Official announcement came today that combat troops will leave Iraq by August 31, 2010 (two months later than the timetable Obama ran on in the campaign… which I was impressed to see him openly acknowledge in the speech), with around 50,000 (+/- 10,000?) troops remaining for training, intelligence, and security needs until December 2011. Probably not news to many, but I wanted to put this up to mark the occasion and my appreciation of something I’ve wanted to hear for several years now. He also surprised me with a little message for the Iraqi people: “Hostility and hatred are no match for justice; they offer no pathway to peace; and they must not stand between the people of Iraq and a future of reconciliation and hope.” and “The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources.”

Partial transcript below (of my favorite segment, courtesy of Crooks and Liars), and complete video here if you missed it.

As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people. To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

There are many lessons to be learned from what we’ve experienced. We have learned that America must go to war with clearly defined goals, which is why I’ve ordered a review of our policy in Afghanistan. We have learned that we must always weigh the costs of action, and communicate those costs candidly to the American people, which is why I’ve put Iraq and Afghanistan into my budget. We have learned that in the 21st century, we must use all elements of American power to achieve our objectives, which is why I am committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden is not continually pushed on to our military. We have learned that our political leaders must pursue the broad and bipartisan support that our national security policies depend upon, which is why I will consult with Congress and in carrying out my plans. And we have learned the importance of working closely with friends and allies, which is why we are launching a new era of engagement in the world.

The starting point for our policies must always be the safety of the American people. I know that you – the men and women of the finest fighting force in the history of the world – can meet any challenge, and defeat any foe. And as long as I am your Commander-in-Chief, I promise you that I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and provide you with the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That is the most important lesson of all – for the consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable.

It’s nice to have a President who uses big people words again.

February 27, 2009
For Immediate Release

Logan-Cache Airport Planning for Future Growth
Open House Slated to Review Master Plan Update

LOGAN – Cache Valley residents, business owners and airport users are invited to attend a public open house to review preliminary results of a Master Plan Update for the Logan-Cache Airport and areas surrounding the airport. The open house will be held Tuesday, March 10, from 4:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Greenville Elementary School (2450 North 400 East, North Logan).

The Master Plan Update was initiated by Logan City and Cache County, co-owners and operators of the airport. The objective is to plan for future airport growth and compatible land development in the adjoining areas of Benson, Smithfield, Hyde Park, North Logan and Logan. The update will yield two Master Plans: one for airport facilities and another for land use in surrounding communities.

“We encourage citizens to attend the open house and weigh in on preliminary proposals,” said Airport Manager, Rich Stehmeier. “Public participation is important in shaping the future of the airport and land use in neighboring communities.”

The study began in fall 2008 and is expected to be complete by the end of 2009. To date, an inventory of existing airport facilities and land use has been compiled as well as projections for future needs. Preliminary plan alternatives have been developed and screened with the assistance of landowners and a Technical Advisory Committee composed of airport officials and local community and agency representatives.

Unprecedented growth in the Cache Valley and increased interest in commercial air service prompted the study. A recent opinion survey conducted among airport users and local businesses found that 75 percent of respondents would be likely to use commercial air service if it became available between Logan and other regional airports. Those polled predicted a 31% increase in flight demand over the next five years.

The open house will be held in an informal setting. Attendees may stop by anytime between 4:30-7:30 p.m. to visit with the project team and comment on preliminary plan alternatives.

More information is available by contacting Andy Neff with the project team at 801-419-9554 or aneff@langdongroupinc.com.

- Logan-Cache Airport -

A good opener for any debate will inflame the crowd on both sides, like throwing raw meat at a pack of wild dogs or waving the Bill of Rights at Gayle Ruzicka.  I think Paul succeeds at that. I yelled at my laptop screen a few times throughout. Watch his opening and closing remarks (via youtube).

Opening Statement:

Closing Statement:

I couldn’t disagree more with Sutherland on the issue of equality, but it’s commendable the Institute encouraged this debate. Hopefully Sutherland or Equality Utah will have the debate in it’s entirety online soon.

Utah lawmakers are debating the options on incoming stimulus funds, according to The Daily Herald.

Both houses are expected to get their first detailed look at the roughly $4 billion portion headed Utah’s way. According to the Center for American Politics, a little more than $600 million would be set apart to cover the budget. The rest is for targeted spending or tax cuts. (It should be noted that according to the Center for American Progress, Utah is dead last in stimulus dollars per person.)

The state is $170 million short for the rest of 2009 and $320 million for 2010 but there is considerable grumbling about using the federal credit card to pay state bills.

“That would be something we should be considering,” said Rep. Keith Grover, R-Provo, about not taking the money. Grover and Rep. Craig Frank, R-Cedar Hills, said there are a number of representatives opposed to taking the funding, but not nearly enough to make a challenge.

House and Senate leaders have signaled they’ll be taking the $600 million, while they want to first see the strings attached before making a decision. Those strings include increases to unemployment checks that could fall on the states to fund after two years.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is planning to use the money to cover shortfalls in 2009 and 2010.

Frank doesn’t like the idea and had a resolution move forward on Wednesday saying as much.

“We are, in fact, concerned about the sovereignty of our state, of the validity of the 10th Amendment¬ of the Constitution of the United States,” he said.

Ah, Rep.  Frank.  You’re so cute when you grandstand.

My prediction?  We’ll take the money.  Why?  Declarations of sovereignity and meaningless resolutions aside, there is still a real world in which we all live.

From Bloomberg:

President Barack Obama is proposing the first tax increase on high-income earners in 16 years to help pay for sweeping health-care reforms, asking the U.S. Congress to cap the tax deductions for affluent Americans.

The move would reverse a course set by former President George W. Bush of lowering taxes for high-income people, the cornerstone of his administration’s economic program.

“It’s a clear repudiation of Bush’s policy,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland in College Park. “It’s more Obama Robin Hood.”

Obama proposes spending $634 billion to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, partly paid for by limiting tax deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year, an administration official said.

He will seek the money, to be spent over 10 years, in his first budget request to Congress today. About half would come from changes to Medicare, the health plan for the elderly, and the rest from the tax revisions, the official said. Limiting deductions for upper-income taxpayers is projected to generate $318 billion over 10 years, the official said.

Of couse there will be a serious debate over this proposed tax increase amongst both Democrats and Republicans. There are different views on the effect that tax hikes and tax cuts actually do for the economy, but one thing is for certain, tax increases are never popular in the United States, even when it is the “rich” being targeted.

Is this the right response to the current economic crisis? Will it solve some of the problems we are facing? I for one, am not a fan of tax increases for a number of reasons, but how do you feel?

- Marc

February 25, 2009

From: Dean

To:  Tyler and Jason

Subject: Deregulation and Banking

Dear Jason and Tyler,

I’ve begun listening to your show on occasion while at work lately, and have very disappointed to hear the argument put forth that the banking crisis is the result of deregulation.

I would argue that a very significant cause of the disaster was meddling by the Federal Reserve in interest rates during the time before the so-called housing crisis. In a free market, interest rates are set like any other good. When large amounts of people are saving, and loaning out those savings by means of a bank, rates come down. When the amount of capital available shrinks, interest rates are forced higher as more borrowers compete for available funds.

The abnormally low interest rates experienced at a time when there was actually negative savings nationally couldn’t have been experienced under a free market. Instead we would have seen ever increasing rates, which would have acted as a break on speculative investment in the housing market.

I haven’t been able to listen frequently enough to your show to understand all of your reasons for claiming that deregulation triggered our current troubles, but what we face is at root not a housing crisis, but a mortgage crisis. I don’t believe an adequate case can be made that this problem stems from deregulation when the single greatest cost of a mortgage was still being manipulated by a quasi-government organization.

Sincerely,

Dean

This post is more-or-less in response to Jason’s live blogging of Obama’s State of the Union address (which was very well done, I may add).

Some scholars from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank also live blogged the Obama speech, and had some interesting things to say.

Feel free to check it out here.

Some comments from the live bloggers that I found interesting…

Andrew J. Coulson:

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that president Obama will “encourage students to serve their country by committing to at least finishing high school.” Maybe that exhortation will help. I hope it does. But if the president is looking for practical policies that could achieve his goal, he might want to look at the work of U of Chicago economist Derek Neal and others, who have shown that private schools raise graduation rates of urban minority students (those most at risk of dropping out) by very substantial margins.
Private school choice programs can’t constitutionally be enacted at the federal level, but the president could throw his support behind state-level programs like education tax credits. It would do a lot of good.

Jagadeesh Gokhale

The economic agenda spends money in areas with no shortages  and cannot do much about the areas where we have a surplus–housing.   This is not a “solution.”   It may just create unwanted  surpluses in these other areas too–broadband, mass-transit, environment.   House and road builders cannot be converted into electronic engineers, Acela drivers, and solar-energy experts overnight–or even within a year or two.   The attempt is likely to be wasteful rather than a successful economic stimulus.   — Just the first step?…the era of big government is over–the era of “government only” has begun?

Michael Tanner

Those figures on health care bankruptcies have long since been discredited. In 2007, the last year data was available, there were just over 822,000 non-business bankruptcies nationwide. But according to a study by Dr. Ning Zhu at UC-Davis, only 5 percent of them were caused by medical bills. That’s only 41,000 medical bankruptcies, a far cry from the more than 1 million Obama implies. In fact, seniors who qualify for Medicare (universal health coverage) are 125 percent more likely to go bankrupt than people under age 65.

Michael Tanner

Obama is ducking big-time on the cost of national health care. Electronic medical records wont yield savings for many years—if they do at all. And, while preventive care is a good thing, there is no evidence that it saves money. In fact, most studies show that it actually costs MORE money. It improves health, but it is expensive.

Michael Tanner

Give him credit for stressing the need to control health care costs, rather than universal coverage. This is a significant shift in emphasis. I doubt I will agree with him on how to control costs, but at least it is the better discussion to be having.

Michael Tanner

I thought the speech was strangely content free. What ARE his health care, energy, and education plans? He pledged far-reaching (and expensive) goals, but didn’t tell us much about how he plans to get there. If he is planning to leave the legislation writing to Congress (as was the case with the stimulus) that could be problematic to say the least. That’s why the speech will be popular–who can be against better education, energy independence, health care reform, reducing the deficit, and fighting “fraud, waste, and abuse.” If he spelled out detailed plans, I would expect far more questions.

Tad DeHaven

Here’s what we know from a budgetary standpoint:   Not much.   The President provided no numbers for his numerous government-as-saviour proposals.   He mentioned $200 billion in annual cuts, but no specifics.   And after the trillion dollar stimulus/debt bomb, $200 billion isn’t going to cut it anyhow.   We also know tax hikes are on the way and the president will continue to pretend that cutting checks via the tax code is a tax cut.   The President is a fantastic speaker, but taxpayers should be afraid…be very afraid.

Jim Harper

As Tad suggested earlier, President Obama probably  brought the little girl from South Carolina to take a shot at leading  ”stimulus” critic South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Well, Governor Jindal has raised some issues with it, but Obama has solidified Sanford’s  position as the thought-leader of the Republican opposition. Congratulations, Mark Sanford.

Tad DeHaven

Did the former Congressman Bobby Jindal vote against the multi-billion dollar federal recovery packages for Louisiana that were marred by the same waste and fraud he says Washington needs to tackle?   Just wondering.

- Marc

Pelosi\’s Exuberance

My favorite part of the Obama speech: Pelosi can’t stop leaping out of her seat.

Pelosi: I should have used Preparation H

- Marc

SL Tribune:

A judge on Wednesday rejected pleas from adoptive parents to order jail time for four people prosecutors say helped trick Samoan parents into giving up their children through the now-defunct Focus on Children agency.

U.S. District Judge David Sam instead sentenced the four to five years of probation and ordered them to contribute to a trust fund to help adopted children stay in touch with their birth families. He also ordered the defendants to never engage in the adoption business again.

In handing down the sentences, Sam said the case “cries out for a sentence that’s restorative rather than punitive.”

“We don’t want to put these people in prison and have them kept from doing anything,” the judge said. “They can address the interests of the children to restore the damage that has been done.”

Other conditions of the sentencing deal include public discussions regarding the case, sharing details of international adoption practices, and disclosing all records.

Though the sentence comes from a federal court, it reminds me of the recent plea deal of the Cache County  “text messaging” case, in which prosecutors/defense/judges agreed the perpetrator of a crime could do more good outside of a jail cell providing education to others than serving a lengthy time sentence.

I’m a fan of such decisions, personally, but does it work?

Hughes’, Valentine’s, or neither.  Go speak your mind.

For those who can’t get to a teevee.  You can also watch the address live at Hulu.com.  Check back often for updates.

7:00 PM – Supreme Court Justices make a red carpet entrance.  For a second I think I’m watching an Oscars replay.  Is that Sally Field?  Nope, Ginsberg.  First lady arrives.  She has box seats, according to Gregory.  Cabinet arrives.  Keeping with the Oscars theme, I hope Clinton doesn’t notice someone across the room has the same pink jacket on.  Fashion faux paus!  Rahm’s Armani is looking snappy though.  I’m making myself sick.

7:10 PM – Obama arrives (video up already, wow).  Accosted quickly by Jean Schmidt, who I believe is drunk.  ORRIN!  Hatch is trying to squeeze through the crowd to get Obama, possibly to regale him with song… doesn’t make it up in time.  Obama begins before Nancy can introduce him, but SHE AIN’T HAVIN’ THAT.  Speech begins.  “You don’t need another list of statistic, because you live it every day.  I want you to know this.  We will rebuild, we will recover.”

7:20 PM – “If we’re going to be honest, we have to admit we’ve not always lived up to our responsibilities.  As a people or a government.  Short term gains prized over long term prosperity.  We weren’t looking beyond next quarter or next election.  Economic agenda begins with jobs.  (Shots of Republicans looking kinda grumpy)  Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.  Roads, Bridges, Solar Panels, Broadband.  57 Police officers in (missed city name) still have their jobs tonight because of this plan.”  I think Biden is playing with his iPhone.  Mitch McConnell is giving everybody the stink- eye.  “With a plan of this size comes great responsibility.  Credit has stopped flowing.  Too many bad loans.  Create a new lending fund to provide auto, college, small biz loans to consumers.  Housing plan for responsible families that won’t help speculators or those who bought a house they could never afford.”

7:30 PM – Momentarily overwhelmed by the repeating realization that THIS IS NOT GEORGE W. BUSH SPEAKING.  Woot!  “The cost of action will be great, but the cost of inaction will be greater.  Economy could just sputter along for a decade.”  Cut’s to a smiling Joe Libermann.  Boooooo!  “We can’t yeild to the politics of the moment.  Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover.  I ask congress to join me.  Cannot resign our country to an open ended recession.  Reform our outdated regulatory system.  Common sense rules of the road.  Reward drive and innovation, punish short cuts and abuse.  Confront the prize of our dependence on oil and the cost of health care.  My [pending] budget does not solve every problem or every issue.  It addresses a trillion dollar deficit and a lengthy recession.  Bold action, big ideas.  Railroad tracks, highways, blah blah blah.”  Speeches can be so speechy!

7:40 PM – “Energy, Health Care, and Education.”  Room stands.  Now Nancy is playing with her iPhone.  “Largest investment in research funding in American history.  But to truly save our economy, we need to make renewable energy, and a profitable kind.  $15 billion a year for wind, solar, cleaner cars, clean coal.  The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away.  None of this will come without cost.”  He promised at the begining there would be no long lists of statistics (“you’ve heard it all”), but he’s doing it.  Health care statistics.  Lots of uninsured.  More statistics.  Feel like I’m sitting in Richley Crapo’s Anthropology 407 class again.  I wish I’d voted for John McCain.  Woah, just kidding.  “Bring together Democrats and Republicans…”  He doesn’t say bipartisan!  Oh happy day.  “Third challenge is education.  Competative education for our children.  Historic investment in education through the recovery plan.  Made college affordable for nearly 7 million more students.  But schools don’t just need more resources, they need reform.  Invest in innovative programs to close achievement gaps.”  Charter school commitment.  “I ask every American to commit to at least one year of higher education or career education.  Dropping out of high school is not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on this country!  By 2020, we will have the highest number of college graduates in the world.”

7:50 PM – “I ask Congress to send me the legislation that bares the name of not only Sen. Orrin Hatch, but also Sen. Kennedy.  To parents: turn off the TeeVee and video games.  Read a book with your children.  Better education begins at home, and that’s not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.  Another responsibility is to not pass on a debt to our children that they cannot repay.”  Republicans stand and cheer.  “With the deficit that we inherited…”  Democrats stand and cheer.  “Eliminate no bid contracts that’ve wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budgets.  Root out the waste and fraud and abuse in our Medicare program.  Restore balance to our tax code by ending tax breaks for corps. that ship our jobs overseas.  If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime.”  538.com has an interesting breakdown:

Recover/Recovery: 15
Crisis: 11
Recession: 6
Democrat/s/ic: 3
Republican/s: 3

8:00 PM – John McCain, admirably, stands at the “Responsibly end this war” statements, though his face still says “I disagree.”  He should’ve been that guy during the campaign.  “Close Guantanamo to honor the values that the soldiers defend.  Living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer.  The United States of America Does.  Not.  Torture.  We can make that commitment tonight. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone.  The world is watching to see what we do with this moment.”  Handful of inspiring stories here, skipping to save space and finger energy.  Wraps up with “We are not quitters.  Everyone in this room wants us to succeed.  American people expect us to find common ground.  Confront, without fear, the challenges of our time.”

8:10 PM – Hand shaking.  Somebody wakes Biden up.  David Gregory: “He really took the country to school.”  Chuck Todd:  “Rosevelty, with optimism.”  GOP reponse coming up next.

GOP Response: Humorous, personal start as he’s surprised the camera, and the country were waiting for him.  Expected a “Oh, hello there!”  Jindal gives good speech though.  Friendly sounding.  Pretty much a recap of McCain/Palin though.  “Earmarks.  Tax Cuts.  Etc.”  Democrats spend spend spend bad bad bad we hates ‘em we do!  “You elected us to be fiscally responsible, and we let you down.”  Doesn’t tie it back to economic recovery.  Seems like he’s here to promote the GOP than to respond to the President’s speech.  “Republicans are ready to work with the new President” got some laughs from the crowd where I’m watching.  “The strength of America is not found in our government.  Way to lead is by empowering the American people.  Cut taxes for small biz.  Tax credit for home buyers.  Democratic leaders rejected this approach.  Wasteful spending.  $8 billion for rail projects.  Saddle future generations with debt.  Who amongst us would ask their children for a loan to spend money on things they do not need?”  Yeah, like jobs.  Houses.  Education.  He’ll probably regret that line in tomorrow’s rehash.  Energy talk (see McCain/Palin campaign again on this one).  Education (McCain/Palin).  Ethical and transparent.  LA has turned her back on corruption.  Trillion dollar spending bill the American people haven’t even seen (except those with Google of course).  Nothing new here, which is disappointing.  Jindal could’ve made this a real game tonight, but I just feel like I’m still watching the campaigns here.   “Don’t let anyone tell you we cannot recover.”  9/11.  American spirit.  Amid challenges, many blessings: innovative citizens, resources, resilient economy.  Americans can do anything.”

TSA to test full-body screening machine at SLC – Salt Lake Tribune.

This is pretty interesting. The TSA is looking into the possibility of implementing this new full-body scan technology as an eventual replacement for magnetometers as the preferred security screening device in airports across the country.

The scan, which creates a pretty accurate 3D picture of your body under your clothes, is drawing the ire of everyone from the ACLU to people who complain that it violates modesty standards.

Personally, I’d rather have this scan than have to get patted down by some guy every time I go through security. It’s already an undignified cattle herding process now, maybe this could make things a little better?

Call me crazy, but suddenly a lot of the things coming out of Jon Huntsman Jr. 2.0′s mouth are making a lot of sense.

On Monday, in an interview with The Washington Times, Huntsman said the current GOP leadership is “inconsequential” so he doesn’t even bother with them.

That’s probably a good move for him and his national political aspirations because despite the fact that it may seem people are already unhappy with Obama and a surge in conservative politics is imminent, Obama is enjoying a 65-percent-plus approval rating and a near-record approval gap over Republicans in Congress. Basically, despite what Mr. Marc Neilsen argued in an earlier post, the GOP is dying and it’s going to be up to new blood like Huntsman to save them.

“What’s best for America.”

That’s what it should be about. Thank you Governor.

(Read more @ Crooks and Liars)

Ever since the Republicans took another beating at the polls, there has been much discussion on the future of the GOP ad the need for a new direction and more effective leadership.

Many have predicted the collapse of the Republican party on account of its current challenges, and yet, there have been stirrings within the party which may indicate a potential revival. And American political history definitely supports this.

From an article I wrote for the Utah Statesman:

In the past, both parties have experienced near dominance, followed by severe setbacks and fractionalization, and then resurgence. During the years of Reconstruction after the Civil War, the Republicans enjoyed an enormous degree of power, not only nationally, but in state government as well; this control lasted until after the Gilded Age.
Ultimately scandals and divisions within the GOP would make way for Grover Cleveland and the Democrats to return to power. Soon thereafter, however, William McKinley would emerge bringing control back to the hands of Republicans; five Republican presidents would follow.
Republican dominance would be replaced after the highly unpopular presidency of Herbert Hoover, one of the most qualified but unfortunate presidents in our history. From 1933 until 1953, Democrats would control the White House and Congress for nearly two decades. Over time, however, the Republicans would return and challenge the control of the opposing party, fulfilling the repeating political power cycle.

If the Republicans could recover after the political disaster of Richard Nixon, then I have complete confidence that the Grand Old Party can and will make a comeback. And like Ronald Reagan in 1980, or Newt Gingrich in 1994, the next resurgence will require a leader who can unify the party and effectively bring about success.

And who might be the next great Republican leader? Some say Sarah Palin, others Tim Pawlenty, more recently there has been speculation over Jon Huntsman Jr.,  and even still, some hope for Mitt Romney. Whatever the case, my money is on Bobby Jindal.

A quick glance over Jindal’s history may just surprise you, for this man is no conventional Republican.

Bobby Jindal (real name, Piyush Jindal) is a native to Louisiana and the son of Indian immigrants. While Jindal was born Hindu, he later converted to Catholicism, which has significantly shaped his political style. And according to the Democratic strategist, Ed Kilgore, Bobby Jindal is “crazy smart.” Despite him being accepted to both Harvard and Yale, Jindal chose to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar (Bill Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar).

Jindal has a lot of experience in national politics for a man just 37-years -old. From 2004-2006, Jindal served in the US House of Representatives (in 2006 he won 88% of the vote in his district), and currently he is the governor of Louisiana.

While Jindal received some national attention during the presidential campaigns of 2008, he is becoming more and more recognizable today as the strongest voice in the minority party.

On Friday (Feb. 21), Jindal became the first governor to refuse “a part of his state’s share of the $787 billion stimulus bill,” publicly criticizing the expansion of unemployment benefits saying,

“Increasing taxes on our Louisiana businesses is certainly not a way to stimulate our economy. It would be the exact wrong thing we could do to encourage further growth and job creation… I strongly suggest that other states also look closely at this provision in the bill so they can also avoid ultimately passing on a significant tax to businesses that will be left paying for this expansion of benefits when the federal money dries up”

After making this statement, Bobby Jindal indicated that he would be responding to Obama’s February speech to Congress (tonight) on NBC’s Meet the Press.  Obama immediately reponded to Jindal’s decision in a NGA conference by indirectly claiming such criticisms were more about “political ambitions” than personal principles.

It will be interesting to see how Bobby Jindal handles himself tonight, and the public response which follows. His words have the potential to invigorate his party and increase public interest in the GOP, or on the other hand, Jindal’s response may not reach the attention of the public at all, and soon be forgotten altogether. Whatever the outcome, Jindal appears to be a political opportunist, and certainly national exposure, even this early in the game, can’t hurt him. And indeed, if Bobby Jindal runs in 2012, he may just find himself welcomed in the same way that a relatively unknown Barack Obama was after giving a keynote address to fellow party members in 2004.

Bobby Jindal has many, including myself, believing that he will be the one to not only unite the party, but secure electoral success for the Republicans. Either way, the country will have the opportunity to meet Bobby Jindal tonight and decide for themselves.

- Marc

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

In this time of budget cuts, Utah school districts should not spend money on local teacher union leaders, says one lawmaker.

Rep. Christopher Herrod, R-Provo, is running a bill, HB381, that would prohibit school districts from paying local union association presidents’ salaries. Now, districts such as Davis, Granite and Salt Lake pay their local Utah Education Association (UEA) presidents between $24,000 to $28,000 a year even though they are no longer teaching, and the union pays the rest of their salaries according to contract agreements.

“It’s important as much money go to the classroom as possible,” Herrod said. “Taxpayers need to know where their money is being spent.”

Herrod’s bill would prohibit paid association leaves and force unions to reimburse the district for any costs associated with the employee, such as benefits. Now, the law allows paid leave as long as the association leader directly affects education within the school district.

Herrod said his bill would still allow districts to pay association leaders salaries, but only if they took on other specific positions for the district in addition to union leadership.

“What I don’t think is fair is to say, ‘Just because I’m working for the union, it benefits the school,’ ” Herrod said.

Campbell said local association leaders help school districts by giving teachers — who are too busy teaching during the day to attend decision-making meetings — a voice.

“If there isn’t an organizing voice there isn’t a voice at all,” Campbell said. “All you have is chaos and squeaky wheels.”

The bill was sent to the House on Monday to await a hearing, likely in committee.

My mother and most of my extended family are educators, and yet not one is a member of the UEA. While I am not completely decided on this issue, I do see the importance of rexamining the role that state unions such as the UEA play in society, and whether they are worth the tax dollars that eventually go to them.

I will not deny that the UEA has played an important role in helping to raise teacher salaries and in accomplishing similarly beneficial goals for education, nevertheless, I am often skeptical of unions and whether or not they truly make a meaningful difference in the lives of their members; some unions have proven to be crippling to their industries and therefore, do not truly benefit union members.  Yet in the case of HB381, I am still undecided as to whether this bill really fixes something we could consider “broken.” And I am also somewhat reluctant to take it seriously in light of other education bills like SB199, which seems to clearly be vindictive.

Is this just another bill designed to seek retribution for the voucher failure? Is this bill going to make a positive difference by checking excess in unions like the UEA? Will it ultimately enhance education in Utah, or will it do harm?

I don’t have the answers to these questions for I am still undecided. What do you think?

- Marc

Flying a little under the radar, a bill I was excited about passed the house today.  Details:

A bill that would make state school board elections more direct passed Monday in the House, after heavy debate.

HB150 would allow state school board candidates to run in regular, direct elections. Now, a governor-appointed committee recruits candidates, narrows the field to three for each seat and then forwards those names to the governor who selects two candidates to appear on the ballot for each seat.

“It’s not a true democratic process,” said bill sponsor Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay. “These kinds of nominating committees are more manipulative than they are democratic.” The bill follows a recent state school board election in which several incumbents’ names didn’t make it onto the ballot.

It’s not something many of us have reason to think about often, but for any concerned about the future of education in this state, this is a step forward.  Not only does this do away with the “appointment by committee” process conducted entirely inside the governor office with zero public input,  it also ads a layer of protection against temporal political agendas influencing long term make-up of school board membership.

February 24, 2000

From: Marshal

To: For the People Crew

Subj: Utah is NOT for Sale – Rally, Wed Feb 25

http://healutah.org/nuclearwaste/energysolutions/not4sale

Utah is Not for Sale Rally and Lobby Day