Education is a voting issue in local 2008 races!

I generally agree with the idea that our state is generally well-run fiscally. I am very happy that we have a Rainy Day Fund earning interest and that $100 million in education money was set aside last session. I was fully supportive of the special session and saving the money through ongoing cuts when the forecasts are for state revenues to only get worse.

That said, how would voting for non-incumbents in local races lessen that emphasis on fiscal responsibility? In my opinion—not much at all. The moderate Republicans and many of the Democrats in this state would be hardcore Republicans in other states, while many local Republican legislators like Howard Stephenson and Craig Frank would be marginalized Libertarians. And most of the challengers can only be more trustworthy, more courteous, and more representative than Stephenson, Frank, Curtis, Hughes, Bramble, Buttars, etc.

Thus I feel free to search for candidates who more closely represent my views. It is possible to find legislators who better represent moderate viewpoints and avoid silly partisan power games. It is possible to find legislators who are both supportive of the ideals of public education AND fiscally responsible. Don’t buy into the false dichotomy being preached by many local incumbents: vote for me or Utah’s government will fall to Godless, spend-happy socialists.

Many legislators speak out of both sides of their mouth, constantly explaining how they are handcuffed because the state invests a high percentage of its revenue in education, but then dismissively trying to label voters who prioritize education as “single-issue voters.” Education spending accounts for over half of the money spent by the state government, so why shouldn’t it be at least half of voters’ criteria when selecting candidates? If new legislators would continue the good policies of our current legislature, but support public schools rather then attack them or manipulate their funding through suspect bills, I view it as a moral duty to vote for them.

These are some education issues that I believe are important both in their specific implementation and their longterm ramifications:

1. The voucher debacle willingly undertaken against the wishes of the people.

2. The omnibus education bill passed last session, SB 2, which abused all notions of good government ( besides being unconstitutional according to the Utah State Constitution) by stockpiling popular bills, and then rolling them together with pet projects of the influential Howard Stephenson on the 2nd to last day of the legislative session and passing the whole lot with little debate on the last day.

3. The constant chipping away of the citizens’ right to bypass or overrule those elected to represent them through initiatives and referendums like the one that overturned the voucher law. One of those unconstitutional laws passed this year, SB 53, which took away the right of the people to contest political bodies’ decisions on land use and was just overturned by the state supreme court, could also cost tens of thousands of dollars beyond what the state already wasted defending it if the complainants get their money reimbursed. I fear they have a great case.

4. Legislators lying about voucher opponents and costs (The USU Study), current school expenditures, and their views on public education.

5. Legislators not reading relevant materials to bills they’re discussing or actually visiting schools with programs they are discussing, but instead making decisions about education in Utah based on kook, conspiracist websites for information.

Get informed! Vote!


.

What do you think of registering as a Republican just for the caucus?

While waiting for an hour to vote in the primary, just about everyone around me was filling out the Republican registration form in order to vote for Mitt Romney. The people we talked to mostly intended to vote and then remove their name from Republican rolls in the following weeks. They joked about not wanting all of the fundraising junkmail. I hadn’t thought of before, being unaffiliated.

Then a comment on a post over at Green Jello got me thinking about a decision I’m struggling with—whether to register as a Republican in order to participate in what would be my first neighborhood caucus. Cameron asked what good you can do outside of the two main parties…and he has a point. Is avoiding both parties because of their warts a beneficial, effective decision?

I haven’t struggled with my political identity—I’m independent. I voted for both Republicans and Democrats in my first election at age 18, and wrote my dad’s name in for a position where I disliked all of the candidates. I am not a member of either party and get frustrated with party politics. Locally, I am especially frustrated with state Republican leadership over a variety of issues and county leadership over the float scandal last year. So in one way, I would feel a little dishonest registering as a member of an organization I largely disagree with.

But…local participation is the shot in the arm that politics, and especially the local Republican party needs right now. Both parties have huge disagreements within their ranks and people who vote differently. There are a few Republican representatives that actually care about public education, and my representative is at least more engaged and willing to negotiate than some of the hacks out there. Maybe my opinions could honestly be a part of the party.

And even if I’m too far from whatever a good Republican is, does the principle of public participation trump Republican clannishness when the Republican caucuses often serve as de facto elections? Many believe the whole reason Republicans close their caucuses and primaries is to assure that the smaller right wing faction of the party dominates the more moderate Republican voters who aren’t officially registered with the party (possibly unregistered to avoid constant fundraising requests like those voters I spoke with at the primary…I don’t know how bad it is, never having been registered with a party. My father gets a lot of stuff, but he’s a caucus-going party loyalist).

I know that I could attend the Democratic caucuses, but I don’t really identify with that party either. I’m fairly sure I would support the Democratic candidate in any race in Utah Valley, but I’m unaware of any Democratic races featuring more than one candidate. They did a good job to get so many excellent candidates (But can’t anyone, please, unseat Senator Valentine?!), and I already know they’re 300% better on education than Utah Valley Republicans…so I’m not sure exactly what they’re going to do in their local caucus meeting. Do a cheer, confirm their choice of the only Democrat running for each office, and ask for money?

I would be giddily joyful if a bunch of Democrats won in Utah County in November…but realistically, I’ll be ecstatic if one or two win. Maybe Sandstrom is the most vulnerable after lying through his teeth about education to get elected and sponsoring a few pointless bills? It seems like representing a moderate voice at the Republican caucus could present a greater opportunity to make a difference. (Though Bob beat me to blogging about Green Jello’s post and argues that “One blade of grass is much more significant in a field of five than a field of 50.”) And Stan Lockheart says I am irresponsible if I don't attend a caucus meeting.

So…what do you think? If you’re registered with a party, are you planning to attend a caucus? Any planning on registering Republican just to attend? Any thoughts on whether that is an ethical choice?

The Education Omnibus Bill is even worse than I thought. Basically, the legislative leadership thinks you are an idiot.

I'm sad, mad, and feeling kind of powerless at the moment. The Republican leadership is again blatantly pursuing their own agenda for education during the last two days of the legislative session after claiming to want to work with educators. And they apparently really think everyone will believe that an omnibus bill revealed in the last two days of the session by powerful leaders discouraging amendments is a good process that encourages public comment.

A few legislative leaders have selected their own pet education bills for inclusion in a giant omnibus bill that caught even most legislators off-guard when it was announced in a surprise news conference yesterday, two days before the session ends.

President Valentine and Senator Stephenson spent a lot of breath at the news conference trying to convince us that the omnibus bill will better allow us to consider each part and that the previously defeated bills were just "misunderstood." They of course claim they aren't trying to sneak anything through and that this was a "compromise." It was apparently a compromise between the various right-wing Republican leaders of the caucus of just how much they could get away with, but a compromise nonetheless.

"Do you think we could include a bill eliminating whiny teachers in favor of robots?" "No, Senator Stephenson. But we could revive the bill allocating 3.5 million dollars this year and 2.5 million each year afterwards to buy software and laptop computers for pre-schoolers... and 70% of those can go to rich kids!" "Ooooh! Deal! My lobbyists will love this!"

This new omnibus bill, SB 2, contains parts of over 12 other bills (Here is an incomplete list. It is missing at least SB 91 for the $1,000,000 allocated to the American Board program.) and was rushed through the Senate in one day, apparently unamended. The House gets a crack at it tomorrow, the last day of the legislative session. (Edit: It's actually a complete list of the 12 bills in SB2. The ABCTE funding ended up in the SB281 funding, but was cut in an amendment at the last minute. See Mar.5 post.)

And you are supposed to believe that they care what you, the average voter, thinks.

My only reason for optimism is that my House representative sent me back an email saying he didn't like the idea of omnibus bills either and that he didn't believe the previously-defeated HB 278 was fair to Alpine District. But the fact that the bill sailed through the Senate today with no amendments makes me worry.

Listen to the last 30 seconds of the news conference, starting at about 18:00, for Senator Valentine's persuasive powers: "Any one component part may have difficulty passing, but when you look at the total, it says "This is a good plan.""

Both the principle of honesty involved in omnibus bills in general, and several individual bills within the omnibus, say to me "This is a plan to benefit special interests and assert legislative power." Jesse summed it up pretty well over in a comment over at Jeremy's Jeremiad:

It seems that any omnibus bill, state or federal, is a Frankenstein-like monster of competing interests hoping to ride the coattails to passage instead of being forced to stand on their own. It’s legislative laziness to even propose these bills.

Comment by Jesse Harris — March 4, 2008 @ 2:45 pm