call this approach Science As God.

To suck so many well-meaning people into two major issues like this in a 10-year span seems extraordinary. I’m not sure what it means. Is it that we have become scientifically illiterate? Is it that hoaxes and half-truths can travel faster now? Or, somewhat to the contrary, is the emergence and implosion of the 2 issues a testament to something positive – the ability of information to overcome assaults on science.

And, for the record, I’m not saying that either issue has been “disproven.” I am saying that information and discussion have properly shifted the burden back to the proponents of both issues to prove their hypotheses. Maybe they will. But, fortunately, before we damaged society too much chasing the mandates of either theory, their proponents were invited to prove their case through scientific inquiry. Both theories have shown to be intriguing enough to capture the attention of politicians; now, let’s see how they prove out in the lab.

Budgeting 101

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:06:00 +0000

Every year Utah balances its budget. We’ll do it again this year. Like all of you do with your personal budgets, we have to make choices. Revenues and expenditures have to match up. The federal government, of course, doesn’ t do that. It no longer even tries. It simply spends much more than it takes in – piling unsustainable amounts of debt on our Country and us.

This just in from our President:

“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”

Come again? It’s not the spending. It’s not the revenue. It’s just the mismatch between spending and revenue. Um . . .

I like the logic. I’m not overweight. It is just a mismatch between the amount of food I eat and the amount of exercise I do. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the fitness system has been unable to deal with.

When the President talks about fiscal failings of "the political system" -- that disembodied, unaccountable entity -- let me give you a hint who plays a huge role in those failings.

Legislative Process

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:22:00 +0000

America submits many of its complex issues and problems to legislative process for resolution. Many of these problems exist because the entities involved are unable or unwilling to talk and negotiate. Legislative process affords entities that opportunity.

The Deseret News highlights a serious property rights controversy that exists in Utah regarding billboards. This controversy has been raging for some time. I’m happy to say that the parties brought the issue to the Legislature, and that we’ve been able to resolve it (or at least map out a strategy by which it can be resolved).

The Utah League of Cities and Towns and the billboard companies each had several items of legislation that they wanted run. Senator Jerry Stevenson, Representative Steve Clark and I were able to meet with the entities and craft a pathway forward. It’s not that we did anything great, we simply had the backing of the legislative process to invite (force?) the parties to talk. Once they sat in the same room and had a somewhat refereed conversation, they were able to find some solutions. Good for them.

The underlying balance-of-power issues still exist and must be examined, and maybe modified, by the Legislature, but that’s a good project for the interim.

Sex Ed

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:39:00 +0000

My sex ed bill can be found here.

In short, the bill modifies the sex ed curriculum, by instructing the State Office of Education to create a medically-accurate curriculum on contraceptives for all high schoolers (unless parents opt-out). The instruction will be delivered via a video prepared by the State Office. Along with being accurate and excellent, the video will fully inform parents of what will be taught; that way, parents can make an informed decision regarding their child’s participation; better yet, the video will provide an excellent tool for parents to use when talking with their children about sex.

My conversations regarding sex ed suggest that a few points should be clarified:

1. Current Utah law is not abstinence-only. It is abstinence-based. Contraceptive info is taught in 36 of Utah’s 40 school districts.

2. Point no. 1 is not quite accurate. Though all but 4 districts claim to teach contraceptives, instruction often comes down to the personal preferences of the individual health teachers. Some teach it; some don’t; some sort of mention it.

3. Utah rates of teen pregnancy and STD infections are problematic.

Last year, as Senate sponsor of Rep. Seelig’s Expedited Partner Therapy bill, I was surprised by the pregnancy rates and STD rates for Utah kids. Believing that education can improve behavior, and that smarter sexual behavior can prevent much heartache and tragedy, I took a big interest in Rep. Hemingway’s sex ed bill. It has been a pleasure to work with Lynn and all of the interested parties.

The sex ed advisory board for my school district strongly supports the bill. My Senate district is just about the most conservative in the State. But, when my people learn about the specifics of the bill, they support it. That’s the key – getting to the point of real discussion and specifics.

I believe in legislative process. Because of the sensitivity and tremendous importance of the topic, and because of the passions that the words “sex ed” evoke, this bill will be challenged at every turn. And that’s a great thing! The process will drive meaningful discussion and helpful ideas. The final product will be awesome, and it will do great things for the youth of Utah.

Cybersquatting Legislation

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:13:00 +0000

I am running legislation, to crack down on cybersquatting.

Last year, we stalled on legislation addressing the practice of search engines selling trademarks as search terms. Sen. Liljenquist and I were tasked to work with the combatants over the interim. We realized that we’d never reach a viable conclusion; but, importantly, we realized that all the companies involved in the discussions, and countless other businesses, did have a common appetite to find a solution to cybersquatting. So, we started working on that issue.

Jim Halpert (not that Jim Halpert, but, yes, the Jim “childhood friend” Halpert) expertly led the discussions from Paris. (Negotiations took a hiatus, when Jim went on a buddy trip with Andy Bernard; not that Andy Bernard, but, yes, the Andy “childhood friend” Bernard). Michael Scott had nothing to do with the legislation.

Though one small area of disagreement remains, the legislation has the support of Google, AOL, Yahoo, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, 1-800 Contacts, and many other great national and Utah-based companies. The cybersquatting provisions are patterned after traditional trademark law – addressing brand confusion.

Friday, I'll meet with the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse at Alston & Bird. After, I will hang with my buddy Colin Delany, founder of ePolitics. The circle will be complete, if I can introduce Colin to Meredith Palmer.

Legislative Ethics

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:29:00 +0000

President Waddoups appointed me to chair the Senate Ethics Committee. The first task in that new position is to help guide the legislative ethics package of reforms that started last session (with new laws regarding gifts and disclosures) and progressed this summer (including further work on disclosures, campaign financing, and – most importantly, in my opinion – an ethics commission made up of non-legislators that allows for considerations of citizens’ complaints). A few observations.

First, on the citizens’ initiative. Citizen participation is a great thing and, unfortunately, is not common enough. During and after getting spanked by a citizens’ referendum on my voucher bill in 2007 (the only time that’s ever happened in the history of Utah, thank you very much), I voiced my heartfelt support for Utah’s process for inviting citizen-directed actions:

Referenda act as a rip cord. If the populace thinks that government got something terribly wrong, the referendum process allows the public to step in and take immediate action. Just like the checks and balances between the branches of government, this is a way to prevent excesses and – as is needed to preserve healthy democratic republics – a way to vent steam. Our system of government is designed to encourage battles within the system, not out on the streets.

To that end, my hat is off to the group who forwarded the citizens’ initiative on legislative ethics. To be clear, I think the particulars of that initiative are flawed in many respects (e.g., a burden of proof that would force an accused legislator to prove his/her innocence), and I think that the initiative uses the universally-desired aspiration for higher ethical standards to also accomplish some political goals. But, hey, since when are first drafts perfect, or since when are politics immune from politics? Some citizens cared enough about something that they pushed an agenda. Good for them. They jumped into the arena with both feet. That’s exactly how the process is supposed to work.

Did the threat of the initiative spur the Legislature to do more on ethics reform? You bet. I think that we understood that the public wants our rules and processes to be changed, and I think that we largely are headed in the right direction with the changes we've implemented and contemplated. But, I think we misjudged the pace the public seems to be demanding. The threat of an initiative that we believe is seriously flawed and that we believe would do serious damage to the management of the State caused us to reassess the matter. And that's good.

Second, our package of reforms. I’ll start by repeating – first drafts (meaning ideas that have not been reworked by political process) are rarely perfect. Therefore, I don’t pretend that our package is perfect. The proposals will go through the process, and the specifics will be modified and improved. Please participate.

A. We contemplate asking the citizens to amend the Utah Constitution to create an independent ethics commission. Because of the Utah Constitution’s separation of powers provisions, each branch polices itself (and voters police all 3, through elections). Thus, it is necessary to amend the Utah Constitution, to allow for outside policing. This was done, for example, when the Judicial Conduct Commission was created, in order to allow citizen complaints to be considered by a group other than the Judiciary.

B. We contemplate establishing the particulars for the operation of the ethics commission along the lines of the Judicial Conduct Commission, with judges and former legislators considering complaints and making recommendations for action to the house where the member serves. I have the privilege of being 1 of 4 legislators to sit on the Judicial Conduct Commission, and I believe the process works well and is one to emulate. The key is to create a workable path for complaints to be raised and considered, so that problems can be addressed without unnecessarily ruining careers and reputations with unfounded accusations. In the political arena that is a tough balance to achieve, since a mere accusation can turn an election and, if unfounded, effectively disenfranchise voters.

C. We contemplate further tightening provisions relating to gifts, meals, disclosures, and campaign contributions. We serve at the pleasure of the citizens, and citizens want us to make a change here. So, we need to do it.

Third, the path from here to there. We’ll run these proposals through the legislative process. The process calls for criticism, critique, give and take, modification, etc. No doubt, the media will have a field day writing that the Legislature is about to explode with fights between the House and Senate and Republicans and Democrats. Sure, we’ll disagree some. And you’ll be well served by that disagreement. Hopefully, you’ll help foment some of that disagreement and discussion. Each body and party will complain that the other is moving too fast or too slow or too this or too that. But, we’ll keep it together, and I predict that we’ll take the public’s input and move the issue forward.

I'll post links to specific bills as they become available.

Disagree? Lay out your case in the comments.

State Retirement -- Actuarial Report

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:27:00 +0000

The actuarial data behind my previous post on Utah's retirement system can be found here.

Utah's Retirement System

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:57:00 +0000

Utah’s Retirement System is financially unsustainable. [ed. -- Instead of "unsustainable," I originally wrote "unsound," which is imprecise; because the system is backed by the taxpayers of the State, who can always be hit up for more and more money to fund it, it is fiscally sound -- it's just not sustainable; as I will explain in the comments, to sustain the present system, the draw on taxpayers' wallets and all other areas of government would be huge]. On present course, we will soon be billions of dollars underwater. Something needs to change. And, that has our public employees very nervous.

Two initial points –

One, something has to be done this session. This is a compounding problem. The longer we wait, the worse the problem gets. It is neither wise nor fair to simply bump the problem forward. Because the system is structurally flawed, “wait” is not a proposal that fits the problem.

Two, existing employees must be treated fairly. They did not create the problem.

My preferred approach could be analogized to treating a serious wound.

First, let’s stop the bleeding. We cannot keep enrolling new hires into a system that is broken. Rather than entering new hires into a system that pays guaranteed benefits 30 years down the road (“Defined Benefits”), we need to enter new hires into a pay-as-we-go-system (“Defined Contributions” – like a 401K, for example). Likely, this could be done in such a way that new employees will love it. For less money to the State, salaries could be increased and employees could have much greater flexibility to leave for another job and take their benefits with them.

Second, let’s remove foreign objects. Double dipping is the biggest “foreign object.” We have employees retiring, collecting retirement, and, then, coming back and simultaneously getting paid to do the same job. What I just described isn’t necessarily a problem. Those folks earned the retirement benefits, and the agency decided it can benefit from their continued service. Fine. The problem is that they continue to accrue retirement credits; that is costly to the system. Once an employee begins to draw retirement, accrual of additional service credits should stop.

Third, let’s address the soft tissue. The last step is to address the benefits of existing employees. The system has to be actuarially sound. If steps one and two don’t right the system, adjustments will need to be made to the benefits of existing employees. As I pointed out above, this step involves taking things from people, and, therefore, must be handled with the utmost respect and sensitivity. A guiding factor must be the amount of time that employees have put into the system. No one appreciates having something taken away; however, the more time employees have put in, the more they have ordered their lives around the promised benefits and the less time they will have to adjust to changes before retirement. While I am hopeful that we won’t have to touch the benefits of existing employees, I don’ t think that is realistic; we are in a deep hole. However, I am optimistic that we can bring the system into balance without altering the benefits of our longer-serving employees.

I realize that everything I have written above must be extremely frustrating to state employees. I have held off quite a while before writing anything, in order to let our retirement committee run several models. It now seems, though, that what I have written above is an accurate description of where we stand and roughly what must be done. Please, come to the table, and help us figure out the best approach to this difficult issue.

Sense and Nonsense

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:18:00 +0000

One of the things I like best about policy making is the education process that is involved. Legislation deals with just about any topic under the sun – which means that a legislator should spend loads of time learning about lots of things (which is pretty cool). In that fast-and-furious education process, it is always a challenge to sort out sense and nonsense in the information we are presented. I’ve been wanting to blog about this topic for a while, and I recently received something that provides good fodder.

A doctor sent out an email with some serious allegations about health care in Utah and about Intermountain Healthcare specifically. Coming from a doctor and citing sources for the allegations, the email initially would seem to add substance to Utah’s health care debate. However, it falls apart, when subjected to scrutiny. Because I serve as a volunteer on the Governing Board of my local hospital, Dixie Regional Medical Center, I had some baseline knowledge of the underlying issues, and was able to quickly spot problems with the information presented. Here are some examples.

The first allegation was: If Utah is the second healthiest state and also the youngest population demographic in the nation, then why are our health care costs so much higher than many other states? In the most recent year for which data is available Utah was 32nd for families, and in 2003 was third highest in the nation for single insurance coverage when it should be second lowest (source: StateHealthcareFacts.org).

However, StateHealthcareFacts.org doesn’t show that at all. Much to the contrary, that site shows that Utah has the lowest per capital health care costs in the nation, the 16th lowest rates for single insurance rates (2008), and the 20th lowest for families (2008) – not bad, given the average size of Utah families. And, though I’m not sure why emphasis was placed on 2003, the data for 2003 showed that Utah had the 14th lowest rates for single insurance coverage, not the “third highest in the nation” as alleged.

The second allegation was: Why did the largest insurance actuary in the country, Tillinghast, comment that healthcare costs would be lower in Utah were it not for Intermountain Healthcare? (Source: Personal communication with Jacob Lawrence of Tillinghast).
Well, he didn’t. Jacob Lawrence (who actually works for Towers Perrin, not its subsidiary, Tillinghast) says, “I would like to take this opportunity to correct the facts set forth . . .. I did not make the comment to Dr. [X] attributed to me.” Likewise, a video touted by the same doctor shows prominent medical practitioners and professors apparently saying bad things about Intermountain. When contacted, those people likewise say that the attributed quotes were fabricated through the editing process.

Etc. Etc. My personal favorites are the allegations that Intermountain advertises during the Superbowl (uh, no) and that Utah is one of the worst regarding the cost of in-patient hospital stays (when it is, actually, the very best).

You get the idea. People and organizations sometimes do play fast and loose with the facts, when dealing with the Legislature. That is a mistake. In the hustle of the session, legislators listen to reliable sources and ignore sources that have previously been inaccurate. Most issues legitimately have 2 or more sides and can be worthy of legislative consideration. It always baffles me that experienced people would come before the Legislature with glaringly erroneous (and so easily verifiable) information.

Gov. Herbert's Proposed Budget

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:17:00 +0000

Gov. Herbert announced his budget recommendations today. (Here is a video link to his presentation). Because budget recommendations from Governors are, well, recommendations, and those recommendations aren’t actually put into place, it is very easy for Governors to employ smoke and mirrors that play well to the media and the general public but put the Legislature in the unenviable position of doing the tough things those Govs fudged. As far as I can tell from my review so far, Gov. Herbert avoids budgeting parlor tricks. He puts forward a responsible budget that will serve as a sound basis for legislative discussions.

And, Gov. Herbert sticks to his pledge to not raise taxes. He states, “In putting this budget together, my first priority was, in fact, to not raise taxes, if at all possible. . . . I think, as we go forward in this fragile, yet recovering, economy, that a tax increase at the present time would be just absolutely the wrong thing to do for the best interests of Utah’s future. . . . I think that tax hikes, in fact, would be counterproductive to the stability and the viability of our economy going forward.” Well said.

The other main aspect of the Governor’s budget is the protection of education funding. The budget does employ some practices that the Legislature typically does not favor, such as replacing cash funding with bonding in transportation matters and using one-time (lapsing) money to fund on-going programs. To avoid those practices, the Legislature likely would make additional cuts. But, this is an excellent basis for discussions. Thank you, Gov. Herbert and LG Bell.

No Tax Increase

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:41:00 +0000

The Tribune editorialized against my effort to balance the State budget without raising taxes. They write, "Sen. Steve Urquhart is trying to round up a majority of his Utah Senate colleagues to promise to oppose any tax increases in next year's general session of the Legislature. . . . To say that the St. George Republican's tax pledge effort is a bit premature is like saying that Custer slightly underestimated the Sioux at the Little Big Horn." That's good writing. (As I've written before, I love editorials that make a crisp point).

However, the editorial continues, "We have discussed all kinds of possible tax increases on this page." To be more precise, the Trib has editorialized in favor of raising taxes. So, the Trib believes that it is premature to oppose tax increases, but that the time to push for tax increases is now. Clearly, as has been alleged, ideology does factors into this discussion. Some people believe that government's size and reach should be increased; others, including by my estimation a majority of my constituents, don't.

KSL previously editorialized against opposing tax increases. Sen. Wayne Niederhauser emailed me this reply (and agreed that I could post it here):

The KSL editorial has one major flaw . . .. It is economics 101. Taxing does not create increased economic activity. It takes money from the private sector, funnels it through government at a cost and distributes it back into the economy. It is a shift, not an increase. The only way to increase the flow of money and economic activity is by deficit spending or spending savings. Long-term deficit spending has huge problems. One day the debt has to be repaid, which takes money out of the economy and hurts economic activity. Deficit spending is a false economy, and one day a sad reality must be faced. Therefore, the idea that tax increases will save jobs is flawed. It might save government jobs, but it deeply hurts private sector jobs. In the end, there is most likely a net loss of jobs in the economy as a whole. The idea that we are going to take money out of the private sector and the hands of our citizens, who distribute it at their will, and give it to government to distribute at its will seems repulsive to me.

Clearly, people differ on what will be best for Utah and Utahns. I think that balancing the budget to existing revenues leaves the State in much better position to spring out of the downturn; but, we'll have robust debates, and, in the end, we'll deal responsibly with the State's budget.

Let your voice be heard!

UPDATE (12/11): One other point I meant to make is that we don't know where the bottom is on this downturn. Just as we did last year, it makes sense to keep taxing options available, instead of using them to putty a hole that just might get bigger.

Utah's 2010 Budget

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:06:00 +0000

Utah balances its budget every year. Revenues must match expenditures. With the continued economic downturn, Utah's tax revenues now do not match the State's expenditures. There are 3 main tools the State can use to bring its budget back into balance. It can (1) reduce expenditures, (2) raise revenues through increased taxes, or (3) draw money from the rainy-day fund. Of course, the State can employ any mix of the 3 options, so long as revenues match expenditures.

I believe that my constituents do not want the Legislature to raise taxes. Therefore, I will oppose tax increases. (I am not opposed to adjustments -- raising some taxes, while lowering others -- so long as the adjustments are revenue neutral; the one possible exception my constituents raise is the tobacco tax; perhaps the tobacco tax should be raised to the western states average, even if not revenue neutral, so long as the increased revenue is placed in the Tobacco Trust Fund).

Over the last 20 years, the growth of Utah government has significantly outpaced the State's combined rate of population growth and inflation. In other words, the growth of State Government has outpaced the underlying economy. To fuel the growth of Government, Utah saddles its citizens and its economy with a tax burden that is much too heavy.

A high tax burden chases away productive businesses and citizens. Conversely, a lower tax burden attracts productive businesses and citizens. Utah needs to balance its budget in a way that promotes job growth and job creation. That means that the Legislature should bring expenditures in line with revenues, without adding to the overall tax burden of its citizens.

Because Utah balances its budget, the money is real. A dollar really is a dollar. Depending on tax policy, each dollar can either be in the pocket of the person who earned it, or it can be collected and shifted to someone else. Utah already takes too many dollars out of people's pockets. Each additional dollar we take is one less dollar that the worker could have spent on food, shelter, charity, business development, etc. Government simply does not multiply the benefits of a dollar like the owner of a dollar does. Thus, while taking additional dollars out of people's pockets could work to shore up the State's budget issues, it would not be in the long-term best interests of Utah's citizens or economy.

We currently understand the financial hole we are in; we understand the tools at our disposal; and I believe that I understand the will of my constituents. We can -- and should -- balance the budget without digging deeper into our citizens' wallets.

Sen. McCoy Resigning

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:07:00 +0000

I was sad, but not entirely surprised, to learn that Sen. Scott McCoy is resigning his senate seat. It is nearly impossible to balance the time demands of a big firm law career and the Legislature.

Scott brought a great deal of smarts and energy to the Senate, and he will be missed. His many talents and contributions cannot be skinnied down to one issue, though he likely will be remembered most for his efforts on equality issues. From his arrival as "The Gay," to his departure as a respected legislator and colleague, Scott has helped humanize and lift the debate on gay rights issues. It is anyone's guess where Utah and America will be on these issues in the future, but it is certain that we need reason and decency in our public discourse as policy is considered. Thank you, Sen. McCoy for your service, and best of luck with your future.

Attorney General John Valentine

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:40:00 +0000

That has a very nice ring to it! I've been talking with friends for quite a while about encouraging John to run for Attorney General. John is an outstanding attorney and a person of the highest character. Though his recent announcement doesn't completely clear the way (because he's still considering a 2012 gubernatorial run), I'd love to see him think about the AG position. He would be great and would serve the State very well!

Increased Grocery Taxes? Rewriting History

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:40:00 +0000

Rep. Kay McIff opines that Utah should raise taxes on groceries. As I wrote in February, that's a really bad idea. Government revenues are down, because people's revenues are down. The solution to Government's woes is not to take more money from its citizens.

In arguing that people need to better support Government, Rep. McIff states, "The two-year-old promise of elimination was impractical and doomed from the start." Because it is important to sort fact from fiction in the policy arena, I have to go on record to state that Rep. McIff's notion of a "promise of elimination" is fictional.

After a series of discussions with Speaker Curtis, I proposed the idea of eliminating the food tax at tax reform committee during the summer of 2005. The House tended to like the idea, and the Senate did not like the idea. The next general session (2006), Rep. Merlynn Newbold ran legislation to reduce the food tax. The battle between the Senate and the House on that issue was one of the biggest I've been involved in during my 9 years in the Legislature. I would think that the importance of that fight would cause any legislator to remember the broader details.

The compromise was that the food tax and the income tax would be partially reduced. Neither side of the battle and no individual got everything desired. All participants and all citizens were left to revisit the issue as they so desired. Never was a promise made that the food tax would be eliminated. Quite to the contrary, some in the Senate wanted a promise that no further efforts would be made to reduce the food tax. Likewise, that promise was not made. Both sides have stood down, since then.

The underlying issue in these arguments is the proper role of government. Rep. McIff represents a side of the argument that believes people were hurt by the tax cuts, and that those dollars would sit better in Government coffers than people's pockets. Sure, many would feel better about pocketing or redistributing other people's money, but I believe that people are best helped by citizens keeping more of their own money. Overall, individuals do better things for the economy and their neighbors than government does. Individuals create jobs, buy things, pay bills, and invest. By taking more from our citizens, we stifle them and their families and, thereby, hurt our overall economy. We build more Government and undercut free enterprise.

If Utahns agree that they do better with their money than Government does, they better speak up. The tax spenders are out in force.

Sex Education, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:09:00 +0000

To follow up on my previous sex ed post, I see that a few articles were written about the sex ed issue (here and here). Mostly, these articles are about the PTA's push to promote Parents Speak Up, an excellent resource for parents to use when talking with their children about sexual matters.

I'm quite pleased that the dialogue is taking place. Good things come from open dialogue. Sometimes in the policy arena, the importance of an issue and the passion surrounding that issue can actually work to stifle dialogue (e.g., think of the feds' inability to address illegal immigration and social security) -- which, of course, means that we fail to adequately address some very important issues. Here, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have some pretty strong opinions about sex ed. The designated arena where opinions compete to shape actions on state policy is the legislature (and in this case, also the state school board). I am cautiously optimistic that matters which could affect teen pregnancy rates and rates of sexually-transmitted diseases will be discussed in the policy arena. They need to be discussed.

One point I would like to clarify. My intention is not to liberalize what is taught regarding contraceptives, but to make our curriculum consistent. Current law allows excellent sex education, including discussion of contraceptives. However, sex education really is coming down to the personal preferences and comfort level of the individual teacher. That's not a sound basis for curriculum. I want to make sure that excellence becomes the norm, that parents have the option of abstinence-only or an additional contraceptives component, and that kids who go the abstinence-only route aren't just stuck in the library as currently happens. So, what currently is and is not allowable regarding contraceptives discussion is where I intend to end -- but I want all parents to have that educational option for their children, if they so choose.

Sex Education

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:22:00 +0000

Needless to say, sex education is a controversial topic. And rightly so. Sex and issues relating to sex have the potential to change, and even define, lives like little else. Parents know this, and care deeply about the issue. Policymakers must be extra vigilant, to make sure we get it right when it comes to sex ed. It is my belief that Utah’s existing sex education law largely is very good, but does leave some room for improvement.

Utah’s current sex education law attempts to establish strong parental choice provisions, focuses on abstinence, and prohibits discussion of some topics. The law allows contraceptive methods and devices to be taught in the classroom. And, most districts, including the Washington County School District, do teach contraceptives. However, my preliminary research suggests that uncertainties in the law work to discourage the teaching of contraceptives. For example, though my district nominally does allow teaching of contraceptives, my daughter’s high school actually does not teach contraceptives – as a result of a likely mixture of uncertainty regarding what is allowed and the personal preference of the instructor.

Current law requires that districts adopt sex ed materials that emphasize abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibit instruction in “the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices.” (Utah Code, sec. 53A-13-101(1)(c)(iii)(A)(III). Some teachers worry that education regarding contraceptives could be deemed to constitute advocacy or encouragement. That language could be cleaned up.

Some parents are concerned that current law denies them options, where their district, school, or teacher decides not to teach contraceptives. I’ve had several parents state that, while they have good discussions with their children about sex, they (the parents) don’t know much about existing contraceptive choices and wish that the schools would supplement their teaching. That makes sense. Education is empowerment. And the reality is that most parents – I believe – would like to have some help in this area: even parents like Sara and I who break out the book at an early age and have the age-appropriate follow-up discussions.

Utah is seeing troubling health data, regarding teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. In short, it seems to me that Utah teens and young adults are somewhat less sexually active than kids in some other parts of the country, but, when active, are stupidly subjecting themselves to risks and turmoil that a little better education about contraceptives might help address. Parents, if they want it for their children, should have the option of choosing health instruction with contraceptives.

Some parents, of course, don’t want their children to have any discussion of contraceptives at school. Likewise, they should have that option.

So, I do support some sort of “two-track” option – one with contraceptives and one that is solely abstinence. However, based on discussions with my district, I am concerned about how a two-track option would work fiscally. The reality is that the abstinence-only track likely would not have enough students from an entire school to fill a single classroom. In the Washington County schools that do teach contraceptives, only 1 or 2 kids opt out. Of course, we can’t afford an entire health class for 1 or 2 kids, and the current system of simply sticking those kids in the library while contraceptives are being discussed isn’t ideal either. So, we need some better thinking on how a real two-track option should work.

One last thought for this post: the Utah PTA came up with an idea that just might be brilliant. One of the mothers suggested that the contraceptives component could be taught primarily by a video presentation prepared by the State Office of Education. Though a video couldn’t fully handle the Q & A that would be required, it could go a long way toward informing (and comforting) parents (and, quite honestly, teachers) about what would be taught, establishing uniform and appropriate instruction, and empowering parents (in both tracks) to watch and supplement the presentation. Determining what should be in that video would be quite a donnybrook, but that takes us back to the start of this post: we fight over sex education, because it matters so much.

Is America Switching Teams?

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:01:00 +0000

America should stand tall for liberty and freedom. We are a beacon of hope for the world. Yet, I worry we are picking the wrong side in many struggles for liberty and freedom, selling out friends in order to placate thugs and enemies. It doesn't work in high school, and it doesn't work in international relations. While the thugs and enemies might say nicer things about us, appeasement empowers them.

I couldn't have imagined a day that the United States would take a stand against the freedom of speech, but here we are. Using the clout of the United States to work against free speech is morally repugnant. We cannot raze core pillars of freedom and liberty, in order to placate other nations.

Stories involving actual individuals get all the attention. This story likely will not get much attention, since it involves the evisceration of liberties belonging to faceless masses. But it is horrific.

Campaigning v. Governing

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:19:00 +0000

I am hoping this nonsense is due to a lack of leadership experience, rather than a compulsive inability to accept responsibility and criticism. And I am hoping it will stop. It's childish. It's not presidential.

President Obama, you won. You are the man. I'm mopping. We're all mopping. Your not-so-new job involves criticism and disagreement. And responsibility. Get over it, and get with it.

Update (10/18/09): More sophomoric behavior.

Goodbye, NFL

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:07:00 +0000

I don’t have strong feelings about Rush Limbaugh one way of the other, but I do have strong feelings about political discourse. The NFL has banned Mr. Limbaugh, because he is an outspoken conservative. I am a conservative. I have a right to be a conservative, and I have a right to express conservative viewpoints. If the NFL doesn’t want conservatives, then I’m out. I consider myself banned for life. Not one more down.

I do have strong feelings about football. I played football from the time I was 6 until I was 21. I have coached football. I love football. But, I love open political discourse (and, truth be told, college football) more. So, goodbye, NFL. I’ll occupy that NFL netherworld where the Oilers still suit up, Earl Campbell rumbles like a freight train, and Mike Renfro (again) gets both feet in bounds to win the AFC championship. Eat that, Rep. Hughes and other need-to-get-a-life Steelers fans!

The Obama Administration, the Stimulus Plan, and Low Expectations

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:40:00 +0000

The first data-backed evaluation of President Obama's stimulus plan is in. The White House enthuses that the data "exceeded their projections." Super! What does the data show? It shows that taxpayers (or their decendants) paid over $500,000 per job. If that exceeds expectations, I wonder what the expectations were.

What does it all mean? One thing is for sure; it means that the White House concludes that Americans believe hype over facts.

Though the stimulus was a big waste of money, that is far from the worst of it. The effect of pouring so many artificial dollars into circulation has been to significantly devalue the dollar -- meaning that everyone who does have a job is effectively making less money than they otherwise would have. (Most things we buy or, at least, their components and materials are part of a global market; a devalued dollar means that each of us can now afford less of those things). Also, our recovery is stalled as foreign assets move from the dollar to other investments. As I predicted, the Administration is hurting the Country by chasing away capital.

Kory Holdaway and the UEA

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:39:00 +0000

I am excited to learn that Kory Holdaway will lobby for the Utah Education Association. This is the latest change in, what I think, are some very positive things for education in the State. With this change, and changes that have taken place in the leadership of the State Board of Education and the Legislature, I believe a favorable climate will exist for moving forward. (And, given the budget year we face, we'll need lots of good will between the State Board, the teachers, and the Legislature).

I developed tremendous respect for Kory during the 8 years we served together in the House. He is a stand up guy, and his word can be trusted. I don't pretend to believe that one person can easily change an established pattern of a big institution, but I do expect that Kory will take his levelness with him. In a conservative state, it should be no surprise that conservatives lead the Legislature. Without sacrificing his beliefs, Kory worked effectively in a conservative House as a moderate. UEA lobbyists have not been at the table for several years, and that is a problem. To have a role in shaping policy in Utah, an interest group has to be perceived to offer something more than anti-conservative slams and PR (just as it now would be unlikely that a purely anti-liberal interest group would get much done in Congress). I am eager to talk with Kory and to learn what his goals are. Teachers pay significant money to have their positions lobbied by their association, and I trust this is a positive step in that direction.

Health Care: An Evolved Debate

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:42:00 +0000

Let’s, first, get one thing out of the way: much of the dialogue surrounding the Administration’s health care push – pro and con – has been stupid. In a country that honor’s free speech, lots of commentary will be worth what we’re paying, nothing. Having given that truism all the time it deserves, let’s now look at how wonderful much of the dialogue has been and how smart the American people are.

As a springboard into that discussion, I will point to Scott Rasmussen’s polling data (as cited in the NY Post article). According to Rasmussen, only one-third of the uninsured strongly support current health care reform proposals, and most uninsured believe their health care costs would increase under the proposals. A policymaker has to look at those amazing numbers and ask whether (1) the polling is flawed, (2) the uninsured don’t get it, or (3) the uninsured are trying to point the dialogue in a better direction.

I can’t speak to the accuracy of the polling. Believing that Rasmussen does a good job, I’ll accept it for purposes of this discussion.

The term “uninsured” is not interchangeable with “clueless.” In the policy arena, it’s always a good starting point, to believe that people expressing opinions are informed and sincere. Really, the only other alternative starting point is to believe that people are uninformed and insincere – in need of a ruling class to tell them what they need. Further, I would argue that the percentages reported by Rasmussen speak to a very precise understanding by the uninsured of their situation. I’ll address that situation after the next paragraph. In the next paragraph, though, I’ll speak to policymakers’ tendency to speak for the masses.

Policymakers easily fall into the trap of believing that “EVERYONE” wants something. When analyzed, the term “EVERYONE” seems to mean the 4 people the policymaker drinks coffee with. The Administration approached this issue apparently believing that everyone (who wasn’t evil or on-the-take) wanted drastic health care reform. It quickly learned that people with health care insurance tend not to believe that Government will step in and make anything better for them. Now, it looks like the uninsured don’t believe Government will make things better for them either. Are they crazy?! No, they are informed.

Rasmussen’s data pinpoints the group that stands to benefit from drastic Government action: one-third of the uninsured population. Why just one-third? Because another third of the uninsureds is covered by existing government programs, like Medicaid and CHIP; they just need to be matched up with that program. The last third are the “immortals.” They can afford insurance, but choose not to get it. They are quite correct to believe that their costs will go up. Currently, they choose to go through life with a gratis catastrophic health plan – mandated care in the emergency room.

So, the universe of “everyone” who stands to benefit from Government insurance is one-third of whatever percentage of the population is uninsured. The last census pegged the percentage of uninsured Americans at 15. So, one-third of that number would translate to 5% of the population.

Where should the dialogue go? We first need to distinguish between health care and health insurance. The 5% in question needs health care, not necessarily health insurance. As Senator Feinstein has recently suggested, part of the solution might be found in something as simple as community health centers. I would argue that no one in my community lacks availability to a basic level of health care. Anyone can walk into Nancy Neff’s Southwest Utah Community Health Center and receive excellent care from Dr. David Grygla. Likewise, people can receive excellent care through charitable institutions, such as the Doctors Volunteer Clinic and charity care provisions of hospitals and providers. We can beef up these services for a small fraction of what likely would be spend under the Administration’s current proposals.

Charges that the current dialogue is over the line don't find much support in history. Our important political dialogues have always been – and hopefully always will be – loud. Other than the Flanders family, political discussions at Thanksgiving gatherings and family reunions quickly point to the naiveté of believing that our big political discussions can be – or even should be – anything other than raucous. Much of the dialogue will be stupid, and some of it will be glorious, but in any event we are Americans and, at our best, we will demand that our lawmakers hear us. Attempts to thwart dialogue through calls for civility often are bullying tactics used by an empowered group that wants to quietly ram something through. Here, we are just starting to identify the real problem. The current dialogue is significant and, as would be expected in a functioning democratic republic, that dialogue is increasingly informed. What a country!