When the Founding Fathers spent their time trying to convince the states to ratify the Constitution it was due to the reluctance of the states to unify as a stronger band even though the confederate band under which they were already supposedly united was failing miserably and embarrassingly. But the task was to convince the states that they would be able to preserve their individual character, culture and laws, in other words, their sovereignty. In the end the Constitution of the United States of America created a Democratic Republic where each state would indeed reserve their individual rights. Hence, the purpose of Senators. Oh, you didn't know that? Yes, originally the House of Representative were the representatives of a designated portion of population. 'Its the reason their numbers grow proportional to the population of a state. But Senators are to represent the state. There are only two for each state. Period. No state gets more weight than another. Originally, they were not elected via open election as they are now, but through the Governor of the State for which they served. Their service was distinctly to be for the Republic from whence they hailed. It added weight to the sovereignty of the republics.
Thanks to the 17Th Amendment the original intent of the Founding Fathers for balance of sovereignty of the Republics versus the vote of the people for their Representative was dissolved. The amendment left little left of the sovereignty of states. In fact the reality is that by Judaical Fiat, States are now required to accept another state's laws as its own. Sovereignty has become as effective as a live concert done by lip-syncing. One mistake and the reality is inevitable: There is no live concert after all. It is a fraud.
For this reason it becomes critical that when one state enacts law, other surrounding states must watch carefully and weigh the consequences for it's own sake. We have many such circumstances arising today. One of the most critically watched with incredible impact to change the nature, character, culture and laws of neighboring states is the behavior of California. With the condoning of Gay marriage and exploitation by taking children on field trips to view such events, comes the raised eyebrows and preventative posturing by neighboring states and organizations throughout the Nation in defense. Now, with California's Proposition 8 on the ballot, these same states, and watchful organizations are rallying together to protect their own positions by supporting California's Proposition. Sovereignty no more, the Nation will band and must band or fail.
With that, the following News Release--one of many from literally hundreds of supporting organizations--is published here for and on behalf of the Utah Federation of Republican Women with a challenge to all other neighboring Federations to take the same stand.
NEWS RELEASE:
Utah Federation of Republican Women Endorses Calif. Prop. 8--Encourages Support
In an aggressive move to swiftly show support to its neighbors to the West, Utah's Federation of Republican Women Board of Directors voted electronically as to whether they supported California's Proposition 8, a referendum on the ballot for the November election that would state the official and legal stand of the State is that marriage is between a man and a woman legally married.
The Federation took action while the State's contingency of delegates, including its own President, Darcy Kruitbosch, was at the National Republican Nominating Convention.
First Vice President, and Legislative/Mobilization Chair, Sheryl Devereaux, received information from another Republican Woman working on promoting the Proposition, Cherilyn Bacon Eagar, Professional Republican Women of Salt Lake City (PRW), and issued the motion for a vote in support of the Proposition.
The UFRW's basic reason for involvement in California's proposition is due to of the enormous "tsunami-like" effects on the State of Utah, as Devereaux described it. "What goes on in California will ultimately affect us as well," she said. "We cannot expect to ignore the rippling effect of cultural and moral changes there and ignorantly believe that pretending that our lack of involvement in that cause will result in anything less than the same crippling changes pounding at our doorsteps here as well."
PRW's Communications Chairwoman Cherilyn Bacon Eagar added, "Without our help, this Proposition will go down and Utah's culture, religious liberties and families will be seriously affected. The California law allows same gender marriages not only for Californians, but also for those who reside in other states and it will surely bring costly court challenges to Utah.
"Every child deserves a society that promotes the optimal environment for their growth and development," Eagar continued. "That environment is one in which there is both a mother and a father. Same gender marriage denies children that healthy environment. Religious liberties are also at stake. The outcome of this Proposition will affect all of us."
In addition to Ms. Eagar, Suzanne Merrill, President of Utah County Republican Women, is also distributing information and instructions to the public as well as Republican Women club members for active involvement. In a recent memo to all members she stated,
"To do your part in supporting Prop 8, all people need to do is email:
Joan Erzer Behrens (Utah Representative from California) at joan.behrens@cox.net requesting faxed lists of California Republican registered voters, with the instructions. It is very simple and people can now do it from their homes if they prefer, or one person can invite several to bring their cell phones (with nation-wide free calling) to their homes and they can do it together and have one person turn in all their lists, which will be reported back weekly. This information will be included in instructions.
For Utah Information and possible suggestions: "Some are organizing their precincts and neighbors. We cannot organize by wards and stakes -only communities and zip codes, however in CA every ward is to have 10 people with one person coordinating."
According to PRW's website: You can access the Q&A and Myths & Facts at www.ProtectMarriage.org by clicking on the “resources” tab.
Information about membership in a Republican Women Club can be found contacting President Kruitbosch at 801-731-0654, or http://www.myufrw.org./
-30-
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Power of Voice By Our Representatives
You have to admire the tenacity and courage of elected officials who are willing to put their political safety on the line--not knowing in absolute--how the voter might react to everything one might say or an idea defended. So when I see an elected official from my own back yard step forward to proclaim with straight talk and honest forthrigthness about the state of affairs in a race, rather than the 'poor me' language so easily spilled into our laps as we sit reading and listening and then getting confused by the soundbite of local politicians runing for office. I am delighted. We have some refreshing voices still to be heard, it seems. These are the voices not to be silenced. These are those we want continued on our behalf. These are those we want to preserve in their offices--to protect and continure to build their campaignes so their honest, clear service can continue to serve us.
Lorie Fowlke of Utah District 59 has such a voice. She is one of courage and integriy. Unabashedly direct she recently sent out a review report regarding the hehavior and tactics employed by the Democratic Party and it's apparent tactics to win--or at least to make sure the Republicans loose.
Representtive Fowlke has created one of the best peices of politican essay this season. I could not do better, not say anything with more excellence or efficacy. Her article is reprinted here by permission in its entirety.
Dear friends and neighbors:
I previously sent the enclosed materials to our Republican delegates and leaders and they have suggested it be distributed more widely. The Utah County Democratic Party has elected to pursue some interesting strategies in their quest for office. As your Representative, I feel a responsibility to respond to what is happening in the political arena and bring certain things to your attention. This is the first time in a long time that we have had democratic opponents in every House and Senate race for the Utah legislature in Utah County. I welcome the opportunity for more people to become involved in the process, analyze the issues and become informed. As that process progresses, it is important that the public understand the issues, and the options available to meet the challenges that we face, as a State.
I know and apologize in advance for the length of these materials; however, the index on the top of the next page should help you go to those areas that most interest you. Please take the time to read this material and be prepared to answer questions when they arise.
Sincerely,
LORIE D. FOWLKE
Representative
DEMOCRATS - PRACTICE NON-DISCLOSURE
1. Nondisclosure.
Much press was made a few months ago about the local Democrats persuading "viable candidates" to run for office in Utah County. The claim was the need for a more "balanced" government with a stronger "two-party" system. Where have the Democrats all gone? While hundreds of signs are up all over Utah County for State legislative offices, thousands of pamphlets are passed, and billboards abound, virtually none have a donkey or the big "D", though every district has a Democrat running for office. This failure to disclose their Democratic Party affiliation is confusing to voters.. This is not Obama v. McCain where everyone knows what party they are from.
Rather than justify their party's liberal platform, Utah County Democrats have adopted a "local" platform that almost mirrors that of the Republicans. If they are embarrassed about being Democrats in Utah County, then why run as Democrats? There is plenty of diversity in the Republican Party; however, running as a Republican would require working through convention and a primary election, which is avoided if one runs as a Democrat.
The main problem, though, with running as a Democrat, is that no matter how much you may disclaim the national party ideology, local and state parties are their foot soldiers. When controversy arises, party affiliation counts. Even in Utah this happens. In 2004, the constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman was approved in the State Senate by only one vote; everyone voted along party lines. One more Democrat would have killed the bill to protect our traditional families.
DEMOCRATS - MAINTAIN SELECTIVE MEMORY
2. Selective Memory.
In their rush to demonize the Republican majority legislature, the local Democrats are anxious to ignore the accolades Utah has received for being the best managed state in the nation and the best economy for business. They focus on what they claim are its shortcomings. Here is a list of our Democratic Party candidate's claims and the "real facts."
EDUCATION
Democratic Claim: Utah has the largest class sizes in the U.S. and Democrats want to reduce them. Fifty percent of teachers leave the first five years. Teachers do not receive the money they should.
Fact: Yes, Utah does have large classes; no one can dispute that. In fact, they jumped in 2002-2003, the lean budget years after 9/11, in part because districts still gave teacher raises. However, there is no data to verify they are the largest in the U.S. Part of the problem is how you define the ratio. Is it students to a teacher, a faculty member, a teacher's aid, or another employee? Though class sizes are large, our compensation now falls in the mid-range for the nation. The fact is that while everyone talks about reducing class size, the money to do so is prohibitive, for even a small adjustment. Even if we could fund all the teachers necessary, we do not have the buildings for all the capital improvements for extra classrooms. Several years ago, the legislature did provide money for some class size reduction. Some districts used it wisely for that purpose and other districts cannot account for the money at all.
There are no studies showing more teachers leave Utah schools in the first five years than elsewhere. However, data does show more teachers are women; according to exit surveys, they leave most often for "non-teaching" reasons, meaning not to teach somewhere else, but because they choose to stay home and have a family or because their spouse finished school. Some teachers have been lured to states like Wyoming that have more money, but that is usually directed more at college graduates. Teachers often return to teaching, after their family becomes older. Teacher retention is always an issue and the legislature has addressed this in the last few years with a number of bills.
Democratic Claim: Charter schools draw from property taxes, income taxes and other taxes but are not as regulated as public schools. Their teachers do not need to specialize in the subjects they teach. Charter schools need more accountability. On average, charter school students score below public school students.
Fact: Many people do not understand that Charter Schools are public schools. They are funded basically the same on a state-wide basis. However, they do not have the power to bond and they provide their own buildings. They have no geographic boundaries, so they do not receive a share of property taxes. Because of this, the State has provided local replacement funding, based on a statewide average of this assessment. The legislature passed a bill this session, which is currently in the process of being amended for next session. This bill tries to balance the statewide average assessment with the individual district assessments, so that districts can provide a fair share of the funding for the students in their district that go to charter schools. Currently, that is 25%; the state pays the 75%. There is also a hold harmless provision for districts like Alpine, that are lower than the state average.
Charter school teachers have the same certification requirements as all other public schools; however, many of the charter schools do not take funds from the federal government and therefore do not have to comply with "No Child Left Behind" requirements. Any deviations have to be in their charter application, which is approved by the State Board of Education. Parents must be advised of teachers' qualifications and certifications. Charter Schools are accountable to the State Board of Education and the parents of their students. There is no study showing charter school students score lower than other public school students.
Democratic Claim: Utah spends less money for education than it did in 1995.
Fact: Two years ago, the Utah Foundation, an education oriented research organization, claimed that Utah spent a lower percentage of its budget on education in 2005 than it did in 1995. The foundation report also states that Utah provides less money per pupil than any other state. Both claims are probably accurate or at least close. However, the rest of the story is that in the last three years Utah has spent over one billion dollars of new money, the bulk of its surplus, on education, and the percentage of its budget going to education has increased substantially. Further, there are numerous other studies measuring performance, spending, and accountability. Examples are below:
18th in nation on spending for K-12 with 54.4% of State funds going to education; national average was 47% - Education State Rankings by CQ Press (using 2005 numbers, which do not include the extra $ billion recently funded).
Top in nation for HS graduation rates at 83% - Education Week Report Cards: EPE Research Center with support from Pew Center on the States
27th in nation for achievement - Education Week
"F" grade for alignment policies, connecting K-12 with early learning, higher education and world of work. - Education Week
We still spend less per pupil, and we may do so for years to come. The reason is that we have more children per tax payer than any other state; yet we pay a larger portion of our budget on education than most states. Some of the challenges we face in our continuing effort to increase funding in education are that the federal government consistently decreases their share of Medicaid funding, which is paid for by both state and federal funds. The federal government also cut their transportation funding from an 80/20 split to -0- in the last decade. However, in addition to funding comparisons, we should also compare results and accountability.
Democratic Claim: The Utah legislature changed the law so that income tax funds that used to all go to Education, now may go to "other things."
Fact: This is simply incorrect, unless you define "other things" as higher education. In 2002 the legislature passed a resolution to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Our original state Constitution provided that all incomes taxes should be used for public education, meaning K-12. The amendment stated that income tax funds could be used for public education and higher education. The public approved the amendment and that is how the Constitution reads today. No income tax funds are ever used for anything but public education and higher education.
Democratic Claim: The UEA supported Lorie Fowlke until she started supporting vouchers. Lorie did not support vouchers at first until Republican leadership talked to her; she only does what the party requests.
Fact: I did not ask for the UEA endorsement in 2004, but they were kind enough to provide it. My campaign pledge in this area has always been the same, to support school choice so long as it did not harm public education.
In 2005 a school choice bill was filed that did not protect public education and I voted against it. In 2008 the school choice bill filed held public education harmless. It was an experiment to try and find innovative ways to decrease the number of students in the public school and pay less for them to be educated in private schools. I voted for it because I believed it was worth a try and did not believe it would harm public education. Republican leadership did not pressure me to vote for it; I feel that encouraging innovation is one way we can meet the challenge of educating so many children with our small tax base. I do try to support the party, because I believe in Republican principles of limited government, but am not blindly obedient by any means.
HEALTH INSURANCE
Democratic Claim: There are 90,000 uninsured children in Utah. Every child should be able to have quality health care. We need incentives to maintain good health care and wellness. We need to have employers provide health insurance. We could learn from other countries regarding their health insurance programs.
Fact: This number of uninsured children has been reported many times by the press. While no one disputes it would be nice for everyone, especially children, to have quality health care, the challenge is to find a way to pay for it. As a state we are still trying to afford a quality education for every child. This last session the legislature provided open enrollment for CHIPS insurance for children, so that all children who qualify for CHIPS can enroll at any time during the year for such services.
Incentives for good health are something many health insurance companies are now providing, and appear to be somewhat successful. Whether or not government should pay people to develop healthy life style habits is questionable. Mandating all employers to provide health insurance for their employees would likely decimate small businesses in this State. As business is what provides much of the tax base for our State, this would be self-defeating in a short time.
We should certainly learn from other countries regarding health insurance programs. Talk to anyone from England or Canada, for example, where socialized health care is a disaster. Stories abound of patients who died on gurneys in hospital hallways, waiting for a doctor, and doctors fleeing to America because the government put a cap on their earnings. While we need to address a way to develop affordable health care, socialized medicine is not the way to do it. All year the Utah Health Care Task Force has been meeting to examine this issue. The first step was made last session by beginning to require transparency in health care costs.
ENVIRONMENT
Democratic Claim: Utah County air quality is below EPA standards and should be cleaned up.
Fact: This is accurate, as far as it goes. In 2006 we complied with the standards; however thereafter, the EPA increased the regulations. Refer to www.deq.utah.gov for more detailed information. The 2007 annual report provides the following information:
"Our mountain-and-valley topography, diverse economy, and a vastly growing population create some air quality challenges for the state. Despite these challenges, Utah's air continues to improve. Stricter regulations for motor vehicles and industry, as well as other emission reduction programs, have helped reduce smog and improved visibility. As noted in the 2006 report, in the early 1980s, Utah struggled to meet the health standards for four of the six criteria pollutants identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During 2006, all Utah counties attained current federal air quality standards.
The 2007 air quality season proved to be more challenging. In 2007, Utah's population grew to nearly 2.7 million - a record 3.2 percent increase over the previous year. Air quality concerns have prompted Governor Jon Huntsman to address the issue as one of his top priorities during the second half of his administration.
The growing concern is partly due to the fact that scientific evidence about the health effects of air pollutants have prompted the EPA to tighten the standards for ozone and very fine particles known as PM. On December 18, 2006, the allowable daily average of fine particles standard went into effect, reducing the standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m) to 35 ug/m. Since the standard has been in place, Utah has achieved a mere 20 percent compliance. Anticipated this spring of 2008 is a change to the 8-hour ozone standard. If that standard changes, it is anticipated that Utah counties won't be able to meet those tougher new health standards either. For more information on the new standard visit: http://epa.gov/pm/naaqsrev2006.html."
No one, including Republicans, wants polluted air, water, or ground. However, environmental extremists are a big part of the reason we are experiencing the energy crisis today, and what precludes us from achieving energy independence. We have the natural resources in our state for all our needs; we cannot get to them because of federal environmental regulations. Like many things, a reasonable balance is required.
ETHICS
Democratic Claim: Utah has the best legislature "money can buy" and needs ethics reform. There is no limit on the amount of money a legislator can receive and no restriction on how a legislator uses the money. Legislators received $250,000 in gifts such as trips to Italy and Jazz tickets. Utah received a D- from a national organization grading ethical practices of legislatures.
Fact: Claiming that the individuals, who serve at the Utah legislature in your behalf, and their votes, are bought and paid for by lobbyists is slanderous and Democratic political hype. However, the attack is illogical, since no matter why the legislature did what it did, Utah is still the "best managed state" in the country, and one of the few with minimal fiscal problems during this financial downturn, comparatively speaking.
It is true there are no limits to what any legislator of any party can receive in campaign contributions. There are some restrictions on how they spend campaign funds but those are minimal. It is true that many legislators have received Jazz tickets occasionally. Usually they are to a box with several other legislators and business professionals. Some watch the game and some spend the time discussing various policy issues, or a little of both. Some legislators also receive rounds of golf with about the same mix of play and political discussion. No legislator ever received a trip to Italy. The "trip to Italy" was purchased by a legislator at a fund-raiser at the Boys and Girls Club of Utah. The legislator took two other couples, one of whom happened to be a friend and lobbyist. The press did not bother about the details but simply reported the trip and implied the rest.
Utah did receive a D- from a national organization, but it was not grading ethics, but campaign disclosure laws. You can see the report at the website of the Campaign Disclosure Project, at www.campaigdisclosureorg/gradingstate/ut.html. It reports what is disclosed by the state's reporting system, when, and how usable it is.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Democratic Claim: Utah has not done enough to bring public transportation to Utah County. We are five or six years behind where we should be.
Fact: Utah has had public transportation with buses for decades. In 2003 the legislature passed a bill to allow counties to address commuter rail, particularly the unique structure of Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in Utah County (not all cities in the county are members of UTA). At the time and for several years thereafter, UTA had no effective plan to promote commuter rail or pay for it. Finally, Utah County, Provo City [with Mayor Billings], and several Utah County legislators hired a private consultant to determine the cost of construction and operation.
UTA had insisted it would cost ¼ of a cent sales tax increase in taxes to build and another ¼ cent to maintain. The independent consultant did its analysis and stated it would cost 87% of ¼ a cent. When faced with this report, UTA agreed the analysis was correct and agreed to move ahead. The county placed the funding issue before the people for a vote, and it passed last November; the groundbreaking for Commuter Rail has already occurred. They are now in the design stage. The goal is to be complete within 2-3 years, to coincide with the I-15 reconstruction.
We have also pushed for express buses, which are extremely popular. The salient point is that public transit continues to be a local function with the UTA, and the legislature does its part to support the cities and counties in providing the solutions that best fit their constituencies.
ELECTIONS
Democratic Claim: Utah was last in the nation for percentage of voters, because there is a single political persuasion, so people feel their vote does not count.
FACT: In the 2006 general election, it is true that Utah had the least percentage of voters. Voter participation in Utah appears to have been unpredictable over the past number of elections. Here is a link to a Census Bureau page that has reports for previous elections on participation in the states and DC. You have to open the report for each election and scroll down to find the chart on states' relative rates of participation (measured by percent of voting age citizens). http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html . Here's what they show back to 2000:
" 2006: Lowest in nation with about 36% participation
" 2004: near top in participation
" 2002: ranked 38/51
" 2000: above average
Utah is above average in Presidential years, but below average in non-Presidential years (2006, 2002). Whether the fall from 38th in 2002 to 51st in 2006 is a trend or a one-time deal remains to be seen. As for its reasons, the Associated Press reported Utah has many young voters, which is a demographic that tends to make it to the polls less often. BYU professor Kelly Patterson was quoted as saying that 2006 was not a very competitive year in the congressional districts and U.S. senate race. Utah's registration rules may also have an impact, as voters in Utah must register 20 days before an election. Just last month the legislative Government Operations committee approved a bill to allow online voter registration, which should have a positive effect on voter turnout.
TAXES
Democratic Claim: Democrats will not raise taxes but accomplish needed changes by promoting "clearer priorities."
Fact: There is not enough money in the Utah state budget to pay to decrease class size, increase teacher pay, pay for ongoing education growth, provide health insurance for all Utah children, mandate health insurance for all employers, pay for I-15 and pay for commuter rail along the Wasatch front, not to mention all the other State's needs and services. Therefore, if Democrats are going to accomplish all these things, they would have to increase taxes and find other revenue sources. No Democrat in Utah County has provided any clear means to pay for these all services they promise.
Because the Republican controlled legislature cannot provide for all of these things now, does not mean they do not believe these issues are unimportant. To the contrary, a review of the budget and the State's spending in the last four years would show that the legislature has prioritized education and transportation over every other area. Medicaid and related programs are also one of the largest expenses of the State budget. While all these issues are critical to our citizens, they do not generate income for the State; they take it. It is business's sales tax and income tax that provides the funds. Any criticism of State expenditures must be analyzed within the context of our entire budget. If we want to spend more on education, health insurance, or transportation, tell the legislature what services to cut, or taxes to raise, in order to do so.
paid for by the committee to re-elect Lorie Fowlke
Lorie Fowlke of Utah District 59 has such a voice. She is one of courage and integriy. Unabashedly direct she recently sent out a review report regarding the hehavior and tactics employed by the Democratic Party and it's apparent tactics to win--or at least to make sure the Republicans loose.
Representtive Fowlke has created one of the best peices of politican essay this season. I could not do better, not say anything with more excellence or efficacy. Her article is reprinted here by permission in its entirety.
Dear friends and neighbors:
I previously sent the enclosed materials to our Republican delegates and leaders and they have suggested it be distributed more widely. The Utah County Democratic Party has elected to pursue some interesting strategies in their quest for office. As your Representative, I feel a responsibility to respond to what is happening in the political arena and bring certain things to your attention. This is the first time in a long time that we have had democratic opponents in every House and Senate race for the Utah legislature in Utah County. I welcome the opportunity for more people to become involved in the process, analyze the issues and become informed. As that process progresses, it is important that the public understand the issues, and the options available to meet the challenges that we face, as a State.
I know and apologize in advance for the length of these materials; however, the index on the top of the next page should help you go to those areas that most interest you. Please take the time to read this material and be prepared to answer questions when they arise.
Sincerely,
LORIE D. FOWLKE
Representative
DEMOCRATS - PRACTICE NON-DISCLOSURE
1. Nondisclosure.
Much press was made a few months ago about the local Democrats persuading "viable candidates" to run for office in Utah County. The claim was the need for a more "balanced" government with a stronger "two-party" system. Where have the Democrats all gone? While hundreds of signs are up all over Utah County for State legislative offices, thousands of pamphlets are passed, and billboards abound, virtually none have a donkey or the big "D", though every district has a Democrat running for office. This failure to disclose their Democratic Party affiliation is confusing to voters.. This is not Obama v. McCain where everyone knows what party they are from.
Rather than justify their party's liberal platform, Utah County Democrats have adopted a "local" platform that almost mirrors that of the Republicans. If they are embarrassed about being Democrats in Utah County, then why run as Democrats? There is plenty of diversity in the Republican Party; however, running as a Republican would require working through convention and a primary election, which is avoided if one runs as a Democrat.
The main problem, though, with running as a Democrat, is that no matter how much you may disclaim the national party ideology, local and state parties are their foot soldiers. When controversy arises, party affiliation counts. Even in Utah this happens. In 2004, the constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman was approved in the State Senate by only one vote; everyone voted along party lines. One more Democrat would have killed the bill to protect our traditional families.
DEMOCRATS - MAINTAIN SELECTIVE MEMORY
2. Selective Memory.
In their rush to demonize the Republican majority legislature, the local Democrats are anxious to ignore the accolades Utah has received for being the best managed state in the nation and the best economy for business. They focus on what they claim are its shortcomings. Here is a list of our Democratic Party candidate's claims and the "real facts."
EDUCATION
Democratic Claim: Utah has the largest class sizes in the U.S. and Democrats want to reduce them. Fifty percent of teachers leave the first five years. Teachers do not receive the money they should.
Fact: Yes, Utah does have large classes; no one can dispute that. In fact, they jumped in 2002-2003, the lean budget years after 9/11, in part because districts still gave teacher raises. However, there is no data to verify they are the largest in the U.S. Part of the problem is how you define the ratio. Is it students to a teacher, a faculty member, a teacher's aid, or another employee? Though class sizes are large, our compensation now falls in the mid-range for the nation. The fact is that while everyone talks about reducing class size, the money to do so is prohibitive, for even a small adjustment. Even if we could fund all the teachers necessary, we do not have the buildings for all the capital improvements for extra classrooms. Several years ago, the legislature did provide money for some class size reduction. Some districts used it wisely for that purpose and other districts cannot account for the money at all.
There are no studies showing more teachers leave Utah schools in the first five years than elsewhere. However, data does show more teachers are women; according to exit surveys, they leave most often for "non-teaching" reasons, meaning not to teach somewhere else, but because they choose to stay home and have a family or because their spouse finished school. Some teachers have been lured to states like Wyoming that have more money, but that is usually directed more at college graduates. Teachers often return to teaching, after their family becomes older. Teacher retention is always an issue and the legislature has addressed this in the last few years with a number of bills.
Democratic Claim: Charter schools draw from property taxes, income taxes and other taxes but are not as regulated as public schools. Their teachers do not need to specialize in the subjects they teach. Charter schools need more accountability. On average, charter school students score below public school students.
Fact: Many people do not understand that Charter Schools are public schools. They are funded basically the same on a state-wide basis. However, they do not have the power to bond and they provide their own buildings. They have no geographic boundaries, so they do not receive a share of property taxes. Because of this, the State has provided local replacement funding, based on a statewide average of this assessment. The legislature passed a bill this session, which is currently in the process of being amended for next session. This bill tries to balance the statewide average assessment with the individual district assessments, so that districts can provide a fair share of the funding for the students in their district that go to charter schools. Currently, that is 25%; the state pays the 75%. There is also a hold harmless provision for districts like Alpine, that are lower than the state average.
Charter school teachers have the same certification requirements as all other public schools; however, many of the charter schools do not take funds from the federal government and therefore do not have to comply with "No Child Left Behind" requirements. Any deviations have to be in their charter application, which is approved by the State Board of Education. Parents must be advised of teachers' qualifications and certifications. Charter Schools are accountable to the State Board of Education and the parents of their students. There is no study showing charter school students score lower than other public school students.
Democratic Claim: Utah spends less money for education than it did in 1995.
Fact: Two years ago, the Utah Foundation, an education oriented research organization, claimed that Utah spent a lower percentage of its budget on education in 2005 than it did in 1995. The foundation report also states that Utah provides less money per pupil than any other state. Both claims are probably accurate or at least close. However, the rest of the story is that in the last three years Utah has spent over one billion dollars of new money, the bulk of its surplus, on education, and the percentage of its budget going to education has increased substantially. Further, there are numerous other studies measuring performance, spending, and accountability. Examples are below:
18th in nation on spending for K-12 with 54.4% of State funds going to education; national average was 47% - Education State Rankings by CQ Press (using 2005 numbers, which do not include the extra $ billion recently funded).
Top in nation for HS graduation rates at 83% - Education Week Report Cards: EPE Research Center with support from Pew Center on the States
27th in nation for achievement - Education Week
"F" grade for alignment policies, connecting K-12 with early learning, higher education and world of work. - Education Week
We still spend less per pupil, and we may do so for years to come. The reason is that we have more children per tax payer than any other state; yet we pay a larger portion of our budget on education than most states. Some of the challenges we face in our continuing effort to increase funding in education are that the federal government consistently decreases their share of Medicaid funding, which is paid for by both state and federal funds. The federal government also cut their transportation funding from an 80/20 split to -0- in the last decade. However, in addition to funding comparisons, we should also compare results and accountability.
Democratic Claim: The Utah legislature changed the law so that income tax funds that used to all go to Education, now may go to "other things."
Fact: This is simply incorrect, unless you define "other things" as higher education. In 2002 the legislature passed a resolution to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Our original state Constitution provided that all incomes taxes should be used for public education, meaning K-12. The amendment stated that income tax funds could be used for public education and higher education. The public approved the amendment and that is how the Constitution reads today. No income tax funds are ever used for anything but public education and higher education.
Democratic Claim: The UEA supported Lorie Fowlke until she started supporting vouchers. Lorie did not support vouchers at first until Republican leadership talked to her; she only does what the party requests.
Fact: I did not ask for the UEA endorsement in 2004, but they were kind enough to provide it. My campaign pledge in this area has always been the same, to support school choice so long as it did not harm public education.
In 2005 a school choice bill was filed that did not protect public education and I voted against it. In 2008 the school choice bill filed held public education harmless. It was an experiment to try and find innovative ways to decrease the number of students in the public school and pay less for them to be educated in private schools. I voted for it because I believed it was worth a try and did not believe it would harm public education. Republican leadership did not pressure me to vote for it; I feel that encouraging innovation is one way we can meet the challenge of educating so many children with our small tax base. I do try to support the party, because I believe in Republican principles of limited government, but am not blindly obedient by any means.
HEALTH INSURANCE
Democratic Claim: There are 90,000 uninsured children in Utah. Every child should be able to have quality health care. We need incentives to maintain good health care and wellness. We need to have employers provide health insurance. We could learn from other countries regarding their health insurance programs.
Fact: This number of uninsured children has been reported many times by the press. While no one disputes it would be nice for everyone, especially children, to have quality health care, the challenge is to find a way to pay for it. As a state we are still trying to afford a quality education for every child. This last session the legislature provided open enrollment for CHIPS insurance for children, so that all children who qualify for CHIPS can enroll at any time during the year for such services.
Incentives for good health are something many health insurance companies are now providing, and appear to be somewhat successful. Whether or not government should pay people to develop healthy life style habits is questionable. Mandating all employers to provide health insurance for their employees would likely decimate small businesses in this State. As business is what provides much of the tax base for our State, this would be self-defeating in a short time.
We should certainly learn from other countries regarding health insurance programs. Talk to anyone from England or Canada, for example, where socialized health care is a disaster. Stories abound of patients who died on gurneys in hospital hallways, waiting for a doctor, and doctors fleeing to America because the government put a cap on their earnings. While we need to address a way to develop affordable health care, socialized medicine is not the way to do it. All year the Utah Health Care Task Force has been meeting to examine this issue. The first step was made last session by beginning to require transparency in health care costs.
ENVIRONMENT
Democratic Claim: Utah County air quality is below EPA standards and should be cleaned up.
Fact: This is accurate, as far as it goes. In 2006 we complied with the standards; however thereafter, the EPA increased the regulations. Refer to www.deq.utah.gov for more detailed information. The 2007 annual report provides the following information:
"Our mountain-and-valley topography, diverse economy, and a vastly growing population create some air quality challenges for the state. Despite these challenges, Utah's air continues to improve. Stricter regulations for motor vehicles and industry, as well as other emission reduction programs, have helped reduce smog and improved visibility. As noted in the 2006 report, in the early 1980s, Utah struggled to meet the health standards for four of the six criteria pollutants identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During 2006, all Utah counties attained current federal air quality standards.
The 2007 air quality season proved to be more challenging. In 2007, Utah's population grew to nearly 2.7 million - a record 3.2 percent increase over the previous year. Air quality concerns have prompted Governor Jon Huntsman to address the issue as one of his top priorities during the second half of his administration.
The growing concern is partly due to the fact that scientific evidence about the health effects of air pollutants have prompted the EPA to tighten the standards for ozone and very fine particles known as PM. On December 18, 2006, the allowable daily average of fine particles standard went into effect, reducing the standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m) to 35 ug/m. Since the standard has been in place, Utah has achieved a mere 20 percent compliance. Anticipated this spring of 2008 is a change to the 8-hour ozone standard. If that standard changes, it is anticipated that Utah counties won't be able to meet those tougher new health standards either. For more information on the new standard visit: http://epa.gov/pm/naaqsrev2006.html."
No one, including Republicans, wants polluted air, water, or ground. However, environmental extremists are a big part of the reason we are experiencing the energy crisis today, and what precludes us from achieving energy independence. We have the natural resources in our state for all our needs; we cannot get to them because of federal environmental regulations. Like many things, a reasonable balance is required.
ETHICS
Democratic Claim: Utah has the best legislature "money can buy" and needs ethics reform. There is no limit on the amount of money a legislator can receive and no restriction on how a legislator uses the money. Legislators received $250,000 in gifts such as trips to Italy and Jazz tickets. Utah received a D- from a national organization grading ethical practices of legislatures.
Fact: Claiming that the individuals, who serve at the Utah legislature in your behalf, and their votes, are bought and paid for by lobbyists is slanderous and Democratic political hype. However, the attack is illogical, since no matter why the legislature did what it did, Utah is still the "best managed state" in the country, and one of the few with minimal fiscal problems during this financial downturn, comparatively speaking.
It is true there are no limits to what any legislator of any party can receive in campaign contributions. There are some restrictions on how they spend campaign funds but those are minimal. It is true that many legislators have received Jazz tickets occasionally. Usually they are to a box with several other legislators and business professionals. Some watch the game and some spend the time discussing various policy issues, or a little of both. Some legislators also receive rounds of golf with about the same mix of play and political discussion. No legislator ever received a trip to Italy. The "trip to Italy" was purchased by a legislator at a fund-raiser at the Boys and Girls Club of Utah. The legislator took two other couples, one of whom happened to be a friend and lobbyist. The press did not bother about the details but simply reported the trip and implied the rest.
Utah did receive a D- from a national organization, but it was not grading ethics, but campaign disclosure laws. You can see the report at the website of the Campaign Disclosure Project, at www.campaigdisclosureorg/gradingstate/ut.html. It reports what is disclosed by the state's reporting system, when, and how usable it is.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Democratic Claim: Utah has not done enough to bring public transportation to Utah County. We are five or six years behind where we should be.
Fact: Utah has had public transportation with buses for decades. In 2003 the legislature passed a bill to allow counties to address commuter rail, particularly the unique structure of Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in Utah County (not all cities in the county are members of UTA). At the time and for several years thereafter, UTA had no effective plan to promote commuter rail or pay for it. Finally, Utah County, Provo City [with Mayor Billings], and several Utah County legislators hired a private consultant to determine the cost of construction and operation.
UTA had insisted it would cost ¼ of a cent sales tax increase in taxes to build and another ¼ cent to maintain. The independent consultant did its analysis and stated it would cost 87% of ¼ a cent. When faced with this report, UTA agreed the analysis was correct and agreed to move ahead. The county placed the funding issue before the people for a vote, and it passed last November; the groundbreaking for Commuter Rail has already occurred. They are now in the design stage. The goal is to be complete within 2-3 years, to coincide with the I-15 reconstruction.
We have also pushed for express buses, which are extremely popular. The salient point is that public transit continues to be a local function with the UTA, and the legislature does its part to support the cities and counties in providing the solutions that best fit their constituencies.
ELECTIONS
Democratic Claim: Utah was last in the nation for percentage of voters, because there is a single political persuasion, so people feel their vote does not count.
FACT: In the 2006 general election, it is true that Utah had the least percentage of voters. Voter participation in Utah appears to have been unpredictable over the past number of elections. Here is a link to a Census Bureau page that has reports for previous elections on participation in the states and DC. You have to open the report for each election and scroll down to find the chart on states' relative rates of participation (measured by percent of voting age citizens). http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html . Here's what they show back to 2000:
" 2006: Lowest in nation with about 36% participation
" 2004: near top in participation
" 2002: ranked 38/51
" 2000: above average
Utah is above average in Presidential years, but below average in non-Presidential years (2006, 2002). Whether the fall from 38th in 2002 to 51st in 2006 is a trend or a one-time deal remains to be seen. As for its reasons, the Associated Press reported Utah has many young voters, which is a demographic that tends to make it to the polls less often. BYU professor Kelly Patterson was quoted as saying that 2006 was not a very competitive year in the congressional districts and U.S. senate race. Utah's registration rules may also have an impact, as voters in Utah must register 20 days before an election. Just last month the legislative Government Operations committee approved a bill to allow online voter registration, which should have a positive effect on voter turnout.
TAXES
Democratic Claim: Democrats will not raise taxes but accomplish needed changes by promoting "clearer priorities."
Fact: There is not enough money in the Utah state budget to pay to decrease class size, increase teacher pay, pay for ongoing education growth, provide health insurance for all Utah children, mandate health insurance for all employers, pay for I-15 and pay for commuter rail along the Wasatch front, not to mention all the other State's needs and services. Therefore, if Democrats are going to accomplish all these things, they would have to increase taxes and find other revenue sources. No Democrat in Utah County has provided any clear means to pay for these all services they promise.
Because the Republican controlled legislature cannot provide for all of these things now, does not mean they do not believe these issues are unimportant. To the contrary, a review of the budget and the State's spending in the last four years would show that the legislature has prioritized education and transportation over every other area. Medicaid and related programs are also one of the largest expenses of the State budget. While all these issues are critical to our citizens, they do not generate income for the State; they take it. It is business's sales tax and income tax that provides the funds. Any criticism of State expenditures must be analyzed within the context of our entire budget. If we want to spend more on education, health insurance, or transportation, tell the legislature what services to cut, or taxes to raise, in order to do so.
paid for by the committee to re-elect Lorie Fowlke
Sunday, October 5, 2008
"Oh No Joe Say It Ain't So!"
I and some fellow hard core Republican political junkies were watching the Vice Presidential Debates last Thursday. Sarah Palin, in her casual, "I'm not one of YOU" fashion chastised Joseph Bidon for back pedalling, recreating past history with the efficiency of a clever mom planning to win a round with a child who just got caught raiding the cookie jar 5 minutes before dinner and lied about it. But she proved she was more than that. Palin volunteered discussion on national and international issues, brought up blunders by both parties-a gutsy move--and looked Americans straight in the eye when talking to them. And she said she would. She must have listened to her mother when growing up. Or she was listening to mine, who taught me to look people in the eye when I was talking to them. It was rude not to.
With all Palin's direct but polite manners, there was one comment that resonated all night for me. It took me back when she said it, because it rolled off her tongue just like she was chastising that youngster again. Done without guile or malice, Palin went straight to the point: "Bidon. you are out of line and trying to pull a fast one, and I'm not taking it," was the message. But what she said was, "Oh, no, Joe, say it ain't so!" What a phrase. Every time Bidon made a gaff, we. in the living room, chimed, "Oh, no, Joe, say it ain't so!" It should be a bumper sticker.
It should be the clarion call for local politicking in Utah races. "Oh no, Joe Democrat, say it ain't so!" I have never seen such a mess of desperate measures and albeit debatable, quite possibly winnable measures as well, taken on before in this state. Where Utah was once a state of integrity and unmeasured strength of character in the political arena, the Democratic Party has guaranteed that reputation will change for Utah with this year's races.
Take District 62 for instance. Chris Herrod, the Rookie Republican is the incumbent. His Democratic challenger is Claralyn Hill. She is supposedly running on a platform of transparency--transparency that the Republicans don't have she allegedly claims. Trouble is, that she apparently has the problem herself. She, until cornered by some Republicans, including Herrod himself, I understand, was not telling people she was a Democrat. Her signs, along with ALL other Democratic candidates does not bear any designation or identification of how she has filed. Who and What is she? In addition, her signs, along with the Utah County Democratic Platform look conspicuously similar to Republican signs--more red than blue. I'm surprised they didn't find an elephant to stick in the corner! The platform language is so surprisingly similar to the Republican one, that at first blush, you would believe Claralyn Hill was actually a second Republican running against Herrod in the General Election--at first blush.
Since the scope of this article doesn't take in discussion about the content of the platforms, I'll reserve that for a latter date. For now, the point is really about the deception that seems to be running so rampant this year for the sake of winning. Winning a race, for the most part--at least in Utah--used to be about the best man or woman suited for the job. These days, it seems all about the man or woman him or herself. What ever it takes to win a race is what is done. Lie, deceive, twist words around a bit to get a different perception than what the facts really were all seem to be the tools used to justify the ends--to secure the win. Indeed it may just do that because an unsuspecting public, as we have already seen from the Primary is ill-prepared for choosing the best candidate unless both candidates voluntarily tell the truth. If one chooses to lie, the election will derail.
Looking at the Herrod/Hill race then: Hill say Herrod isn't transparent because he was initially not even elected but appointed to his position. Rather, she allows the constituent she speaks with to believe that he was appointed without an election, when she merely need say that he was appointed. That he was appointed, in a literal sense might be true--well sort of. You see, Herrod was one of 10 candidates who ran in an open race in a special election when the popular Jeff Alexander resigned his House Seat due to some other goals that were taking precedence over his elected position. When a special election for the delegate yielded a near tie with Herrod at something like 36 votes and contender John Curtis at 37 it meant both names had to go the the Governor, according to County by-laws. State statute had just barely changed to read that only one name could be submitted from the Party, however. The Governor sent both names back to the Party, to Enid Green, the State Party Chair at the time, who had no other choice but to conduct interviews--even as one would for any job--to see who she felt would best suit the position. Being that the delegates couldn't come up with a 60% winner as required in the Party by-laws, and since the State statute required only 1 name be submitted, she stated her intention to the public and the next day a winner was named. Chris Herrod was the new Representative.
But according to Claralyn Hill, none of this ever happened. The statute doesn't exist, and the Newspaper archives, as well as all the delegates (yours truly was also at that special election), and John Curtis himself are figments of imagination--bits of dilution, because according to her, say those who have sat through her cottage meetings, Herrod was picked by the whim of Green, "behind closed doors" hence her campaign for transparency.
So perhaps Hill should start with some transparency of her own. I'm sure she if familiar with the old saying about glass houses...Let's start with those signs: For one. Put a "D" or a donkey behind your name Claralyn, where it belongs. You are, after all, a Democrat. "Oh no, Joe, say it ain't so!"
Disclose that the UEA is paying for your signs and that you don't have to add their money to your account because they are a union, until after the disclosure dates. Also that the UEA STILL has a vendetta against every legislator who voted for vouchers. That's ancient history, UEA, get over it. So let's talk about transparency, Ms. Hill. Let's talk about yours.
There is always more. The Democratic Party is pulling a fast one on the elderly and home bound this year with an application they created to look like the one the counties have for early voting and absentee voter ballot by mail. The clever trick is that the Democrats will send out an application to persuade the voter to apply for one of the above and send in the application. Trouble is, the application doesn't go to the County Recorder. It goes to the Democratic Party! That is right! It goes to the Democratic Party. One has to assume that the Democratic Party is going to turn in the application to the specific County Recorder involved. Whether they turn it in or not is their sole discretion, though it is a misdemeanor offense if they do not. But to make matters seriously worse, all the applicants new information goes to the Democratic Party, logged into their data base. Only after they have the info does the application supposedly get turned into the County Recorder. What state is this again?
Through out the state there are weird races like the one between Herrod and Hill. The applications for early voting by mail are going out all over the state of Utah. Rumor has it that this is part of an objective set forth by the National Democratic Party. Regardless, for the state of Utah, one has to wonder about candidates who have to hide their party affiliation. Who wouldn't think twice about voting for someone who's subjectivity of the facts is based upon what benefits her rather than what is actually statute. It is disturbing that Hill would refuse to believe that the statute on replacing a Representative is simply for the seated party to present a name. What is most disturbing is that she won't even bother to look up the statute to see what it says before spouting off. What kind of Legislator will she make?
"Oh no, Joe, say it ain't so!"
With all Palin's direct but polite manners, there was one comment that resonated all night for me. It took me back when she said it, because it rolled off her tongue just like she was chastising that youngster again. Done without guile or malice, Palin went straight to the point: "Bidon. you are out of line and trying to pull a fast one, and I'm not taking it," was the message. But what she said was, "Oh, no, Joe, say it ain't so!" What a phrase. Every time Bidon made a gaff, we. in the living room, chimed, "Oh, no, Joe, say it ain't so!" It should be a bumper sticker.
It should be the clarion call for local politicking in Utah races. "Oh no, Joe Democrat, say it ain't so!" I have never seen such a mess of desperate measures and albeit debatable, quite possibly winnable measures as well, taken on before in this state. Where Utah was once a state of integrity and unmeasured strength of character in the political arena, the Democratic Party has guaranteed that reputation will change for Utah with this year's races.
Take District 62 for instance. Chris Herrod, the Rookie Republican is the incumbent. His Democratic challenger is Claralyn Hill. She is supposedly running on a platform of transparency--transparency that the Republicans don't have she allegedly claims. Trouble is, that she apparently has the problem herself. She, until cornered by some Republicans, including Herrod himself, I understand, was not telling people she was a Democrat. Her signs, along with ALL other Democratic candidates does not bear any designation or identification of how she has filed. Who and What is she? In addition, her signs, along with the Utah County Democratic Platform look conspicuously similar to Republican signs--more red than blue. I'm surprised they didn't find an elephant to stick in the corner! The platform language is so surprisingly similar to the Republican one, that at first blush, you would believe Claralyn Hill was actually a second Republican running against Herrod in the General Election--at first blush.
Since the scope of this article doesn't take in discussion about the content of the platforms, I'll reserve that for a latter date. For now, the point is really about the deception that seems to be running so rampant this year for the sake of winning. Winning a race, for the most part--at least in Utah--used to be about the best man or woman suited for the job. These days, it seems all about the man or woman him or herself. What ever it takes to win a race is what is done. Lie, deceive, twist words around a bit to get a different perception than what the facts really were all seem to be the tools used to justify the ends--to secure the win. Indeed it may just do that because an unsuspecting public, as we have already seen from the Primary is ill-prepared for choosing the best candidate unless both candidates voluntarily tell the truth. If one chooses to lie, the election will derail.
Looking at the Herrod/Hill race then: Hill say Herrod isn't transparent because he was initially not even elected but appointed to his position. Rather, she allows the constituent she speaks with to believe that he was appointed without an election, when she merely need say that he was appointed. That he was appointed, in a literal sense might be true--well sort of. You see, Herrod was one of 10 candidates who ran in an open race in a special election when the popular Jeff Alexander resigned his House Seat due to some other goals that were taking precedence over his elected position. When a special election for the delegate yielded a near tie with Herrod at something like 36 votes and contender John Curtis at 37 it meant both names had to go the the Governor, according to County by-laws. State statute had just barely changed to read that only one name could be submitted from the Party, however. The Governor sent both names back to the Party, to Enid Green, the State Party Chair at the time, who had no other choice but to conduct interviews--even as one would for any job--to see who she felt would best suit the position. Being that the delegates couldn't come up with a 60% winner as required in the Party by-laws, and since the State statute required only 1 name be submitted, she stated her intention to the public and the next day a winner was named. Chris Herrod was the new Representative.
But according to Claralyn Hill, none of this ever happened. The statute doesn't exist, and the Newspaper archives, as well as all the delegates (yours truly was also at that special election), and John Curtis himself are figments of imagination--bits of dilution, because according to her, say those who have sat through her cottage meetings, Herrod was picked by the whim of Green, "behind closed doors" hence her campaign for transparency.
So perhaps Hill should start with some transparency of her own. I'm sure she if familiar with the old saying about glass houses...Let's start with those signs: For one. Put a "D" or a donkey behind your name Claralyn, where it belongs. You are, after all, a Democrat. "Oh no, Joe, say it ain't so!"
Disclose that the UEA is paying for your signs and that you don't have to add their money to your account because they are a union, until after the disclosure dates. Also that the UEA STILL has a vendetta against every legislator who voted for vouchers. That's ancient history, UEA, get over it. So let's talk about transparency, Ms. Hill. Let's talk about yours.
There is always more. The Democratic Party is pulling a fast one on the elderly and home bound this year with an application they created to look like the one the counties have for early voting and absentee voter ballot by mail. The clever trick is that the Democrats will send out an application to persuade the voter to apply for one of the above and send in the application. Trouble is, the application doesn't go to the County Recorder. It goes to the Democratic Party! That is right! It goes to the Democratic Party. One has to assume that the Democratic Party is going to turn in the application to the specific County Recorder involved. Whether they turn it in or not is their sole discretion, though it is a misdemeanor offense if they do not. But to make matters seriously worse, all the applicants new information goes to the Democratic Party, logged into their data base. Only after they have the info does the application supposedly get turned into the County Recorder. What state is this again?
Through out the state there are weird races like the one between Herrod and Hill. The applications for early voting by mail are going out all over the state of Utah. Rumor has it that this is part of an objective set forth by the National Democratic Party. Regardless, for the state of Utah, one has to wonder about candidates who have to hide their party affiliation. Who wouldn't think twice about voting for someone who's subjectivity of the facts is based upon what benefits her rather than what is actually statute. It is disturbing that Hill would refuse to believe that the statute on replacing a Representative is simply for the seated party to present a name. What is most disturbing is that she won't even bother to look up the statute to see what it says before spouting off. What kind of Legislator will she make?
"Oh no, Joe, say it ain't so!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
