Sen. Orrin Hatch is in front of the camera, again. This time he’s criticizing one-party control of both houses of Congress and the White House (“Hatch on health care reform: ‘It is enough to make you barf,’” Tribune , Dec. 6). Where was his concern during the six years his party controlled both houses and the White House and President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were running the bus into the ditch? Where was his concern when the Bush administration was shredding the Constitution in the name of national security?

Where was his concern when Bush couldn’t find the weapons of mass destruction, even as he searched the Oval Office for them in an attempt at humor. Why doesn’t Hatch express to those who lost family in Iraq how bad he feels now that the facts are irrefutable: Iraq was a war of choice, packaged and sold by individuals who (more…)

Gil Iker can hammer nails at my house. He hits ‘em right on the head.

Right-wing predators in the Utah Legislature are again on the prowl to restore the most regressive tax of all — the sales tax on food, which hits poor people hard but is little noticed by the rich.

A fairer, smarter way to replenish Utah’s recession-impacted bank balance is to increase our severance tax on extractive industries. The theory of severance taxes is that since a state’s mineral wealth is owned by all its citizens, mining companies should pay us for it. Especially since the wealth of metallic ores, oil, gas, coal, gravel and rock is irreplaceable.

Severance taxes are a small percentage of the selling price of the extracted minerals. Utah’s rate is low, and for coal, it’s free — we give coal away untaxed. In 2006, neighbor states Wyoming and New Mexico collected severance taxes of $683 million and $588 million; Utah collected $50 million. Is it a coincidence that our legislators can legally accept unlimited campaign contributions from corporations? Utahns desperately need an ethics law with teeth, but our legislators will never pass one.

We’re in a recession and Utah needs money to operate. The corporations turn a profit on what they sell. Poor people need to eat.

Gil Iker

Salt Lake City

BY JOHN CONYERS JR.

This week marks an important anniversary that will go unnoticed in many corners. Ten years ago, a little known Depression-era law known as the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. It passed with large margins in both houses of Congress and was signed by President Bill Clinton. On Wall Street, the titans of capitalism cheered while it went unnoticed by most Americans that an important guard against financial instability and conflict of interest had been wiped away.

The Glass-Steagall Act had a simple premise: America’s banking sectors and investment houses need to remain separate to prevent banks from gambling on the stock market with our savings. President Franklin Roosevelt knew that banks, like other institutions, could not be trusted to police themselves. After witnessing the widespread failure of financial institutions in the Great Depression (more…)

Salt Lake Tribune Forum Letter

Due to their religious beliefs about the “sanctity” of marriage, many feel that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. That view elevates the establishment of marriage to one above the law, above the reach of the average lay person seeking such a union, and above any deviation from the holiness of this union.

By this logic of “sanctity,” the rules of marriage must be strictly enforced. Divorce and adultery absolutely offend the sanctity of marriage. The next step for those opposed to same-sex marriage is to propose legislation to abolish divorce and to require hard time for engaging (more…)

By Andrew Buffmire

Updated: 10/30/2009 05:24:49 PM MDT

What are we trying to accomplish with health care reform? The following basic objectives seem to be universally accepted:

» Health care coverage for all with elimination of denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

» Economic participation by all in whatever health care coverage program is adopted.

» Wellness care and individual and provider incentives for better health outcomes.

» Fair payment to insurers and health care providers for the services they render.

The current debate is whether or not to include a public option to create an alternative coverage mechanism and to force resolution of the above objectives. Let’s make it clear, the U.S. already has a quasi-public health care system. Medicare is the government health care program for the elderly, and Medicaid is the government health care program for the poor; government employees (state and federal) are insured through government-funded and administered programs and the Veterans Administration provides for the ex-military.

This is an innovative idea. It’s the first time we’ve seen such a proposal. It’s worth a careful read. Andrew Buffmire is willing to think outside the box. It’s probably too late in the health care discussion, but right now the ball is in the air.

The open issue is how to establish health care coverage to those otherwise denied coverage or unable to afford coverage. A corollary concern is how to incentivize the young and healthy to participate in insurance programs so that the real benefit of insurance can be realized: providing coverage and sharing risk across a population and over time.

What is proposed is a government-sponsored reinsurance program. Reinsurance is a model universally used in the competitive private insurance market to address extraordinary risk. This is insurance (more…)

Public Forum Letter

Updated: 10/30/2009 07:10:50 PM MDT

We live in a state that prizes education. We even added driver education to keep our children safe. Yet, in one area we are steadfast in keeping our children ignorant, illiterate and under control: sex.

Here in Utah, we apparently think that our children’s friends who are as confused as they are, their parents who are almost as ignorant as they are, television, movies, the Web, newspapers, magazines and predators, plus Sen. Chris Buttars and the (more…)

Op-Ed, Salt Lake Tribune

by Rep. Chris Herrod

Nov. 14, 2009

Recently, 18 Brigham Young University professors accused the Legislature’s Public Utilities Committee of politicizing the science surrounding global warming. Unfortunately, the science has already been politicized and some have an agenda.

I do not question the professors’ sincerity or academic integrity, but global warming is no longer simply an academic question; it’s a political one, since people in rural Utah and around the world already suffer from the recommended “cures” (production of corn-based ethanol has caused a global food crisis and millions suffer needlessly).

One professor complained that members of the committee want too high a level of scientific certainty about the threat of catastrophic global warming. It would be irresponsible to expect otherwise. Are the BYU scientists so certain that they are willing to burden Provo households with a $2,500 to $4,000-a-year tax increase? That’s what will happen if a cap-and-trade policy on carbon emissions passes the U.S. Senate. Provo City Power is part of a co-op that derives 85 percent of its power from coal and Provo consumers will be penalized.

Three questions must be answered before any responsible action can be taken.

First, is global warming occurring? Since the Earth is coming out of an ice age and been significantly warming throughout its history, most agree this is true.

Second, is human activity the primary source of this warming, and if so, is it enough to cause catastrophic harm? Catastrophic predictions are possible only if climate models assume positive amplification of minor man-made warming. Many “nonconsensus” scientists doubt this and other assumptions and are concerned about the reliability of the complex models.

Finally, even if man is causing global warming, can man do anything about it, or will the solution be worse than the problem?

So what we have here is Rep. Herrod back-handedly agreeing with the 18 BYU scientists that were deliberately left out of the legislative hearing process. He is admitting to the fact that there is global warming, that some of it is caused by man, and that it may become catastrophic, and yet the committee deliberately sought out the skeptics to testify and left the majority opinion of scientists off the table. Why did they do that? Because they didn’t want to hear the scientific message. They deliberately brought in the skeptics they wanted to hear. They wanted to stack the deck for their ideological purpose.

When called on it by distinguished scientists he attacks  “environmentalism as the next communism” and fears that our response will result in economic deprivation greater than any environmental disaster that may come our way. He offers no solution. Free enterprise is king, full speed ahead; science, thinking, reasoning, teamwork be damned. Get the government out of the way. These are the guys running our government, the very ones who don’t believe in it.

This is the kind of leadership that dominates the Utah legislature—-they are governing from an ideological straight jacket, the same straight jacket that nearly brought us to a global economic meltdown, the economy he so loves and wants to protect from ‘environmentalism.’

Global warming isn’t our problem, it’s brain freeze.

More U.S. manufacturing jobs will simply be lost since China and India (more…)

Tribune Public Forum Letter

Updated: 11/13/2009 12:38:47 PM MST

I appreciate those who quote the Bible to stave off same-sex marriage, such as Leviticus 18:22, which states it is an “abomination” to “lie with a man as one lies with a woman.” I now need advice on how to follow some other Bible laws.

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What would be a fair price?

My neighbor insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may own slaves, male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend claims that this applies to Mexicans but not to Canadians. Why can’t I own Canadians?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

I have so many more things I’m unclear on. I’m thankful, though, that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Lynn Johnson

Salt Lake City

Tribune Public Forum Letter

Updated: 11/13/2009 12:38:39 PM MST

The gay marriage debate deserves more respect than blindly labeling as homophobes those who oppose it and as deviants those who support it. I tire of caricatures drawn of this and other issues. When did Utah politics and culture become scripted like a TV reality show?

Probably well-intentioned, Gordon Smith simply took another cheap shot at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Oaks’ argument,” Forum, Nov. 1). He’s wrong when he states the purpose of Proposition 8 was to take rights away from gay couples. California couples in marriages or civil unions share the same rights. It’s easier to dismiss by distorted rhetoric than to honestly consider another’s sincere belief.

The majority of Americans want marriage to remain only between a man and a woman. Smith should consider what the majorities of the 31 states where gay marriage has been rejected look like. Is he more enlightened, intelligent or compassionate than they are?

Jeremy Roberts is a regular contributor to the Tribune Forum and almost always it is in defense of the church and in opposition to gays. Without any question he holds a sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin. Gay rights supporters don’t begrudge him that belief. They merely don’t want him imposing that belief by force of law on those who see it differently. Gays are not asking that Mormons give up their beliefs. Gay marriage takes nothing away from Mormons. Gays are not injuring or denying anything to Mormons except the desire by Mormons to harm and restrict gays. Let’s keep the issue straight. Gays are the victims, not the church. One day Jeremy will get it.

Does Smith really believe that Mormons are intolerant of other religions and bigoted toward homosexuals? That does not describe the church I know and love. Is Smith as tolerant of my beliefs as he would like me to be of his?

Jeremy Roberts

Sandy

“Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.” So said LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks in his defence of the involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in political campaigns against gay marriage (“Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech,” www.sltrib.com, Oct. 14).

Ummm … Has he read his own (more…)

Olive Branch from LDS Church Will Be Huge

The announcement that the LDS Church is supportive of the Salt Lake City statute that prohibits discrimination against gays in housing and employment has implications far beyond Salt Lake City and changes the landscape of gay politics, not only in Utah, but across the nation. This is no lightweight matter.

Dr. Gary Watts (my brother), one of Utah’s foremost gay rights activists, and a former Mormon who resigned his church membership over the issue, said, “I believe this is the first time in the history of the church that it has ever publicly said anything supportive of gay rights. It is a sea change and great news and I commend the church for this progress.”

While it was a foregone conclusion that SLC was going to pass the ordinance, the announcement by the LDS Church preceding the vote turned it into a unanimous vote.

Some vocal anti-gay rights legislators had already threatened to override the ordinance if SLC passed it, but now that seems unlikely, and in fact, the legislature will now be under extreme pressure to pass a similar state wide statute.

The influence of the LDS Church is far reaching and could even have positive effects beyond state borders.  There are a significant number of Mormons in the state legislatures throughout the west, and a change of attitudes on their part can have influence with others and turn minorities into majorities quite quickly.

Even on the national level it will have influence. There are four Mormon senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Utah’s two Republican senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, and  Mike Crapo of Idaho, and at least ten in the House of Representatives, (more…)

This letter of praise to the Tribune is spot-on. We also love the Tribune editorial page. It is always full of interesting observations from all sides of the spectrum. Our Watts Cookin’ Blog is full of articles from the Salt Lake Tribune because they are timely, informative, and crucial.

Everyone in Utah should subscribe to and read the Tribune, otherwise they are simply uninformed about what is going on around them.

The Tribune ‘s Oct. 4 op-ed page was exceptional. First, Nicholas Kristof explained rationally why more troops are not the answer in Afghanistan, helping me change my position (“Sending more troops to Afghanistan a bad bet”).

Next, Ed Firmage Jr. takes on Sen. Orrin Hatch about global warming, explaining how the science the senator uses is fundamentally flawed and how Hatch is wrong (“Professor Hatch’s ‘Climate 101′ lacks science”). I hope Hatch sees this article; every Utah fifth-grader ought to read it. It’s simple and understandable.

Lastly, Karrie Galloway explains how some in the Legislature simply have no idea what Planned Parenthood does to help thousands of Utahns every year get the help and education they need (“Planned Parenthood given bad rap by legislators”). This is not some evil organization, as many of them believe; it plays a necessary and practical role in the lives of many Utah families. As a result, I’m joining PP and donating $100. I hope others do, too.

These are the types of articles that inform, educate and entertain. They are at the heart of the reason I subscribe to The Tribune . Please keep it coming.

Tom Love

Salt Lake City

Last year, Tim DeChristopher placed bids on oil leases in southern Utah that he didn’t intend to honor, and this year Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, illegally rode roughshod along with other disgruntled all-terrain-vehicle owners over public lands not open to those vehicles. DeChristopher acted to protect the environment (“Bogus bidder argues he had to act,” Tribune , Oct. 27), while Noel acted to destroy it. Yet the U.S. district attorney has chosen to prosecute DeChristopher while Rep. Noel continues to enjoy exemption from this consequence, including the retention of his seat in the Utah Legislature.

Clearly the case against DeChristopher is not about seeking justice; it’s about seeking revenge. Since Noel has known interests in the development of energy sources in Utah, including oil drilling, it is unconscionable that Noel might have escaped the consequence of his illegal act due to his political influence in our state. Unless he is likewise prosecuted, in the name of equal justice, the case against DeChristopher should be dropped.

Susan L. Loffler

I get confused by how some of our elected officials talk and how they vote. It would help if they followed the example of many pro athletes, skiers and NASCAR drivers, whose clothing carries the insignias of their corporate sponsors. Why not have our politicians do the same and proudly wear on their clothes the logos of their major corporate contributors? Politicians say that there is no correlation between major contributions and how they vote, so there should be no problem.

I wonder what corporate logos would be on our Utah politicians’ clothing.

Rod Vogel

Salt Lake City

So many people are arguing over political issues, but we are not getting the real facts. Information is skewed by special interest groups who have been buying off our Congress members.

You can write to Sen. Orrin Hatch all you want about how he should vote on health care reform. You will get a nice form letter, but no matter what you say he will vote against President Barack Obama’s plan. Why? Blue Cross and Blue Shield is one of his largest campaign donors. (check it out on www.opensecrets.org.) If you have the same goal as Blue Cross and Blue Shield you have nothing to fear, right? Except that his top campaign donors are almost all health companies, and those companies do not have your best interest at heart.

Then there is Sen. Bob Bennett. He voted for the bailout, despite overwhelming calls begging him not to. Why? He received $23,200 from Citigroup, $20,000 from JPMorgan Chase, and $15,500 from the American Bankers Association.

Let’s get big money out of lawmaking, and then we can discuss the issues on their true merits and vices — not who will get the most money out of it.

Michelle L. King

Logan

Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum Letter

Updated: 10/26/2009 03:12:57 PM MDT

It was with much disgust that I read that Gov. Gary Herbert has decided not to limit donations to his upcoming fundraising gala (“Herbert won’t limit big donors,” Tribune , Oct. 19). What this will eventually mean is that the poor citizens of Utah can look forward to paying more for the privilege of living here.

Looking over the donations from utilities, $120,000 should ensure that future appointees to the Public Service Commission will favor the public utilities when applications are made for a rate increase in our gas and power bills. Also, the $125,000 given by the Realtors and contractors should take care of any resistance to the spread of building in the northern valleys. Last but not least, I see the oil companies have kicked in another $35,000. This should help to make sure nobody looks too closely at the price of gasoline in the state.

I hope these kinds of disclosures will wake up the voters in the 2010 off-year elections. It is time to throw out all of the incumbent bums and start over.

Lyvian Richter

Sandy

The leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to defend its efforts to promote the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which removed the right of same-sex couples in the state to marry. In his recent address to the students of BYU-Idaho, LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks observed that marriage is “an institution of transcendent importance that they [Proposition 8 supporters], along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.”

John Marcotte, a resident of California who also supports traditional marriage, is working to place on the ballot the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act. According to Marcotte, this measure will continue the work done by Proposition 8 in strengthening traditional marriages by eliminating its biggest threat: divorce. I’m sure his fundraising coffers will soon be bolstered when LDS Church leaders ask Mormons to give of their “time and means” to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage.

After all, Mormons are “conscientiously obliged to protect” marriage, aren’t they? And, unlike same-sex marriage, divorce was something Jesus actually spoke against in the strongest of terms — and frequently.

Hunter Wolfe

Salt Lake City

This letter appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune, May 30, 2009. Several writers responded and those selected letters are published below.

If the safety of President Barack Obama’s wife and children depended on the extraction of information from terrorists, and he did not use enhanced interrogation techniques if needed to get that information, then he is neither a man nor a true father, nor should he be president of the United States.

We are all endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the government of the United States was instituted to secure these rights. And it is immoral not to use enhanced interrogation techniques in order to protect us and to secure those rights.

Gary Russon

Salt Lake City

Torture’s Costs

Gary Russon believes that it is immoral not to use “enhanced interrogation” to protect our unalienable rights (“Rights by interrogation,” Forum, May 30). I suggest (more…)

(These letters regarding gay issues appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune. The first letter, by Dave Argyle, is followed up with a rebuttal from Norm Jenson.)

Lifestyles with merit

I am sympathetic to many of the frustrations of the proponents of gay marriage, but not to many of their arguments. Far too many are based on the idea that government must treat all citizens equally, and that to do otherwise is a violation of some basic right. That idea, straight out of the Constitution, is appealing and makes for good sound bites, but it can also be misleading.

The fact is government routinely tries to shape society by offering programs and incentives to encourage behaviors it deems beneficial, as well as imposing penalties on behaviors it wants to discourage.

In most cases, government offers both incentives and penalties equally to all, as it should. People are free to act in ways that do not qualify them for the incentives, but it makes no more sense for the government to reward someone for an action they did not take than to punish them for a crime they did not commit.

If gay marriage proponents want the same incentives offered to traditional marriage, then they should make the case that their preferred lifestyle merits the same incentives because it provides equivalent benefits to society.

Dave Argyle

Riverton

Confused about rights

Dave Argyle says he is sympathetic to the frustrations of the proponents of gay marriage, but not their arguments (“Lifestyles with merit,” Forum, June 2). He claims that rights are subject to the good of society, and that the government often interferes with rights by offering incentives to exercise them well and penalties for those who don’t. In short, Argyle thinks rights depend on merit.

Would he give up his right to free speech if it were determined not to be beneficial? Would he give up his right to practice his religion if it didn’t benefit society?

He confuses rights with privileges. Getting married to the person you choose is not a privilege like driving a car. It is a constitutional right to associate with whomever you choose. There are thousands of bad marriages between men and women. Should they too have to show that their marriages benefit society or give up their state-sanctioned marriage certificate?

His reason for not granting rights guaranteed by the Constitution is that he doesn’t think same-sex marriages benefit society. That’s not good enough. Rights are for everyone, not just those you approve of. People don’t need to prove any benefit — that’s why they’re called rights.

Norm Jenson

Sandy

Now that the California Supreme Court, in a 6-1 ruling, validated Proposition 8, last fall’s voter-approved constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, it is interesting to examine the tactics and public conduct of the gay activist community.

Ironically, this powerful and well-funded gay lobby continues to use rhetoric to promote hate speech, encourage social protest and incite harassment of individuals or groups who oppose their agenda. The Californians Against Hate Web site, an archetype for gay activism (www.californiansagainsthate.com) continues to utilize false implication and exaggeration to impugn anyone who dares oppose them as hatemongers.

An example of this rhetoric is its “dishonor roll,” a comprehensive listing of donors who supported Proposition 8. It includes a specific charge to “Boycott A-1 Self Storage Company” and maliciously targets well over 300 other individuals and organizations who made generous donations supporting Prop 8.

An orchestrated attack against those who support a ban on same-sex marriage has included protest, vandalism and aggressive defamation. This attempted demonization may elicit public attention, but is transparent and disingenuous.

Can you imagine the firestorm of outrage that would erupt if sincere individuals in the gay community were targeted and assailed in an analogous manner?

Doug Roper

Sandy