Thinking about Presidents’ Day caused me to wonder why we celebrate politicians’ birthdays but not capitalists’ birthdays. We are rich because of our political institutions but also because of all those private people who create wealth by increasing opportunities for others. 

One need only consult the yellow pages of the telephone directory to see the enormous number of businesses that were created by the inventions as disparate as the automobile, snowmobile, computer chip, and home exercise machines.  Nearly all of these businesses are small, making small annual profits, but in the aggregate, employing millions of well-paid workers and serving the expanding needs of countless consumers.

These firms came into existence not by governmental dictate but by entrepreneurial aspirations and skills of otherwise ordinary people.  A complex, large economy such as ours offers an extraordinary array of opportunities but mostly it offers the liberty to invent opportunities; to perceive and create "wants" where none exist.

  And for those entrepreneurs in need of investment funds there are monies to be had.  Banks and investment firms actively seek outlets as do families in the pursuit of profit.  The material well-being and self-regard of hundreds of millions of people have been advanced far more by the mundane daily workings of imperfect markets than those of governments.

There are, of course, plenty of jokes going around about global warming and the incredibly cold and snowy weather slamming the Mid-Atlantic area. The best one I heard is a quick one-liner: "It's going to keep snowing in Washington until Al Gore cries 'UNCLE!'"

Meanwhile, both sides of the climate change debate are attempting to use the unprecedented snowstorms to show their side is right, according to a New York Times story.

There is much chatter about student achievement in our government monopoly education system these days, especially in Obama's Race to the Top stimulus plan. I'm glad there is at least some acknowledgment, because U.S. children perform well below their peers in industrialized nations - 25th in math and 21st in science.

Each year when comparative subject assessment test scores come out we learn that by and large our students are not improving and, in fact, minority performance continues to slide (recent NAEP scores illustrate this). Sadly, we hear comments from education leaders about finding comfort in holding steady. Just last week we read the headline in the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Students Average, Test Results Show. The story quoted State Superintendent Larry Shumway saying, "Still, there also is reason to be proud. Results mostly either remained the same as last school year or increased slightly. He said that is an accomplishment, given recent cuts to education funding and Utah's changing demographics." Of course, avoid accountability and blame funding, even though there is no concrete information to show a correlation that funding is contributing to our stagnant performance. Holding steady equals status quo, and when status quo is not only average but also below our competition, we need to ask ourselves why we continue to deliver education to our children in the same old way that is producing the same unacceptable outcomes.

One glimmer of hope that has emerged on the education landscape is charter schools. Across the nation they are producing promising results, especially amongst minorities. In most states they are underfunded in comparison to traditional schools, flying in the face of the "we need more money in order to achieve student gains" argument. So what is it about charters that allows them to produce increased student outcomes? It's the autonomy to innovate. It's the flexibility to put into practice methods and procedures that meet the needs of their student population. They ARE NOT delivering education in the same old way. They have the power to not only seek solutions but to implement them as well.

We can learn a very important lesson from the success of schools that are allowed such autonomy, and it need not be reserved only for charter schools. There is a bill being introduced during the current Utah legislative session called the Innovations School Act. House Bill 268 would allow a school or group of schools in a school district to create an innovation plan and adopt the plan upon approval by the local school board and State Board of Education. A key purpose of the law is to encourage innovation in education by providing local school communities and principals with greater control over levels of staffing, personnel selection and evaluation scheduling, and educational programming with the goal of achieving improved student achievement. In order to obtain the autonomy necessary to do this, the law provides a means for schools and districts to gain waivers from district policies, state policies, and collective bargaining agreements, allowing schools to best serve the needs of their unique student populations.

This law is intended to improve student outcomes by supporting greater school autonomy and flexibility in academic and operational decision-making.  The Innovation Schools Act encourages schools and districts to design and implement innovative practices that are student-centric and focused on improving academic achievement.

HB268 is patterned after the Colorado Innovation Schools Act which was signed into Colorado law last year. As a beneficiary of this law, Denver Public School "Innovation School" participant, Manual High School Principal, Rob Stein put it best when he told the state board his staff has an “extraordinarily strong and passionate commitment to what’s best for students,” but the “environment is so over-regulated, it’s hard to focus on our mission.” Innovations may include but are not limited to delivery of educational services, personnel administration and decision-making, and budgeting. The Colorado State Board of Education has embraced this new law with great enthusiasm. Board Chair, Bob Schaffer said this about the Innovation Act, “Our schools are being crushed by rules, regulation and bureaucracy,” he said. “Thank you for bringing this to us.”

The Innovations School Act is about remembering who we serve. It's about putting the focus on children instead of systems. I hope that Utah lawmakers value our students enough to embrace this model legislation and allow this empowering opportunity to become a reality for schools and districts throughout our state. Being "proud" of average equates to being willing to accept that our children will no longer be able to compete in a 21st century global economy. It is time to stop allowing mediocrity to rule the day and stand up for innovation and solutions.

It is not often that we mix public policy with poetry, but it happened to me twice last week. The public policy issue was education and both times the poetry rendered the intended effect. People stopped moving, listened, reflected and felt a yearning to do better. It created a wonderful mix of policy leadership and poetic expression and holds a message for this legislative session.

It started on Monday at Junior Achievement’s Annual Governor’s Breakfast. In front of a packed crowd of business and community leaders, including Gov. Herbert, Junior Achievement honored Larry Miller for his commitment to education. Gayle Miller addressed the crowd and spoke of her husband’s legacy by reading one of his favorite poems – The Bridge Builder, by Will Allen Dromgoole.

It’s a familiar poem about an old man who crossed a deep and wide chasm and then took the time to build a bridge across the chasm for others to use. When asked by a fellow traveler why he took the time to build the bridge, the old man said:

• There followeth after me today,
• A youth whose feet must pass this way.
• This chasm that has been naught to me,
• To that fair-haired youth may a pit-fall be,
• He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
• Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.

As Gayle read the poem, the crowd froze and the room fell silent. It was as if everyone in the room wanted to do more to help the rising generation. It was a fitting way to end a Junior Achievement gathering.

Later in the week, the same poem was read. This time it was in front of the Salt Lake Chamber Education Task Force. Our leader, Mark Bouchard, the managing director of CBRE, read it to a distinguished group of business leaders involved in a multi-year effort to enhance public and higher education in our state.

Mark’s reading had the same impact as Gayle Miller’s … the room seemed to pause, eyes froze, nobody moved, everyone listened and reflected about the message. It felt like everyone left the meeting wanting to do their part to build that education bridge for others.

Both experiences got me thinking about the raw education policy choices our Legislature and governor are facing right now. There is no question that they face a daunting task, a task made even more challenging when you consider the consequences of poor choices.

I don’t want to seem too direct, but given record enrollments in public and higher education and nearly a billion dollars less in revenue, it really comes down to three fairly discreet choices:

1.  
   1. Do you raise on-going revenue to adequately fund public and higher education?
   2. If not, do you use much of the state’s rainy day fund, borrow and/or use other one-time funding sources to properly fund education this year (and face the same structural imbalance next year).
   3. Or, do you make the requisite cuts, ask our school systems to do still more with less and live with the consequences.

Going back to the poem, elected officials who think mainly about the political ramifications of their actions are like travelers who cross a chasm and take no thought for those who follow, but head speedily on their way. Elected officials like this are involved in politics, not public service, and there is a difference.

Elected officials who cross a chasm and then turn to build a bridge are engaged in public service. They put up with the politics, but their first obligation is service to the public, plain and simple. They leave things better than they found them and, typically, Utah’s education system and economy are the victors.

I think education bridge building is a great metaphor for the public service that Utahns need and deserve from legislators this year. Along with the ideological banter, political posturing and policy debate we hear on the House and Senate floor, let’s challenge our Legislature to read some poetry. It just might help us build that education bridge.

WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office.

"This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people's—or their pet's—needs."

Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."

Source: The Onion

On Tuesday, the Senate Education Committee managed to do what the House Education Committee couldn't do last year. They passed a hot button bill out that has once again generated a great deal of heated controversy on the Hill. The controversy is one-sided; it consists of the teachers' union and a select few members of the status quo protectors in the education establishment making nonsensical arguments of opposition to the bill. It seems to me they should pick their battles a little more wisely.

Last year House Bill 381 (Public Education Law Revisions - Association Leave) was narrowly defeated in the House Education Committee despite rigorous debate by committee members and testimony from numerous citizens and groups in support of the bill. It failed in Committee on a 6 to 7 vote with the lines clearly drawn by those committee members closely aligned with the teachers' union, preventing the elected representatives of citizens across the state from weighing in on the issue (see which committee members voted against it).

What does the bill do? Like its predecessor HB381, Senate Bill 77 would stop the teachers' union from being free loaders on the taxpayers’ dole. It prohibits a local school board from granting paid association leave and requires reimbursement to a school district of the costs for certain employees, including benefits, for the time that the employee is on unpaid association leave. Believe it or not, there is nothing preventing full-time union presidents from getting a large portion of their salary paid by the very school district whom they negotiate their collective bargaining agreements with. Let me put this in clear terms - A full-time union employee, who has been granted leave from the school district to work for the union, is receiving half of their salary and benefits from the school district. What! For an organization (aka Utah Education Association) that has gotten squarely behind an initiative that would establish a strict code of ethical conduct for the Utah Legislature, backed by a group called Utahns for "Ethical" Government, this practice certainly reeks of unethical. The taxpayers of Utah ought to be crying foul over the sheer hypocrisy of this organizations actions. Talk about a conflict of interest.

On the heels of a report on Association Leave in Utah's School Districts by the Office of the Legislative Auditor General (OLAG), Parents for Choice in Education in partnership with Senator Margaret Dayton have decided it is in the best interest of Utah taxpayers and students to run this legislation again. Released on November 1, 2009, the OLAG report revealed, "The association president represents the interests of teachers which, at times, conflict with the interests of the district." The report also found, “Districts are not fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to ensure that association leave has a direct benefit to the school district.” (http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/09_bilr.pdf)

Yeah. No kidding. Hard to imagine that supposed "direct benefits" are hard to ensure, while conflict of interest abounds. The Salt Lake Tribune characterized it best in an opinion they wrote in support of HB381 last year. "But what does it mean to ‘directly benefit education’?" This was the question posed in a March 1, 2009, Tribune Editorial (UEA Pay Deal). Their answer sums it up well. “It has evolved to mean, in practice, that some districts continue to fork out hefty amounts to pay people who are no longer working strictly for the district. In fact, in union parlance, these UEA officials are being paid by the employer, the opponent in contract negotiations. It's like having one foot on the ground and the other on a moving train.”

My personal favorite comment in opposition of the 2009 bill came from teachers' union (UEA) President, Kim Campbell, who stated, "This bill would take away the voice of teacher associations" (Deseret News Feb. 24, 2009). Well pardon me, but last time I checked this "teacher association" is a UNION and is a private organization whose sole responsibility is to represent the interests of dues paying members. You have a lot of nerve expecting us as taxpayers to subsidize an organization that does not represent us or our children. It's not our responsibility to provide you with a voice.

This bill would fix that. SB77 addresses fiscal responsibility. We cannot afford to divert money away from the classroom, especially in lean budget years. Districts must be held accountable to taxpayers to spend their budgets directly on the education of our children. Union salaries are not an appropriate expenditure.

We encourage our elected Representatives and Senators to place the best interests of the taxpayers and students of Utah ahead of the conflicting interests of the teachers' union by putting an end to this ethically questionable practice and passing Senate Bill 77.

Q&A on Ethics Commission Proposal, from the Senate Site:

Why does the Legislature need to focus on Ethics?

The legislature needs to focus on ethics to put in place the right kinds of measures that ensure government officials are acting in the best interest for the citizens of the State of Utah and not for their own interests. This is not a new effort. In the 2009 legislative session, Senator John Valentine sponsored and passed legislation that brought reform to campaign finances and prohibited communication by legislators with judges on pending cases. He also brought forward legislation to create an ethics commission for the legislature. This was long before the ethics initiative began. Legislation has been brought forward again this session to create the ethics commission. This legislation is titled SJR3. The legislature is working on this legislation carefully and responsibly to ensure that the right kind of law is put in place to protect the people of Utah from facing corruption in their government.

How will the Ethics Commission Work?

The duty of the Legislative Ethics Commission, created by SJR3, is to investigate complaints received about the actions of elected officials. For an investigation to begin two citizens or two legislators, with firsthand knowledge of an unlawful action, would need to report the action to the commission. Once the reports have been received the commission will then perform a private investigation on the official in question. –The investigation would be done privately to ensure that the complaints being filed are legitimate complaints and are not a political maneuver by those who may be in opposition to the official or an attempt to embarrass them or harm their reputation. Next the commission would make a recommendation to the Senate based on the findings of the investigation. If the allegations are substantial enough to move forward, a recommendation to proceed is made to the ethics committee. It will then conduct public hearings. If the findings are found unsubstantial, the investigation will close privately to ensure the integrity of the person who was in question. This process is similar to the existing Judicial Conduct Commission.

Who will be on the Ethics Commission?

The ethics commission will be made up of three retired judges and two retired legislators. The commission would be appointed by the President of the Senate, The Speaker of the House, and the minority leaders in both the senate and house.

Why make this a constitutional amendment?

This will give the voters a chance to make a constitutional choice. Making it a constitutional amendment will give the people the chance to choose how they want their government officials held accountable. This displays how serious the legislature is about ethics reform. Also by making SJR3 a constitutional amendment it will protect for the future, independence of the investigatory process of ethics violations. Meaning it will be harder for future lawmakers to alter this law because it would require altering the state constitution.

What’s next?

SJR3 will go through the process any bill goes through to become a law. It is open to scrutiny from lawmakers and from the public. This is your turn to help bring ethics reform to the legislature. What changes can be made to make the process better? What are your thoughts and ideas?

I spent most of Thursday afternoon at a Wasatch Front Regional Council meeting where mayors, city council members, county commissioners and county council members get together to coordinate regional issues like planning for transporation projects, clean air, and other matters that cross political jurisdictions.

Frankly, I was impressed to see our local leaders discuss, debate, and deal forthrightly with problems and issues facing their constituents. Republicans and Democrats cooperated, compromised, and came to agreement on plans going forward. The costs of programs were outlined and they stayed within budgets and revenue projections.

I have similarly watched our state Legislature, governor, and various agencies and offices at the state level. While disagreements can sometimes be sharp, in the end the leaders from both parties and various factions almost always reach enough of a consensus to move forward and get issues resolved. And it happens quickly. Problems aren't dragged on forever. These state and local leaders aren't perfect. Mistakes are sometimes made and have to be corrected. But they tackle problems and get them resolved.

I'm also impressed with the staff people at both the state and local levels. We have top professionals, highly educated, equipped with sophisticated management tools, administering our local governments and state agencies. They are running major programs and doing it very well.

So contrast all of this with what's happening at the federal level, where Congress and the federal administration are gridlocked, spending money they don't have, mandating programs that don't work, and fighting for partisan advantage with an eye on the next election instead of what's best for citizens.

To be fair, some federal programs do operate well. Such programs as the military and international relations are properly within the role of the national government and are effectively administered. But the federal government is clearly trying to do far too much, involving itself in every aspect of our lives, where it has no business, and that's where the partisanship and gridlock occur.

The really big problem is that the federal government has taken over the country's major safety net programs (Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare), but hasn't administered them responsibly, and now they are nearly bankrupt and take up an immense portion of the federal budget. Congress does not have the guts to cut back these programs or raise taxes to make them solvent. So the immense unfunded liabilities continue to grow and will be dumped on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The answer to many of the major problems facing our country isn't to find a federal solution (which won't happen anyway, given the partisanship and gridlock in Congress). The answer is to devolve responsibility for these problems to states and local governments. I'd rather have 8,000 state legislators and tens of thousands of local officials tackle these problems than 535 members of Congress, most of whom are more concerned about getting re-elected than finding real solutions.

Interestingly, the only note of discord, anger, and frustration voiced in an afternoon of discussion at the Wasatch Front Regional Council, was directed, you guessed it, at the federal government for mandates that simply don't work at the local level.

If you really want to accomplish something in politics, run for the City Council, not for Congress.

I did not vote for John McCain or Barack Obama. But after Mr. Obama was elected I was hopeful that his hope and change theme might actually mean something. He came into office with a supermajority in the House and Senate and with high approval ratings at home and abroad. One year later the Obama presidency has morphed from hope and change and high expectations to a hopeychange cartoon.

What do we have? A recession largely caused by cheap government money that inflated the housing bubble and which has been prolonged by amazingly wrong-headed policies that keep markets from correcting themselves. We have a Congress trying to pass a trillion dollar health care plan and a president crowing about a spending “freeze” that might save at best $15 billion in increased spending. We went from a president who was an awful public speaker to one who cannot speak to sixth graders without a teleprompter. We have a president who flits from the International Olympic Committee (FAIL), to the Virginia Governor’s race (FAIL), to the New Jersey Governor’s race (FAIL), to the Massachusetts Senate Race (FAIL), to pressuring Congress for a massive health care bill (FAIL), to equally massive climate change legislation (FAIL).  Hopeychange indeed. But he looked good on the beach in Hawaii (Given all he is trying to do I wish he would spend the next six months in Hawaii).

The stimulus was a fraud and Republicans and Democrats who voted for it should be ashamed. At least some of those who voted for TARP are ashamed. There really is no difference between Harry Reid buying votes from Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich trying to buy a Senate seat. In fact, Governor Blagojevich was using private money instead of public money so he was probably the more moral man. It might be time for politicians at all levels of government to realize that Ronald Reagan was right when he said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”  Look no further than the stimulus spending. The wild claims about the effects of government spending did not pan out and it now appears that a dollar of government spending produces less than a dollar of economic activity. And what about those claims that unemployment would not exceed 9 percent?

The tea partiers may seem unruly and obnoxious to the main stream Republicans and Democrats but they appear to be on to something. They reflect genuine disapproval with our not-so-slow march to fiscal insolvency. They and a majority of America expect change and if the hopeychange president and his party do not recognize that the problem is with the direction he is trying to take the country and not a failure to communicate he will continue to fail. He has not failed to communicate. Voters know what he wants. They just are not buying it.  

Congressman Rob Bishop isn’t a big fan of cap-and-trade legislation to combat climate change. “Cap-and-trade legislation will only cap our economy and trade American jobs overseas," he says in an op-ed essay published in The Daily Caller.

Still, Bishop is willing to give cap-and-trade a chance – in states that want to do it. Here’s his common-sense suggestion:

Fortunately, there is a political solution that enables both sides in this debate to get what we want.  Instead of imposing a top-down carbon-focused reorganization of our $14 trillion economy on a divided public, I’m willing to let cap-and-traders reap all the “benefits” of climate change legislation–all the jobs and economic prosperity they are so confident it will bring about.  States eager to impose carbon caps should be allowed to do so.

All I ask is that proponents not impose cap and trade on states choosing to address climate change in a different fashion.

There are regions of this country where cap-and-trade policies may be popular.  Some people residing in the Northeast, urban areas, and certain coastal regions appear to support cap-and-trade policies.  At least the Congressional representatives in these areas seem eager to implement strict carbon regimes on their citizens.

Again, I say–let them. Then let’s wait a few years and see what happens.

My proposal invokes one of the most important, and sadly, most forgotten of the political insights of the Founders, the concept of federalism. Federalism is based on the simple premise that not all policy solutions must come from Washington. It empowers states to attempt innovative policy without subjecting unwilling participants to mandates they oppose. It allows the country as a whole to learn from policy experimentation and leaves states free to implement their own policy solutions when a national consensus is lacking.

State policy experimentation is not a new or untested idea.  Today there are more than 200 compacts that allow groups of states to cooperate on environmental, economic, transportation and other problems.  In fact, there was a time when the states were routinely viewed as “laboratories of democracy.”   The Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

If cap-and-trade is the Shangri-La supporters think it will be, let it be proven and other states will follow.  Likewise, if it doesn’t work, other states can learn from its failure and avoid the same mistakes.  I was delighted this week to see that California’s Gov. Schwarzenegger has grasped this important insight.  As they say, more power to them.

It’s time those of us in Washington realized that the United States is a diverse, vibrant nation with varying demographics, needs, and concerns.  Congress does not have to send to the President a one-size-fits-all bill mandating a nationwide cap-and-trade regime.  With cap-and-trade legislation, as in many other policy areas, we should give federalism a chance.

Read Bishop's full essay here.