Steve Olsen for Congress

What this is all about

2006-10-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

As this experience winds down for Teri and I (with the outcome still to be decided), I've been at it long enough to share my answers to the two most common questions I've been asked. Neither has anything to do with the important issues this nation faces. The first question is, "Why did you do this"? The second is, "Do you really think you have a chance of winning"?

Let's start with the first question.

Doug Wright asked me the "why did you do this?" question on the air in October. The answer was only partly joking: "If you can name a good psychiatrist, maybe between the two of us we can discover the answer to that". I have never done anything this difficult. I am a shy person at heart, and the type of activities we've been involved in - calling people begging for money, canvassing (To my new friend Julie Rose; I hated tracting just as much as you did), going on radio and television to debate ideas with a remarkably knowledgeable and articulate Congressman - these are not the type of activities I would choose for light recreation. In addition to the time and financial commitment, the stress level is something no one can understand unless they've experienced it.

Why, indeed.

I guess it boils down to my love of teaching - when the subject matter is one I'm passionate about. When I claim that "most Utahns are Democrats but just don't know it yet", I'm not talking about the caricature of us that exists even among ourselves. The average Utahn is not a Sean Hannity-worshipping, liberal hating, supply-side ideologue that believes Republican litany like they believe in the Scriptures. No, the average Utahn is a father or mother with kids, soccer games, piano and dance lessons, bills to be paid, and volunteer responsibilities that keeps them pretty busy. They are good citizens and believe in America. Most of them vote. But the propaganda out there is so deafening that it's hard for them to get past the stereotypes of what Utah Democrats are.

So many of these good, honest people go into the voting booth thinking that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for baby killers, loose morals, the destruction of marriage, the abandoning of America to terrorists, and a general outbreak of Iron Poor Blood. It takes a great deal of time and effort to break through this propaganda, and many of these good citizens don't have much time. Someone needs to speak the truth, even if it can be barely heard amid the cacophony of the Right. As difficult as this adventure has been, it's been an honor to speak for the many wonderful Utah Democrats I've been privileged to meet the last year.

That takes me to the answer to the second question: Do you have a chance of winning? The answer to that is easy. Even though it's a week until the election, I can say with certainty: I've already won.

When my new (and future lifelong) friend Wayne Holland asked me to do this, the request was specific. He asked me to be one of your messengers. I have worked my hardest to do that. Subsequent events have shown that we have succeeded far beyond my wildest dreams. We have dozens of stories of people who have read our humble little booklet and have responded with enthusiasm. The responses vary, but the general tone has been: Wow. No one has ever explained it this way before. That's really me. I'm going to vote for Democrats this year.

From a more personal note, it has been very humbling for me, the new guy in the party, to have so many of you, who have endured campaign season after campaign season with only the occasional electoral success, express your heartfelt friendship and appreciation for my humble efforts. You are the true heroes. I'm amazed at your continued optimism and enthusiasm. I'm amazed at your work ethic. You are some of Utah's most patriotic citizens. The phrase "you're a Great American" makes me gag when I hear it on KSL between 1 and 4 pm on weekdays, but the phrase applies to the wonderful rank and file Democrats I've had the privilege to meet the last nine months. Thanks so much for your kindness and friendship.

So in the final analysis, what is it that makes us all Democrats? The "15 Democrats Rule" is still true; if you have 15 Democrats in a room, you'll have 15 different opinions on any subject. Maybe the best litmus test is the following quote from Garrison Keillor:

"You don't encourage invention and ambition by giving a quarter-million dollar tax cut to a $15 million a year man. Give the bus driver's bright child a chance to get a great education. That's an investment."

If your focus is on the bus driver's child and not on the tax cut, you're a Democrat.

Is the deficit going down?

2006-10-17T08:06:00.000-07:00

One statistic Republicans are touting these days is the FY 2006 deficit of 248 billion dollars - down from 318 billion in FY 2005. President Bush is claiming his promise to cut the deficit in half has been reached three years early. Here's proof, say the Republicans, that their fuzzy math really works, that you can spend like drunken sailors while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and somehow the budget will magically balance itself.

Is this really true?

First, we need to look closer at this $248 billion number. During the same period, the national debt increased from $7.9 trillion to $8.5 trillion. This is an increase of around $600 billion - a record increase, not an decrease. Confused? Shouldn't the FY2006 deficit equal the increase in the national debt? There's an easy answer to this quandry. The fact is the $248 billion number is bogus. It leaves out significant portions of the debt that the nation incurred last year. It's a statistic only Washington politicians or Enron accountants could love.

Congressman Bishop, in several of our debates, has said that the Republican leadership is more fiscally responsible than the Blue Dog Democrats. Congressman Jim Cooper, a respected conservative Democrat from Tennessee, has some authority on settling this question. He's one of a handful of members of Congress who supported every one of Congressman Jeff Flake's anti-pork amendments, and was responsible for the mass distribution of the 2005 Financial Report of the United States, an official White House annual report prepared by the Treasury Department (which the White House doesn't want you to read).

Congressman Cooper has suggested a neat test on how committed a politician is to real fiscal sanity. If your local politician frequently uses the bogus $248 billion number in speeches, he's in favor of the status quo, and wants to hide the true magnitude of the problem from the American people. If they talk about the actual increase in the national debt, (or even better, the accrual accounting numbers from the above mentioned Financial Report, which show an even worse picture), then they favor real change and are trying to tell Americans the truth.

Congressman Bishop and President Bush are bragging about the $248 billion number. If you look on the Blue Dog website, you'll see the National Debt Clock, which tracks the national debt - rather than the bogus statistic.

The fact is that President Bush, Congressman Bishop and the Republican leadership are trying to hide the truth from the American people for political gain. It's the height of irresponsibility to not tell the truth about something as critical as America's looming fiscal crisis.

After listing the frightening facts about the true nature of our unfunded obligations, including the fact that the nation's top auditor, Comptroller General David M. Walker, couldn't even offer an opinion on the state of the nation's finances because the Government's books are so messed up, Congressman Cooper wrote the following:

"Economists politely call many of these trends 'unsustainable'. I call them the road to ruin. And this information is not a partisan attack; this comes from an official document of the U.S. Government issued by the Bush Administration itself."

So tell me again, Congressman Bishop: Who are the real fiscal conservatives?

How is the economy treating the middle class?

2006-10-04T11:09:00.000-07:00

I was preparing to do a blog about the economic status of the middle class this week. The intent was to show how the benefits of economic growth the last six years have not helped anyone below millionaire status. But, lo and behold, Lou Dobbs did it for me. I can't say it any better than he does, so I'm including a link to his October 4th commentary for your convenience.

We'll talk to you next week!

Steve

Lou Dobbs: Are you a casualty of the class war?

How to bring the troops home from Iraq

2006-09-24T15:44:00.000-07:00

Like most Americans, I’ve been thinking a lot about the conflict in Iraq. Like you, I’ve been listening to the politicians in Washington, and I keep hearing things like “we lied our way into Iraq”, “cut and run”, “appeasers”, “Defeatocrats” etc. The main goal seems to be to find the most over-the-top adjectives to demonize the other side.

Meanwhile, the sacred blood of our heroes in uniform continues to spill into the sand of an alien desert, in a conflict that appears to get worse every week.

Have we no shame? Partisanship is bad enough when it concerns the economy or immigration, but when our soldiers continue to die while we sit and argue, we are treading on treacherous moral ground.

America is sick of the partisan sniping. Our leaders need to summon the courage to admit their individual mistakes and forgive the mistakes of others. We need a non-partisan, American plan to conclude this conflict and get our sons and daughters out of that hostile land, rather than wrangling over whose narrowly focused partisan idea is best. If I were President Bush, here’s how I’d do it.

First, Donald Rumsfeld has got to go. Even supporters of the war have lost faith in him. Most importantly, our troops have lost faith in him. Even a cursory study of the history of the war demonstrates that the breathtaking hubris and incompetence of our civilian military leadership to be the cause of this conflict turning into a quagmire. Rumsfeld has not served his President well. More importantly, he has shown himself to be too stubborn to be trusted with the task of charting a new direction. He has systematically ignored the advice of his military commanders and wise, experienced leaders such as Anthony Zinni, Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft.

I would replace Rumsfeld with the one man who is universally admired and trusted by leaders across the political spectrum and around the world: General Colin Powell. No one has more knowledge than he about fighting in that part of the world. Events have shown his insights to be the correct ones.

Next, Powell must be given complete, unhindered freedom to accomplish the following task: gather a team of America’s most skilled leaders, together with leaders of Iraq and our allies, and after a complete and non-partisan examination of the facts and options, create a plan to bring the Iraq War to a conclusion.

The most important members of this team would be the military officers in Iraq who have proven ability and demonstrated success, such as Army General David Petraeus and Marine General James Mattis. Congressional experts in military affairs from both sides of the aisle must be given equal seats at the table. And we need wise, senior statesmen like Brent Scowcroft and Madeleine Albright involved. Every success and failure must be studied frankly and without rancor. Once all the data is understood, and given the skills of the team members, I’m confident the best solution will be self-evident, with just the details to work out. And it must happen fast – we can’t afford to wait for months for this team to do their job.

President Bush is the only one who could make this happen. It would take a great deal of courage on his part, because he would have to finally admit that our current policy is a dead end. However, great leaders take responsibility for their actions, and they have the humility to change course when events require it. President Reagan demonstrated such leadership and courage during the Iran-Contra affair. What if the Founding Fathers who were sent by their respective states to fix the Articles of Confederation had insisted on “staying the course”? If these men had not courageously recognized that a completely new direction was required to save the nation, our sacred Constitution would have never been written.

It remains to be seen if our President has the same qualities of leadership and courage.

What kind of leader does Utah need?

2006-09-10T16:01:00.000-07:00

I’ve talked quite a bit on my position on the issues. However, maybe a more important consideration for our citizens in choosing a representative is the leadership style of the candidate. Maybe I can demonstrate this best by talking about a few current members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, whose leadership style I admire and will try to emulate.

One of my favorite members of the House is Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona. By all accounts, Rep. Flake is a respected, likable guy. But it’s his integrity and commitment to principle over party that is most impressive. Rep. Flake is considered one of the most libertarian and principled members of the House. As a small number of Republicans who often join Ron Paul in voting “no” on bills supported by most of his party, he has earned the “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) label from partisan Republicans – but is strongly supported by true conservatives for his stand on the issues.

Rep. Flake voted against No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and the Homeland Security Act, all against the wishes of party leaders. He originally supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, but has become an opponent of both, including voting against further appropriations. He has been a leader in calling for improvement in House ethics in the wake of the Tom DeLay scandals, and courageously co-authored a letter with Rep. Charlie Bass of New Hampshire calling for DeLay to step down – while Congressman Bishop was voting to relax House ethics rules to allow him to stay. He has also been a leader in fighting his party’s huge addiction to pork. The Club for Growth publishes the “Flake Anti-Pork Scorecard” which shows the voting record of all 435 house members on anti-pork amendments he sponsors during each Congress. Several Blue Dog Democrats scored a perfect 19 on this scorecard; Jim Matheson got a 14, Rob Bishop an 8, and Chris Cannon a 6. My favorite quote from Jeff Flake is, “Republicans don’t even pretend to be fiscally conservative anymore”.

Flake’s style guarantees he will never be considered for leadership positions in the House, but he is proof positive that a principled maverick can have a huge amount of influence. He is one of the most respected and quoted members of the Republican caucus. There are obviously many issues where he and I disagree, but when I campaign on reaching across the aisle to find innovative solutions to problems, Jeff Flake is one of the people I have in mind. One of my ambitions is to get a perfect score on the Flake Anti-Pork Scorecard while I’m in Congress.

The nature of the Democratic Party ensures more independent thinkers among its House caucus. The Blue Dog Coalition is by definition made up of mavericks. This respect for diversity of opinion is one of the reasons I became a Democrat. One particularly remarkable Congressman is conservative Democrat Ike Skelton of Missouri. You may not recognize Skelton’s name, but he figures prominently in the run-up to the Iraq War. History shows that Skelton was one of the few members of Congress that was asking the Department of Defense hard questions during this period. Skelton, with his long experience on the House Armed Services Committee, pretty much predicted everything bad that has happened since. It’s too bad Rumsfeld didn’t listen to him.

One Senator I admire is Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. I like Sen. Graham’s gracious, Southern gentleman style. One of the memories I have of him is his exchange with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last year during Senate hearings into the Administration’s wiretapping practices. Sen. Graham stated from the beginning that the practice violated the FISA laws, and during this testimony, he suggested Gonzales work with Congress in modifying the law to serve the interests of national security but still maintain the Constitutional-mandated role of the courts in overseeing this type of activity. Sen. Graham pleaded with Gonzales, throwing out all sorts of suggestions for changes and improvements, but Gonzales’ answers basically consisted of “Nope, nope, nope”. In his soft-spoken style, Lindsey Graham dishes out criticism or praise equally to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

The common vein here is a tendency to put principles over party, to think for oneself, to respect and work with anyone with a good idea, and to courageously stand for what you think is right regardless of the consequences. That’s the only way I know how to act. As a non-politician, I have no training in partisan party shenanigans or shading the truth; I wouldn’t even know how to go about it.

When I told my father I was running for Congress, his reaction was somewhat surprising. He gave me that stern look that I know so well, and said, “Steve, I’m proud of you. You are a good man with unquestioned integrity. I’m afraid that dabbling in politics will turn you into someone I won’t respect. If you’re going to do this, you’d better not let that happen.”

Don’t worry, Dad. I won’t.

A Letter To Senator Bennett

2006-09-02T15:48:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Bennett,

Last Wednesday, I received a call from Andy Howell from the Standard Examiner. He wondered if he could get my comment on a statement from you: that the Utah Democratic Party is the “anti-Mormon” party.

In the subsequent article in the paper, Andy wrote that I was “surprised” by your comments. Surprised is accurate – and I would add, very disappointed. I’ve respected you through the years, and really thought you were above resorting to the old “you can’t be a good Mormon and a Democrat” charge. I guess it just goes to show how hubris born of too much unchallenged power can even affect nice guys like you.

But as I thought about it, I realized your confusion probably results from the fact that you don’t spend much time around your non-Republican constituents. I might be able to help you there. As a recently converted Democrat and first time candidate, I’ve traveled all around Northern Utah meeting large numbers of Utah Democrats for the first time. I thought you’d be interested in learning about the Utah Democrats I’ve run into.

One group I’ve grown close to is the Tooele County Democrats. There are some great folk out there. One typical example is County Sheriff Frank Park and his pretty wife Randi. (Frank groused to me good naturedly that Randi had distributed more copies of my booklet than she had of his campaign pamphlet.) The first night at the Tooele County Fair, Randi and I had an interesting conversation – not about politics, but about her seven-year tenure as ward Primary president. I pumped her for some pointers on how her bishop had talked her into staying that long; I figured the information might be useful.

Of course, one can’t mention Tooele County Democrats without a reference to that radical, blame-America-first liberal, Representative Jim Gowans. (I hope the sarcasm wasn’t too subtle for you, Senator.) It was quite the experience to stand next to this respected rancher and citizen-legislator at a booth in Stansbury Park recently and see the great respect the people out there have towards him.

I’ve also become great friends with Jan and Art Douglas, who live in Howell, up in Box Elder County. Art reminds me a lot of my grandfather (except, of course, Grandpa Olsen was a whole lot taller). He’s a throwback to those great Roosevelt Democrat farmers like my grandpa, who would never vote for a Republican because they didn’t stand up for the little guy. I spent about an hour with Art outside the auction barn at the Box Elder County Fair while he introduced me to people that walked by – and he knew everybody! It was pretty amazing. Of course, you know Art – he’s related his discussion with you where you were quite flippant towards his concerns about the state of the American family farm. And of course, there’s former Representative Eli Anderson, who’s running for County Commission – a good ol’ Utah boy if there ever was one. It was a sad day for rural Northern Utah when they lost that last remaining “D” in the Legislature.

Down in Davis County are some great folk, including Richard Watson, the county chair and Legislative candidate who popularized the “LDS Democrat” baseball cap, and my dear friend Rob Miller, State Party Vice-Chair and County Commission candidate, with whom I’ve had some very spiritual Gospel discussions.

Let’s not forget my home here in Weber County. I was privileged to have Bishop Neil Hansen and Bishop Scott Jenkins (otherwise known as Rep. Hansen (D) and Sen. Jenkins (R)) accept invitations to speak in our ward’s sacrament meeting the last Sunday in July. The two men obviously had a lot of respect for each other, and the ward members are still commenting on what a wonderful message each of these great men presented. And of course, there’s that sweet former school teacher, Lou Shirtliff. Lou and I had an interesting discussion recently about her letter writing campaign to KSL Radio, where she has repeatedly asked them a simple question: How can you guys carry the loving words of the Prophet twice a year, and then pollute the airwaves with the hateful propaganda of Sean Hannity during the week? A Quixotic quest, to be sure, but I respect her for fighting for what’s right.

I also need to mention former Senator Ed Allen, a gracious, kindly Ogden physician with a long history of Church leadership whose eyes flash in anger these days when he talks about what the Republicans are doing to his country.

I could go on, but you get the drift. I think you would not be nearly so judgmental about Utah Democrats if you actually ever spent time around any. True, some of our more liberal brethren and sisters tend to be more vocal and are in the media a little more (reference that “big tent” thing that you said we didn’t practice). But to call the rank-and-file folk I’ve met the last six months “anti-Mormon” is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard. And by the way, I’ve never seen anyone more respectful toward the Church and its leaders and members than our current State Chair, Wayne Holland, who by the way, was elected by a majority of us Democrats.

Don’t think I’m offended. I’m sure rank and file Utah Democrats aren’t either; after all, they’re used to this kind of thing every election season from you guys. But I do think you owe the First Presidency an apology for your comments, which were very disrespectful to the Church.

So just what is it about the statements, “the Church does not endorse any political party or candidate” or “all major political parties contain values consistent with the Gospel” that is unclear to you?

Who do you trust on the war on terror?

2006-08-28T20:40:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity to meet with the Standard Examiner’s editorial board on August 25th, and that resulted in a nice little write up in the paper the next day. Reporter Scott Schwebke did a pretty good job with the difficult task of condensing a forty minute conversation into a few columns in the newspaper. There was one significant error, however. Although I supported President Bush in getting tough with Saddam, sufficient to get the UN inspectors back in, I did not and do not feel sending the troops was a good idea. Here’s why.

The question in wartime that is always most crucial is understanding of the enemy’s objective. In this case, that fundamental question is: What was bin Laden’s objective in launching the 9/11 attacks? And no, the correct answer is not, “because he hates us and our way of life”. Thinking our enemy is stupid is a dangerous error we cannot afford, and only an idiot would launch something of that magnitude only to express hatred. Al-Qaeda had a strategic objective. To understand what that might be you have to understand their long term goals. Osama bin Laden’s long term objective is to establish an Islamic theocracy in the Middle East. To accomplish this goal, they have a few key strategies.

First, it is accurate to portray bin Laden as a fascist. Like all fascists, an important key to gaining power is to create a scapegoat, a people who the target population can be convinced to hate and blame for all their problems. Then the fascist can come in and “save” the population from the “bad guys”. It’s clear that bin Laden intends the scapegoats to be America and Israel.

Second, al-Qaeda’s long term objective requires the overthrow of the secular governments in the Middle East. This is a crucial point. Osama bin Laden hates America only through association; his real enemies have always been Saddam Hussein, the Saudi royal family, the king of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt etc. This is why it has always been patently ridiculous to suggest that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda. The two are mortal enemies. It would be suicide for either to help the other.

Finally, bin Laden seeks to create chaos and instability in the Middle East. These ingredients are crucial to revolutionaries.

These facts clarify bin Laden’s strategic objective for 9/11. Although it was a huge gamble that the brutal nature of the attacks would galvanize the world to seek out and destroy his organization, bin Laden was counting on America reacting in a way that would do the opposite; galvanize hatred towards America in the Islamic world, creating an environment where the secular governments of the Middle East could be overthrown and his vision of a modern Islamic empire based on the model of the Taliban could be brought to pass.

With this understanding, it’s very clear why bin Laden must have offered up a fervent prayer of thanksgiving to Allah for his munificence when the Republicans sent the troops into Iraq. To al-Qaeda, our actions would have been seen as a miracle. Not only did the Iraq War fan the flames of intense hatred toward America in the Islamic world that bin Laden’s plan so desperately relies on, it also took out one of his worst enemies, caused America to divert crucial resources away from the war on al-Qaeda, seriously wounded the world coalition that will be required to bring international terrorists like bin Laden to justice, and created tremendous instability in the region.

This is an uncomfortable theory; that the Iraq War actually played into Osama bin Laden’s hands and has strengthened his cause. It would be much more comforting to believe Orrin Hatch’s story: that the Iraq War has dealt a mortal blow to the terrorists and that all we have to do to keep safe is prevent those pesky Democrats from taking over.

Facts are often uncomfortable, however. Ron Suskind reported in his book, The One Percent Solution, that the release of bin Laden’s video tape just before the 2004 election was deemed by CIA officials to be an attempt by al-Qaeda to aid Republican re-election. And an al-Qaeda Web site published a cyberbook just before the Iraq invasion entitled The Future of Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula After the Fall of Bagdad that claimed an American invasion of Iraq would be the best possible outcome for al Qaeda, stoking extremism throughout the Muslim world and involving America in a radicalizing quagmire. Bin Laden is a homicidal maniac, but he is not stupid. President Bush is the perfect scapegoat for him, and the actions of the Republican party, especially the Iraq invasion, were exactly what he had been hoping for.

Unlike many Democrats, I don’t think it is useful or accurate to portray Republicans as mean-spirited liars. I think they honestly believed that taking out Saddam was in America’s best interest. The problem here is with the “resolute” thing the Republicans love to brag about. The simple truth is that they were so convinced that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, their minds refused to assimilate or consider evidence to the contrary. Because of this, we came to a fork in the road, took the wrong turn, and have traveled an agonizingly long distance down that road.

Where does this leave us? In the words of Paul Waldman, “If you think the Iraq War has made us safer, then you don’t understand terrorism, you don’t understand al-Qaeda, you don’t understand what has happened over the last five years – and you can’t be trusted with America’s security.”

My views on the Cindy Sheehan visit

2006-08-20T20:45:00.000-07:00

One of the big news stories in August was the decision by Mayor Rocky Anderson to invite Cindy Sheehan to Salt Lake to participate in an anti-war rally during the American Legion convention. Much has been said about the importance of respecting free speech, which I agree with. Sympathy has been expressed towards Cindy’s loss of her son. Since my son is in the military, I perhaps empathize with her better than many of you. The horror of losing our wonderful son would be incomprehensible. Surely all Americans must respect her loss. I have also been a vocal supporter of the Mayor over the years. He’s controversial and relishes the role of maverick, but it’s hard to argue that he’s done an excellent job running Utah’s largest city.

My thoughts below are directed toward plain, practical politics. I think in terms of boring, practical stuff. When solving a problem, the first step is coming up with a clear problem statement. In this case, the problem statement might read as follows: Utah Democrats disagree with the conduct of the Iraq war by our President. But many of our fellow Utahns are looking at this issue with rose-colored glasses. They’ve bought the Sean Hannity line that disagreement with the President during wartime is unpatriotic (although the ever hypocritical Hannity was an unrelenting critic of President Clinton during the Kosovo conflict). So how do we get our fellow citizens to see the light?

I’m picturing a hypothetical brainstorming session where we’re all trying to come up with effective ways to help Utahns understand the truth about the Iraq war. Suddenly, somebody says, “Hey, I know! Let’s invite Cindy Sheehan to Salt Lake! Utahns will surely listen to her!” Now, one of the rules of brainstorming is you’re not allowed to call any idea stupid. But surely, wouldn’t this be one of the first ideas politely discarded?

Please note this is not about right versus wrong or good versus evil. This is about what works versus what doesn’t. How do we make the most effective argument that will change the hearts and minds of the greatest number of Utah voters?

I’m not sure what Mayor Anderson’s “problem statement” is. What problem will be solved by featuring Cindy Sheehan in a rally during President Bush’s visit? I obviously can’t answer that for him. Maybe he hasn’t thought about it himself. But it will certainly not help convince Utahns that the President is wrong about the war. It seems obvious that this visit will in fact cause us to lose ground in that effort.

One argument I’ve heard from rally supporters goes something like this: We want to convince the rest of America that not all Utahns support the President. I hate to keep coming back to that nasty practical stuff, but I have to ask: Who gives a rat’s behind what the rest of America thinks? If we could import voters from California or New York, breaking the Eagle Forum’s stranglehold on our state government would have already been done. The voters we need to care about and communicate with are Utah voters. Worrying about voters outside Utah is a deadly distraction we cannot afford.

In my tours around the state, I’ve been asked the following question innumerable times: How do we get through to these hard-headed Utahns? I know it’s frustrating, and I haven’t been at it nearly as long as most of you. But an example might prove enlightening. A few weeks ago at the Tooele County Fair, we gave a copy of our booklet to a nice young lady in the booth next to the wonderful display set up by the Tooele County Dems. When we met the next night, she was so full of enthusiasm about the message she almost couldn’t contain herself. We’d gained ourselves a convert. But here’s the interesting part. She admitted she and her husband had been Republicans since their marriage, but that her father-in-law was a Democrat. She said, “I’d tried to ask him several times about his political views, but all he ever did was growl about how Bush was an idiot. Your booklet was the first time anyone had really explained to me what Democratic values were all about.” I think you see the idea here.

Here’s an observation from the new guy on the block. It seems there are two types of Utah Democrats. One type seems to relish the role of the noisy minority. The second type believes Utah Democrats will best serve our citizens by governing. To govern, we need to get Democrats elected. To get Democrats elected, we need to communicate our message to Utahns in a way that will convince them to vote for us.

Personally, I’m with the second group. I fervently believe, with Rocky-esque passion, that the old-fashioned populist values of our Utah Democratic Party are the values of the average Utahn – and that our state and nation need elected Utah Democrats at all levels for our society to solve the significant problems we face. I’ve committed to Wayne Holland that whatever the outcome of my race, I’m with you guys forever, and will commit my time and treasure to the goal of Utah Democrats governing in this state.

I hate to be blunt, but it seems clear that a large, successful anti-Bush rally featuring Cindy Sheehan during the American Legion convention could result in a potentially significant loss of votes for Utah Democrats at the polls in November. Every Democrat needs to make his or her own choice in this matter. But now you know where I stand.

Who do you trust with your money?

2006-08-13T18:23:00.000-07:00

One of the most significant books of the year was written by former Reagan economic adviser and author of the early Eighties book Reaganomics, Bruce Bartlett. The book is titled Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (Doubleday 2006). This carefully researched and thoughtful book contains a scathing verdict on President Bush’s economic policies from a respected supply-side conservative economist. Although Democrats may disagree with Bartlett on some philosophical points, the book contains important information on how the borrow-and-spend policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have hurt the country and will invariably result in huge future tax increases. I’d like to share a few important quotes from the book, with the hope that you will get it and read it. (The quotes are from Bartlett himself unless otherwise noted.)

“George W. Bush has seriously hurt the country and set up conditions that will almost certainly lead to consequences that conservatives will find abhorrent. For example, his unwillingness to control spending and willingness to add significantly to it guarantees that there will be a massive tax increase at some point in the near future. I believe that the fiscal hole is so large that only a huge new revenue source like the value added tax can fill it.
“I think it is telling that Bush’s Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, was far better on the budget than he has been. Clinton vetoed bills because they spent too much. Bush never does. Clinton not only reduced the deficit, but he actually cut spending. Bush has increased both. Clinton abolished an entitlement program. Bush created an extremely expensive new one. One can still argue whether Clinton was a better president or a better man than Bush, but on the budget there is no ambiguity. Clinton was much better.”

“I think Clinton meant it when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, he said, ‘The era of big government is over’. How else to explain that civilian employment in the executive branch fell by 237,000 workers between 1992 and 2000? That’s an impressive performance that any conservative Republican would love to take credit for. Clinton even presided over one of the most significant reductions in government regulation in history. All of Al Gore’s efforts to reinvent government apparently had some impact after all.”

“I believe that the tax cuts – Bush’s signature domestic issue – have been far less effective than they could have been, owing in large part to his unwillingness to properly utilize the traditional policy development process. I believe this is also at the heart of the failure of his Social Security proposal and possibly the Iraq operation as well. It bothers me a great deal that Bush has driven away and even humiliated the few intellectuals in his midst, preferring instead the company of overrated political hacks whose main skill seem to be an ability to say ‘yes’ to whatever he says and ignore the obvious.”

“According to the Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, there has been more pork-barrel spending during the Bush years than at any time in American history. By their calculations, the Clinton years were fairly typical, with the amount of identifiable pork barrel spending varying between $10 billion and $17.7 billion in 2000. The number of projects went from a low of 958 to a high of 4326 in 2000. But the Bush years are in a class by themselves. Both the amount of money and the number of pork barrel projects have risen every year, from $18.5 billion and 6333 projects in 2001 to $27.3 billion and an amazing 13,999 projects in 2005.”

“(Bush is) the biggest spending president we’ve had in a generation.”
Steven Moore, Club for Growth

“(Bush’s) fiscal record is appalling.”
Ed Crane, Cato Institute

“The final tallies show that overall spending grew by almost 9 percent for the 2003 fiscal year ending September 30, and by 21 percent over the past two years. This is before the $400 billion (yeah, right) Medicare prescription drug benefit and this year’s energy and omnibus spending bills. If Bill Clinton had tolerated this, Republicans would be shouting from the rooftops…..This is astonishing when you recall that only a few years ago ‘revolutionary’ Republicans were proposing to eliminate actual federal programs. Instead, the GOP is now slowly restoring or adding to programs that it once took the political heat for killing or shrinking.”
The Wall Street Journal

“Mr. Bush has few peers among American Presidents in his willingness to let Congress spend as freely as it always wants to do. And the Republican Congress has few peers in history in its willingness to take advantage of the president’s generosity.”
George Melloan, The Wall Street Journal

“Bring back the Clinton Administration! Well, maybe not all of it, but at least its spending habits.”
Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

“Republicans don’t even pretend to be fiscally conservative anymore.”
Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

“Once released from gridlock by the election of a Republican president who refuses to veto any spending bill, no matter how pork-laden, the truth becomes clear – Republicans aren’t opposed to spending, only spending money on things Democrats want to spend money on. But when the money is being spent on Republican pork or to buy re-election for Republicans, it is okay, or so it seems.”

“Another problem is the creeping corruption inherent in ‘big government conservatism”, which the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait defines as “initiatives that benefit economic elites without using free-market mechanisms.’ Since it is devoid of principle, it too easily becomes an excuse to lavish gifts on those with Republican connections.”

“Journalist Jacob Weisberg correctly noted that Republicans had simply taken the liberal spoils system and converted it to their own purposes. The result, he said, is ‘the curious governing philosophy of interest-group conservatism: the expansion and exploitation of government by people who profess to dislike it.’”

“American University historian Allan Lichtman saw this as a ‘political revolution in the United States, creating a form of conservative big government that promotes not the general interests of ordinary Americans but the special interests of big corporations.’”

So, my fellow Utahns: Who do you trust with your money? We need to shout these facts from the rooftops. The young people in our society should be furious: about the time Congressman Bishop and others of his generation start to retire, our children and grandchildren will be paying tax rates that would make a Swede groan – unless we put an immediate stop to the reckless borrow-and-spend policies of the current Republican controlled Congress.

Help For The Shrinking Middle Class

2006-07-26T09:32:00.000-07:00

While passing out copies of our booklet to the crowd at the July 4^th Demolition Derby in Ogden, one fellow, obviously a blue collar working guy, asked me if I was a Democrat. When I answered “yes”, he replied, “Then get the (expletive deleted) out of here! We’re Red State people in this crowd. Your kind ain’t welcome”.

I bring that experience up as a contrast to a meeting I had later that week with the men and women of Local 354 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). I picked a good evening to attend their meeting; they were passing out service awards. Amazingly, some of these awards were for sixty years of service!

The IBEW and other construction trade unions provide an invaluable service to our community. They facilitate the movement of workers from different jobs and employers to where they’re needed the most, while helping to guarantee a living wage and provide access to health care and other benefits to the workers and their families. After the meeting, I spent some time chatting with their friendly, soft-spoken business manager, Todd Miller. He told me about a program where the members donated time every year to do electrical repair and wiring in the homes of the poor and elderly. I broke bread with them after the meeting, and found them to be a lively, engaging group that cared deeply about their country and the problems we’re facing.

Is this the first time you’ve heard about donated work by the IBEW? For that matter, when was the last time you heard anything positive about labor unions in the media? Conservatives complain about media bias, but no group suffers more from media bias than unions. The only time we hear anything in the news about unions is when some official embezzles money or when there’s a threat of a strike.

The effect of this media bias over the last few decades is significant misunderstanding among our citizens about the labor movement. For example, a good friend of mine expressed the opinion that the union movement was fine in principle, but that they were all controlled by the mob. Another simply grimaced when I told him I was speaking to the state AFL/CIO convention, and said, “Well, I hope you can straighten them out”.

In the spirit of “straightening” things out, let me offer a few facts:

1. Unions are probably the most regulated of our private institutions. Documented cases of corruption are rare and mostly decades old.

2. Our local unions are models of democracy. I have been amazed at the level of transparency in reporting of finances in the meetings I’ve attended, in the professionalism of the elected leaders, and in the procedures that call for debate and sustaining votes from the members for even the most trivial items of business.

3. Unions tend to create longevity in a workforce, resulting in greater skill levels and better quality work.

It’s important to remember a little history. Most of us take benefits like safe workplace conditions, paid vacation and sick leave, health care, and retirement plans for granted. It would be foolish to think that employers started giving these benefits out of the goodness of their hearts. All of these employee benefits, and the middle class incomes that made the American economy the envy of the world, were largely the result of the sacrifices of previous generations of dedicated union members who were pioneers in the truest sense of the word.

There’s another bit of history that was not so good for America’s workers. Early in President Reagan’s first term, he was faced with the conflict between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the air traffic controller’s union (PATCO). Like most conflicts, there was plenty of blame to go around for why things reached an impasse. However, instead of working in a conciliatory way to resolve the crisis, the President fired the union members and enacted a lifetime ban on their re-employment.

The chilling effects of that one event, combined with subsequent weak enforcement of long-standing NLRB rules governing union elections, have resulted in a gradual decline in union membership. In 1953, about 32% of American workers were union members. Today, that number is around 13%, with less than 10% of private sector workers belonging to unions.

One of the main themes of my campaign for Congress has been the decline of America’s middle class. The gulf between the highest and lowest wage earners in our nation is larger than ever before in our lifetimes, and the purchasing power of the median American family is dropping every year. Meanwhile, pension benefits are being reduced or dropped altogether, health care costs for workers are exploding, and our government continues to enact policies that benefit big corporations over their workers.

There are several reasons for what’s happening to the middle class in America, but it’s clear that one correlating factor is the decline of the union movement. Although unions may not be for everyone, the existence of healthy labor unions benefits all workers.

For anyone doubting the powerful link between free labor unions and democracy, I’d offer one more piece of history. The fall of the Soviet empire did not begin when the Berlin Wall came down. That beginning was a decade earlier, when a Polish shipyard electrician (and subsequent Nobel Peace Prize winner) named Lech Walesa and his Solidarity trade union won their freedom to organize and engage in collective bargaining.

Working together (which is what unions do!) we need to rebuild this great American institution that has contributed so much to American society. Perhaps then we can convince the fellow at the demolition derby that continuing as a disciple of Sean Hannity and Backlash Republicanism is only going to result in a lower standard of living for his family.

2006-07-03T17:07:00.000-07:00

True Utah values on the subject of church and state

When Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to thank them for their support, and explained how the First Amendment was intended to build “a wall of separation between Church and State”, he was not expressing opposition to religious faith. Jefferson felt that religion had an important role to play in society. Jefferson’s argument was not with religious faith, it was with corrupt clergy wielding political power who had oppressed mankind so much over the centuries. His views on priestcraft were not unlike those of another early American – Joseph Smith.

Jefferson knew that maintaining a strong, healthy environment for religious faith in America would require two things: ensuring religion was protected from the corrupting influence of political power, and ensuring complete freedom of religious expression. “Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself…she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict”. Jefferson fought for the separation of church and state because he realized that without such separation, religion suffers. It loses its moral authority and vitality.

America has been a living example of this concept over the years. Religious faith has flourished in our nation because of this principle in the First Amendment. Contrast America with the countries of Europe, most of which still have state-sponsored churches that sit empty on Sunday, and which have absolutely no moral authority or influence.

Despite the success of this First Amendment principle in fostering a healthy religious atmosphere, it is under attack today. A small group of extreme fundamentalist Christian believers has decided that their form of religion should be forced on the rest of Americans.

I am grateful that my faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, teaches that the separation of church and state is an important principle. The experience of our ancestors, who were literally driven out of the United States due to the religious intolerance of their neighbors, is an important example of the disastrous consequences when state power is used to promote one religion over another. The Church’s policy and numerous statements of political neutrality are well known – unlike some religions, who actively preach politics over the pulpit, neglecting in the meantime the preaching of Christ’s Gospel. Several years ago, in stating their opposition to President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative and their intention not to participate, the Church cited proper separation of church and state as one of the reasons for their decision.

These precepts are based on the following simple statement recorded in the LDS book of scripture entitled the Doctrine and Covenants:

“We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government”

One thing that has surprised me (and to be honest, angered me a little) is that our Utah Republican representatives in Washington, all of whom are Latter-day Saints, have ignored the values of their fellow Utahns and helped to push the attack on the First Amendment being waged by this small group of fundamentalist Christians – especially since one of the tenets of these extremists is mean-spirited discrimination against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In their eyes, we should not be allowed to call ourselves Christians.

In a recent press report, Congressman Bishop is quoted as saying, “If you are looking for separation of church and state, you won’t find it in Washington, D.C.” Now, I agree with some of the statements in his speech. I agree that Sunday is an appropriate day to hold a patriotic devotional. I agree that the influence of religious faith in our nation’s history has been critical. I believe with all my heart that the Constitution is inspired of God.

Where Congressman Bishop and I disagree is whether the current policies of the Radical Right are healthy for religious faith. It is clear to anyone but the most biased observers that the marriage of extreme fundamentalist Christianity and extreme conservative Republican politics serve as proof of Jefferson’s worst fears – that intermingling of church and state results in the corruption of both.

It’s time for Utah’s Republican leaders in Washington to start speaking out against the excessive influence of factions in their party that hold such hateful views against their fellow Latter-day Saints - who constitute a majority of their constituents. The time is long overdue for LDS Republicans to stop winking and nodding whenever the Prophet restates the Church’s political neutrality. And it’s time for them to return to true Utah values: to the concept that the role of religion is to teach correct principles – and then let us govern ourselves.

A Different Perspective on Saving the Family

2006-06-22T09:18:00.000-07:00

The debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment has the nation talking about family values. I think it’s important in these debates to recognize that almost no one is “anti-family”. Good people can disagree on the method while sharing a common goal of strengthening the family. There is no question that the family is the most important unit in our society, and that we need to come up with effective solutions to solve some of the tremendous challenges the traditional family is facing, such as high divorce rates, children being born to and raised by young, poor women without fathers, and the continuing scourge of abuse.

As an engineer, I’m trained to look for results. If a particular approach to a problem is not working, I start looking for different root causes and different solutions. In this spirit, I think it’s appropriate to ask a few questions. Utah’s citizens have largely voted Republican the last twenty years because of the impression that the GOP shares their values on things like abortion, the sanctity of marriage, and the assault of the popular culture on old fashioned family values. My question is simple: Have our votes for Republicans yielded results? Is the American family better off today than two decades ago? The answer is self evident. I know Republicans are truly sincere in their feelings about American family values, but it is clear the approach isn’t working.

So, what’s wrong?

What is the root cause of the problem? What has been the common factor in cultures disintegrating throughout history? If we look at the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, and even in the scriptural record, the common well from which all other iniquity springs is pride, greed and inequality.

Well known LDS scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley illustrates this in the following quotes:

“…Drugs, sex, gambling, anything that comes under the heading of iniquity are all the inevitable adjuncts of national depravity,…but the real culprit of which they are but the faithful attendants, the seat of infection and the root of evil (is) the desire to be rich and successful, ‘to get gain, to be praised of men’”

“God has no objection to man’s enjoyment of the good things of the earth. What he condemns in the strongest and clearest language is the unequal enjoyment of them.”

“Again, the usual explanation is given for the increasing iniquity in society. It is nothing but the desire ‘for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world’”.

Is it possible that the root cause of America’s descent into decadence is the same as in previous ages of the world – i.e., excessive materialism and the pride and greed of a small elite, seeking to accumulate excessive riches and power over others?

Today’s national Republican Party consists of a curious alliance: the marriage of fundamentalist Christianity with big business interests and the wealthy. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. For example, William Jennings Bryan, one of the most radical political figures in American history, was a fundamentalist Christian. Our nation has a rich history of devout Christians being the leaders in progressive government policies. But in the latter quarter of the twentieth century, the new Republican alliance did a good job selling itself as the sole protector of American family values – and the Democrats, temporarily distracted by special interest politics that were interpreted by some Americans as anti-family, failed to counteract this message.

What we’re left with is a strange electoral phenomenon – the Republicans running on moral issues, and then essentially doing nothing about them until it’s time for the next campaign. What happens between election cycles is the promotion of those very things that history and sacred writ warns against: Helping the rich and powerful become even richer and more powerful. The statistics are clear. Our nation’s wealth is becoming more concentrated in fewer hands every year, and the gap between the richest and poorest continues to grow. And amazingly, as this happens, the government’s main economic goal appears to be to exempt the wealthy from their tax burden – by running our grandchildren into debt.

Author Thomas Frank put it very bluntly:

“Their grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again, receive de-industrialization. Vote to get government off our backs, receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meat-packing. Vote to strike a blow against (liberal) elitism, receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEO’s are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.”

What has happened is that the great civil compact, the American notion of the common good fostered by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman that created the most successful middle class the world has ever known, has been under attack. During the eighties, the proponents of unfettered get-rich-quick capitalism coined a motto for this new phase in our economic history: Greed is good. I’m sorry, but no. Greed is not good. Greed destroys societies and families. The good people of Utah need to wake up and realize it is big business that is the author of the decadent, Me! Me! Me! consumer culture that has been foisted on our nation – not some “liberal elite”. And the way back is to start re-creating that civil compact, to start wresting control of our nation back from the powerful and returning it to the people. As this happens, the family values we cherish will return with it.

This has nothing to do with “tax and spend liberalism”. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is just as high as it ever has been. It’s as much about attitude as policy. It’s convenient when one’s political philosophy claims the only reason we have poor people is excessive government welfare. It means all we have to do to stop poverty is to quit helping poor people. It’s convenient when we believe the rich “got theirs” through their own efforts only. It leaves us free to enjoy the good things of life guilt-free, without giving a thought to the less fortunate, except for tossing a few coins to charity when we feel like it. But deep inside the hearts of most Utahns, I think there is a dissonance between these views and what is in their hearts. There certainly was for me, which is the reason I became a Democrat. Our value system teaches us “ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain”. Our common sense tells us that a culture of greed is poison to old fashioned family values. The facts tell us that the concentration of wealth and creeping loss of middle-class purchasing power is putting a tremendous financial strain on American families.

The illusion has gone on long enough. It’s time for a change.

The K-Street Conservative Guest Worker Program

2006-05-31T16:29:00.000-07:00

I don’t know about you, but when I hear President Bush talk about a guest worker program for “jobs Americans won’t do”, it makes me cringe. I’d like to explain why.

One of many chapters of the Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay scandal is the story about the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. Commonwealth in the eastern Pacific Ocean. As a quick review, over the last twenty years the CNMI has built a huge garment industry, almost entirely owned by big business tycoons from Asia, and staffed not by island natives, but by Filipinos, Chinese and Malaysians recruited under a “guest worker” program. These workers are paid $2-$3 per hour, under living and working conditions that are sub-par to U.S. standards. Even better for the Asian tycoons, the clothing made there and sold by major U.S. retailers is allowed to bear the “MADE IN USA” label.

During the late 1990’s, some members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, started to propose legislation to apply U.S. labor laws to the CNMI. Under the urging of the garment industry, the government of the CNMI hired Abramoff (using your tax dollars, by the way) to fight these efforts. Thanks to his usual well documented tactics and his relationship with DeLay, the legislation was blocked.

Here’s the scary part. In his book, “The K-Street Gang”, Matthew Continetti relates how the Houston Chronicle captured DeLay’s true feelings in a 1998 interview:

‘DeLay took on the Marianas’ cause as his own. On January 5, 1998, he declared he was opposed to any legislation that interfered with immigration to Saipan. Then he took things a step further. He said he thought the United States should adopt the Northern Marianas’ immigration laws – specifically, a “guest worker program” that provided one or two year visas to foreign laborers. The program, DeLay said, would allow “particular companies” to “bring Mexican workers in” for jobs in America. And those workers, DeLay continued, would be paid, “whatever wage the market will bear’.

Let me translate. DeLay favored a program for “particular companies” (read “big businesses with lobbyist ties to the Republican majority”) to bring in foreign workers for “whatever wage the market will bear” (read “sub-minimum wage”). Is this the vision the K-street conservatives have for America? It must be – since the de facto policy of the last decade has been to allow a substantially free flow of undocumented workers to enter our country.

Now you know why I cringe when the President talks about a “guest worker program”. If you want to know the vision these guys have for America, go re-read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.

It took us several decades to create the immigration problem. It won’t be solved overnight. Democratic leaders in Congress, being compassionate folk, are justifiably fighting punitive policies that would punish undocumented workers for the failings of our government. But our Congressional leaders also need to remember traditional Democratic values of maintaining a living wage for Americans, and one of the ways we do that is to ensure reasonable limits on immigration of low skill workers. Knowing the desires of the President’s big business backers for low American wages, Congressional Democrats should be very skeptical about any guest worker programs proposed by the servants of big business that currently inhabit the halls of Congress.