For, Not Against

In my last blog, I wrote about all the things I'd learned about Senator Hatch and why I wouldn't be supporting him.  A friend asked me why I was supporting Dan Liljenquist.  I felt quite chagrined that I had taken so much time in laying out my case against Hatch, without making my case for Liljenquist.  Thanks, RaeLynne, for the friendly question!

I was very impressed by Dan's open, straightforward manner; he actually answered questions!  When you go to hear the same candidate more than once, you start to get a sense of whether they're reciting talking points, or whether they're actually talking to you.  And while all candidates turn to talking points from time to time, Dan's answers were consistent and genuine.  While political campaigns so often focus on an opponent's record, I felt like I heard more about Dan's own record and goals than a typical campaign.  He has a concrete plan, based on the concrete plan he took the the Utah state senate, and he can articulate it clearly.  Two financial issues he was very concerned about upon entering the state senate were pensions for public employees and state Medicaid. 

At the debate at Juan Diego High School this spring, Hatch challenged Liljenquist on votes missed during sessions of the Utah state Senate, a major theme in many of Hatch's campaign ads.  Liljenquist was, once again, direct in answering:  "I'm glad you asked about that," he stated.  He went on to say that Hatch made it sound like he, Liljenquist, was out playing golf, rather than garnering bi-partisan support for his pension reform bill.  He was present at the capital every day of the legislative session, and came to vote on any crucial issues where his vote was needed.  When it wasn't needed, he continued to talk to legislators from both parties, convincing them the need to offer this bill to the governor with as much support as possible.

"As I met with state Democrats," Liljenquist said, "They would say, 'Dan, you have a majority; you don't need our vote.'  I would tell them, 'I know I don't need your vote; I want your vote.  This is not a bi-partisan issue; it is a reality issue.  We need to make the pensions sustainable.'"  Dan was able to get his bill passed unanimously, which was then signed by the governor. 

Ladies and gentlemen:  THAT is what reaching across the aisle looks like.  Rather than compromise your principles and vote for something you don't agree on, because the sponsor of the bill has stuck in a goodie for your state, SO that you can then stick a goodie into your bill for their state and have them vote for yours...IS NOT REACHING ACROSS THE AISLE.  It's crony politics at its worst, where career politicians have lost sight of voting for what is right, because it has become about parties and who can win.  If we have leaders in Washington who are so entrenched in that system, seeing it as simply "the ways things are done", and continue to partake of the spoils of the labor of the taxpayers, how are we ever going to get anything different from our leaders...unless we send new leaders?  

Dan also sponsored reforms to Utah's Medicaid system, which will save our state millions - nearly $1 billion - over the first seven years.  His goal was to make it more attractive for low-income earners to earn more, rather than stay earning a low wage so they could keep state welfare benefits of one kind or another. 

Other states - a dozen or more - have now been in contact with Dan to see how Utah has made some of these changes, as so many states are in financial trouble with these same problems.  He is working with legislators all over the country to consult and coach on the success he's experienced in Utah with these much needed reforms.

Dan has been successful in passing sweeping reform legislation on issues that are vital to the economic survival of the entire country.  He is ideally suited to replace Hatch.  If Hatch had stuck to his original plan and served 3 terms, I believe he would be a supporter of Liljenquist today.  He is a principled, honorable man.  He is highly qualified with a background in economics, law, and business.  He has actually done in our state what needs to be done on a national level, both in seeing the kind of legislation that can make real changes, and in working with both parties to bring it about.  Should Hatch win this election, six years from now, we may not have the chance to replace him with such a fine statesman as Dan Liljenquist, a man who is so uniquely qualified for the problems our country faces today.

Going Political

I got the chance to be a Republican state delegate for my voting precinct in April.  I learned a ton – mostly, that there is attendant responsibility to the rights and privileges of self-government:  “…the burden should come upon all the people that every man might bear his part.” (Mosiah 29:34)  In a free society, the people must bear the burden of government, and as we live in a democratic republic, that means becoming an informed voter.  Taking the time to vet candidates made me wonder why I had not been doing so all along.  I am now resolved to be a more informed citizen and voter.  I urge everyone to start their own journey of self-education, be sure you’re registered to vote, and VOTE!  This is how we bear the burden to keep our country free.  If knowing correct principles is, in fact, the way for us to be able to govern ourselves, it only stands to reason that ignorance is the greatest danger in a republic.

At our caucus, a large number of neighbors wanted Orrin Hatch to make it into a primary; they felt it was wrong that Bob Bennett never even made it out of the Republican convention in 2010.  The sentiment was that the public should have been the ones to decide.  At the time, that made sense, but as I’ve gone through my own process of self-education (which is by no means finished!), I realize that means a largely uninformed electorate would make that decision, possibly without being as fully aware of a candidate’s voting record as the delegates who attend the convention. 

Prior to the convention, I had just as many neighbors ask me not to vote for Hatch, as had asked me to vote for him the night of the caucus.  Last summer, before I even had an idea to be a delegate, I met Senator Hatch and got to talk to him.  He was extremely condescending, quick to give non-answers full of somewhat relevant details and minutia, or dismiss questions altogether, descending into folksy “rah-rah” rhetoric. 

Because of this, I already had a rather unfavorable impression of a man who had served in the Senate twice as long as the man he replaced – an incumbent, who, at the time, Hatch strongly criticized for his lengthy tenure.  Hatch’s campaign slogan in 1976 was: “What do you call a U.S. senator who has served for 18 years?.....You call him HOME.”    I ask:  what has changed in 36 years to compel us to send him for what would be a total of forty-two???  This is how we have unwittingly created an elite ruling class who nearly doesn’t answer to us any more for their behavior, and certainly does not play by the same rules we do. 

After listening to both Orrin Hatch and Dan Liljenquist in debates and cottage meetings, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hatch has no business serving a 7^th term.  The way he has handled the questions of his constituency, his voting record, his misrepresenting Liljenquist’s record, and his refusal to debate, have all weighed in my decision to support Dan Liljenquist.

My main reasons for not supporting Hatch are:

         

1.         He confirmed and/or didn’t appropriately vet – liberal presidential appointees such as Timothy Geithner, Cass Sunstein, and Eric Holder.  He confirmed liberal Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – recommending Ginsburg.  In all fairness, Hatch has been responsible for approving some strong conservative Supreme Court justices as well.  But my biggest problem with his approval of such choices is his reason for doing so:

A former Hatch aid, Edward Whelan, described Hatch’s philosophy of presidential appointments (in particular reference to Justice Ginsburg’s appointment to the Supreme Court):  “Sen. Hatch and other Republicans voted to confirm her because they believed the president was entitled to considerable deference in selecting a Supreme Court Justice.”  A fellow state delegate said Hatch explained this as his reasoning for “non-cabinet” appointments (a.k.a. “czars”) by President Obama, and this was his reasoning behind his voting in favor of Obama’s “recess” appointments this past year.  This is the antithesis of Constitutional reasoning.  The purpose of Senate approval of presidential appointments is to provide checks and balances on power.  I believe that voting for something because it’s going to pass with a majority – in spite of his opposing vote – is strong evidence to show that Hatch has lost sight of his role as a member of Congress.  While it may be spun as “reaching across the aisle”, Hatch seems to have lost sight of the purpose of vetting appointments.

2.         He voted for the establishment of the Department of Education in 1979 – in his first term!   President Carter established this behemoth federal office to thank teacher unions for helping him get elected.  I had heard conflicting information about this, and as I did research to verify it, came across a video clip online of an interview Hatch did with Greta Van Sustern on Fox News.  He stated that he had opponents who claimed he had established the Department of Education, which was not true.  I was flabbergasted.  While technically true – he, himself, did not establish the Department of Education, he absolutely voted to approve its establishment! (www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/s70)

Hatch supported Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program, a grossly expensive expansion of the federal government.  Centralized education is another concept antithetical to limited government as set forth in the Constitution, and is far too expensive for our country to pay for when we are as far in debt as we are.

3.         His voting on many federal spending projects is anything but conservative.  Some of the largest debt increases he voted to approve were done during Republican presidential administrations, years when the Senate held a Republican majority, and/or during the time he spent on the Senate Finance Committee.  Among some of the most egregious:

 

·         TARP, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and auto bailouts – all huge intrusions on the free market with staggering debt ramifications.

·         The Dream Act – tuition  credits for the children of illegal immigrants, which he co-sponsored.

·         SCHIP – government-sponsored child health care, which many consider a pre-cursor to Obamacare, and which he co-sponsored.

·         Medicare Part D – expansion of Medicare in prescription drugs which added trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare.

While all these things are well-meaning – they are financially irresponsible at our current rate of debt and spending, and were never intended purposes of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. 

4.     He has voted to increase the debt ceiling 16 times. 

5.    He voted for the updated NDAA – National Defense Authorization Act – which includes new wording that grants the president overreaching authority to circumvent basic 5^th Amendment rights to U.S. citizens.  

6.    Hatch’s number one argument that he be elected for a 7^th term is his seniority.  He stoutly asserts that he is needed on the Senate Finance Committee, where he is in line to become the chairman.  He also insists that he is needed to keep Hill Air Force Base open. 

·         The man behind Hatch to head the Senate Finance Committee, Mike Crapo of Idaho, has a better conservative voting record than Hatch.

·         Several swing states will all have to elect Republicans instead of their currently serving Democrats.  While this is possible with the high dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, Hatch chairing that committee is definitely not a sure thing, and should hardly be the trump card to secure him votes.

·         Recent policy changes have largely removed the politicizing from the decision-making process of military base closings.

7.     Hatch has misrepresented Liljenquist’s voting record in the Utah state senate while technically not lying about it, making missed votes look like irresponsibility.  Dan frankly explains that he was working on bi-partisan support for his award-winning legislation on pension and Medicaid reform, legislation that is garnering attention from at least a dozen other states in financial trouble, and could serve as a model for financial reform at a federal level.

8.    Hatch is 78 years old, and it is abundantly evident when you hear him speak.  His mental acuity is not what it was 18 years ago, the time when he said he would be done in the Senate.  If he is elected for a seventh term, he will be 84 years old at the end of his term.

9.     Hatch has been unwilling to face Dan Liljenquist in a public debate.  A radio debate, in the middle of the day, with an ally as the moderator is a lame concession at best.   

This race is garnering national attention; for just one example, see: http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/06/01/its_time_for_beltway_barnacle_orrin_hatch_to_go/page/full/.

I have arranged to have Dan Liljenquist speak in my neighborhood on Monday, June 18^th @ 6:30 p.m., at 741 East Litson Circle.  Please bring your questions and come meet him.  Dan would make an excellent replacement for Hatch.  He is an honorable man, a true statesman.  We may not be so lucky six years from now to have such a fine choice as an alternative.