The Supreme Court got it right. The rivers and streams are public property and the public should have reasonable access to them. Private property rights must allow for reasonable access and egress for proper public uses of the rivers and streams.

The main argument in the House for passing HB141 was that allowing a fishermen’s easement on private property violates the Utah Constitution by taking property rights without compensation. This argument appears valid on the surface, but it falsely characterizes the Conatser decision as being against freedom, liberty and the constitution, and it exaggerates, ignores and misrepresents the facts. The Senate should not pass HB 141 because:

(1) The public owns the water and the benefits from the water.

What constitutional private property rights are lost by the easement? In rural areas, streams may be used for watering livestock, irrigation and other purposes. If recreationists interfere with these activities, their presence is unreasonable and not allowed under the court ruling. There is no inherent conflict of purposes, however.

What about privacy and pride in ownership of streamside property owners? Suppose a property owner purchased his or her land because of the aesthetic beauty of the stream? Should a fisherman be denied an easement to go through such an owner’s streambed?

Even though such access might lessen the landowner’s satisfaction of ownership, the answer is no, for the following reason: The beauty and recreational value of the stream results from the water in the stream, not the streambed, and the public, not the landowner, owns the water .

Because of the public ownership of the water, the aesthetic qualities resulting from this ownership should benefit the public (which includes the landowner). If land was purchased for the reason of obtaining exclusive use or enjoyment of a stream, the purchase was made by mistake. The water has always been the property of the public.

If this mistaken pride in ownership (of what is not owned — the water) is subtracted from the current debate, the remaining landowner complaints are not sufficient to keep fishermen off of the public’s waters.

(2) Uncompensated taking: Who’s taking from whom?

Proponents of HB141 argued that legalizing public fishing on private stream beds is uncompensated taking of private property. What about uncompensated taking of public property by the exclusive use of the water by landowners? If landowners were compensated for the public use of their streambeds and also any actual damages done by fishermen, and then had to pay the state for the value that the water provides to them, including its aesthetic value, the state would make money.

Would a landowner rather have a stream on his land with fishermen on it, or no stream and no fishermen? The landowners are indebted to the public, not vice?versa.

(3) HB141 combined with a law passed last year would prohibit almost all stream fishing on private land.

Fishermen’s access to private streambeds in Utah has decreased through the years. Up until 2009, however, fishermen still had access to private streambeds unless the land was properly posted. Last year this presumption favoring access was reversed. A bill titled “Criminal trespass on agricultural land or range land” passed and now makes “fencing” sufficient notice to prohibit entry without permission. Permission must be written, signed and dated.

This means: If a fisherman wants to fish a mile of a stream on a private streambed, he or she must obtain this written, dated permission from each landowner on each side of the stream over this piece of land. Want to fish there again next month? Collect another handful of permissions for that date. Granting permissions is purely at the discretion of the landowner.

HB141 proponents answer simply: Fish on public land. This attitude is not consistent with the state’s ownership of the water.

Under current law, with Conatser intact, once you gain legal access to the stream, you can move up and down under a legal easement. If you own land along 100 feet of a stream and HB141 passes, you would be required to obtain written, dated and signed permission from your neighbors to fish beyond the 100 feet of your property.

(4) Much of the best fishing is on private land.

Much, some would say most, of the best stream fishing in Utah is on private land. There is good fishing higher up in the national forests, but there is more accessible stream fishing in the valleys where the ownership is mostly private. With more people wanting to fish all the time, let’s not allow HB 141 to become law.

Duke Edwards is a fisherman and attorney living in Sandy.

By Matt Canham

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 03/02/2010 07:59:57 PM MST

Washington » Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called his colleague “gutsy” for repeatedly blocking a vote on a short extension of unemployment benefits, Medicare payments and transportation funding.

A few hours later Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning relented, striking a deal that allowed the Senate to quickly pass the $10 billion bill late Tuesday on a vote of 78 to 19.

Democrats had painted Bunning and the Republicans as obstructionists who hurt those already suffering in an economic recession. Bunning’s use of a procedural block had already resulted in at least 2,000 federal workers being temporarily furloughed and could have impact unemployment payments in some states.

Bunning defended his actions, saying the bill would add to the national debt and that Democrats should have found a way to pay for it. In the deal, Senate leaders allowed Bunning to offer an amendment that would close a tax loophole for the paper industry to pay for the bill. That amendment failed.

Before a deal was struck, Hatch backed Bunning’s rationale.

“Senator Bunning’s making a point — a valid point,” he said. “The fact is we’ve been living for too many years on borrowed money.”

The fact is, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, and Senator Bunning, you were loudly supportive and voted for the tax breaks for the wealthy, the unfunded war in Iraq, and increased payments in prescription drugs on your watch. You hypocrites that are now screaming to balance the budget are the ones who broke it. You are phonies. You and your George Bush enlarged the national debt greater than any other president since your own Ronald Reagan.

The time for you to bemoan our deficits was then, not in support of the ridiculous senate rule that allows one person to hold up the democratic process.

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, declined to comment about what people in Washington were calling Bunning’s blockade.

Hatch and Bennett voted against the final bill, which brought an end to a stream of Democrats going to the Senate floor to protest against Bunning.

“Today we have a clear cut example to show the American people just what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, said a few hours before the final vote. “That is because today one single Republican senator is standing in the way of the unemployment benefits of 400,000 Americans.”

Bunning, who is retiring at the end of the year, also faced criticism from Republican Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who said he was “hurting the American people.”

But Hatch said Democrats are playing the situation for maximum political effect.

“Looks more like they want a PR stunt than to actually help people,” he said, arguing Democrats could have forced a vote sooner.

mcanham@sltrib.com

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

—

Lost unemployment benefits

The U.S. Department of Labor said Monday that 400,000 Americans will lose unemployment benefits as of the week ending March 13 — nearly 3 million by May — if Congress does not extend emergency unemployment compensation and full federal funding for the extended benefits program. The number of impacted individuals include:

» Utah: 2,700

» Wyoming: 900

» Colorado: 9,000

» Arizona: 8,300

» New York: 54,300

» Florida: 49,600

» Georgia: 41,000

» Texas: 27,400

» Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and California are among 21 states in which no one will be impacted

Source: White House Media Affairs Office

Salt Lake Tribune

Washington » The question from the counselor was simple and straightforward: Did anyone need help dealing with the violence they encountered on the front lines in Iraq?

No one in the Marine unit raised their hand, especially not Daniel Hanson, who thought he didn’t even have the “right” to ask for a therapist’s help since he experienced far less death and destruction than did his friends in the infantry.

But he did need help — and after a two-year struggle with depression, drugs and alcohol Hanson received it in an intense in-patient treatment center. But not before his marriage ended and he became estranged from his kids. Not before he attempted to end his own life.

“I was pretty much a monster,” he said. “I thought I had to kill myself before my kids learned what a loser their dad is.”

Hanson, from Minnesota, shared his experiences with a Senate panel on Wednesday that explored the alarming rate of suicide among the nation’s newest veterans. Among the other panelists was David Rudd, a suicide expert from the University of Utah who advocated for a change in military culture and more partnerships with outside groups like the one that ultimately helped Hanson to help counteract the high level of military suicides.

The federal government estimates that 18 active veterans kill themselves every day. That number may rise as more service members return from the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This problem is real,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. “This has to be an effort where we use every available resource.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs has launched new ways to work with veterans struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems — one of the most successful being a new suicide prevention hot line catering to veterans — 800-273-TALK. But Hanson said these services, while nice, are not enough. He felt the government treated him as a number, not a person, and he finally received the help he needed at a private treatment center, where he stayed for 15 months.

Hanson graduated from the program a week ago.

Rudd, the dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Utah, said Hanson’s story illustrates the need for a more extensive and innovative approach to mental health, which should stretch on for years after service members leave the military and begin when they are just recruits.

“We are not reaching the veterans who are the highest risk,” he told the Senate committee. “The nature of the military culture is at the heart of the problem.”

The services train men and women to be warriors, and people with illnesses, particularly mental ones, are often considered weak. Rudd said military training needs to change this perception and discuss potential mental health problems in basic training. Removing the stigma would go a long way in helping people like Hanson get help before their life unravels, Rudd said.

While he called the VA’s programs “cutting edge,” Rudd suggested that they should partner with outside groups to continue treatment long after a veteran retires. He suggested programs involving colleges would be a good start, since many veterans who return from Afghanistan and Iraq will go on to get an education.

“We would welcome the opportunity to partner with the VA system,” he said.

mcanham@sltrib.com

“I’m not leaving because I’m giving up on the fight in Utah,” the two-term Salt Lake City Democrat said Thursday after announcing she won’t seek re-election. “We have so many budding leaders [in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community] that I’m anxious to see who’s going to step up next.”

As a single mom and a surrogate for a gay couple — the baby is due in June — Johnson expressed some displeasure at what she sees as hypocrisy in the Legislature.

“For the past four years, I have stood with my colleagues each morning of the session, placed my hand over my heart and pledged ‘liberty and justice for all,’ ” she said in a statement, “and yet repeatedly witnessed blatant disregard of those so in need of equal protections in the name of ‘family values.’ ”

Christine Johnson has been an outstanding legislator and she will be missed, both for her steady, attentive focus on her job, but also as a necessary societal example of the values and community spirit of gays and lesbians.

Johnson — one of two openly gay legislators (a third resigned in December) — said that nontraditional families often are the most devoted partners and parents. It is “reprehensible that we continue to ignore them,” she added, praising Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for fighting anti-gay bias.

“Their bravery and willingness to understand the reality of shameful discrimination within Utah will demonstrate to state leaders that courageous leadership is admirable,” she said, “and that Utah is a better place when we suppress our entitled need to cast judgment on one another and instead respect the authenticity and free agency of each person.”

House Speaker David Clark, R-Santa Clara, said Johnson has “added to the debate,” although he “may have a different slant on what the Legislature has done.”

Johnson, 41, expressed satisfaction with her efforts to pass statewide gay-rights measures. Those issues have faced universal defeat in the Legislature, but she relished challenging her Republican colleagues.

In 2010, for the third year, she introduced a bill that would extend Utah’s housing and workplace protections against discrimination to gay and transgender people. She also sought the Legislature’s support in her call to press the federal government to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which bans openly gay service members from serving in the military.

Johnson set aside those two measures early this session when she brokered a moratorium on all pro- and anti-gay-rights bills. The compromise is credited with stopping efforts to overturn recently passed anti-discrimination statutes in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The deal also allows other cities and counties to pursue such protections in housing and employment for their gay and transgender residents.

“She’s been an amazing advocate for LGBT people,” said Brandie Balken, executive director of Equality Utah. “Purely by her presence, she has broken down stereotypes.”

Balken said her group will work to keep Johnson’s district, which includes many east-side Salt Lake City neighborhoods and a piece of Summit County, a “pro-LGBT seat.”

Johnson, a Realtor, has passed legislation to retrofit school buses to improve air quality, reduce the phosphorous content of detergent and streamline Utah’s election process. She said her decision to leave the Legislature will allow her to seek work in LGBT advocacy outside of Utah.

“I have really made a genuine attempt to make Utah my home,” since relocating from Maryland eight years ago, Johnson said. “I just haven’t felt that in my heart that Utah is home.”

rwinters@sltrib.com

gehrke@sltrib.com

Insurers told Leane Jensen she had three strikes against her. The 33-year-old freelance photographer had been uninsured for some time, had once suffered a minor back injury and was of child-bearing age.

They didn’t know it, but both women fell prey to “gender rating.” It’s a strategy insurers use to charge women higher premiums, or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy, a previous Caesarean section delivery and domestic violence.

Gender is among many factors, including age and address, that insurers use to predict a consumer’s “healthiness” and medical costs. Industry groups call it smart business. National women’s health advocates call it gender discrimination.

In Utah, the practice has drawn scant attention. A ban on gender rating by companies selling policies to individual consumers was struck last month from House Speaker Dave Clark’s reform bill with hardly a whimper of protest.

If signed by the governor, HB294 will still ban the practice for policies sold to small groups, which advocates say protects companies that tend to employ a lot of women, such as day care centers, dentist offices and nonprofit groups.

It’s a good first step, said Korey Capozza, senior health policy analyst with Voices for Utah Children. But the policy question of “who pays for the cost of procreating” warrants more thorough debate, she added. “Women don’t get pregnant on their own.”

Gender rating is most acutely felt by women who don’t have employer-sponsored coverage: the unemployed or independently employed, such as freelance writers and designers, real estate agents and consultants.

The practice is illegal in 11 states and tightly regulated in two others.

But not in Utah, where a 25-year-old woman will pay up to 17 percent more than a man for the same coverage, according to price quotes obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune from three of Utah’s largest insurers on ehealthinsurance.com.

A more thorough 2008 survey by the National Women’s Law Center found Utah women in their 20s, 30s and 40s can expect to pay even more — up to 37 percent more.

A monthly difference of $23 might not seem like much, but it adds up, said Capozza. Overall, women are poorer than men and tend to earn less on the dollar, she said. “It’s like a double-whammy.”

Jensen and her 42-year-old husband, also a photographer, live in fear of losing their coverage, which they were finally able to secure with a doctor’s note saying Jensen’s herniated disk had healed and likely wouldn’t recur.

They spend more in premiums than they do on their mortgage and have decided, for financial reasons, to put off having kids. And had Jensen not finagled coverage, her recent heart surgery would have bankrupted them.

“You feel so completely helpless,” Jensen said.

Companies say women should pay higher premiums because they cost more to insure. In addition to maternity costs, women are more likely to visit their doctors, actuarial data show. They’re also more likely to use prescription drugs, though much of that is for birth control.

“If someone’s a less safe driver, they generally pay more for insurance than someone who is a safer driver,” said Mike Tatko, spokesman for Regence BlueCross BlueShield.

The tables turn around age 55, when men require more medical care. But that shift isn’t mirrored in Utah’s health plans — at least not those offered by Regence BlueCross BlueShield and Altius, the Tribune found.

Intermountain Healthcare’s SelectHealth shows no gender gap in pricing. The company weighs other factors, including family size and age, said spokesman Jason Burgess.

Brigette Courtot, a health policy analyst at the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C., asks, if one insurer can abandon gender rating, why can’t others? Under criticism a few years ago, insurers stopped using statistics to justify “race rating,” she said.

McCormack began shopping for a policy last year when the deductible on her husband’s plan at work rose to $8,000, after a string of surgical and cancer treatment claims.

She applied to Regence BlueCross BlueShield and Altius, dutifully noting any health problems (there were none) and any medications used.

Within weeks, she received word that she was being rejected because she had taken Clomid. Ironically, the drug had been prescribed to remedy her husband’s infertility problems, not hers.

“They were willing to cover an older infertile male, but declined to cover a younger, healthy female because a year ago I took 10 pills,” she said. “They figured we wanted to have kids and would likely pursue treatments — that we’d nevertheless have to pay for out of pocket — that could raise the risk of eventually developing conditions, ahem, pregnancy.”

Industry lobbyist Kelly Atkinson said insurers would drop gender rating if lawmakers mandate that everyone purchase insurance. Otherwise, premiums for young, healthy males would go up, potentially forcing some to forgo insurance and adding to Utah’s ranks of uninsured.

“But in Utah,” he said, “there’s just not the political will.”

kstewart@sltrib.com

Salt Lake Tribune

West Valley City The City Council agreed Tuesday to allow city officials to come up with a draft ordinance to protect gay and transgender people from housing and employment discrimination.

Mayor Mike Winder and most council members seemed to support the measure during their 30-minute discussion at the council study meeting. Councilman Russ Brooks was the only member not at the meeting.

At least three people attended the meeting for the council discussion, but public comment is not allowed at study meetings.

Winder, a Mormon Republican who supports the measure, said he was glad the council was being proactive about the issue.

Some council members said the issue of an anti-discrimination ordinance needs to be addressed using federal and state guidelines.

“It’s unfortunate we have to keep spelling out nondiscrimination issues,” said Councilman Steve Vincent. “It’s sad we have to do this.”

Other council members agreed, but acknowledged it has to be done.

“It’s the wise thing to do,” Councilman Donald Christensen said.

After Salt Lake City adopted in late 2009 its two ordinances – one bars discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and the other bans it in employment – Salt Lake County passed similar statutes. Park City, Summit County and Taylorsville are considering such ordinances.

Wayne Pyle, West Valley city manager, said city officials will study the Salt Lake City ordinances that are 16 pages each and draft their own proposed ordinances for the council.

The council will discuss the proposed ordinances at another study meeting, and then, if the council favors them, the ordinances would be the subject of a public hearing, Pyle said.

The idea for the ordinance was discussed at the city’s strategic planning meeting in January.

Wayne said the idea to provide health insurance benefits to gay and transgender city employees was not part of the proposals and a completely different topic.

After the meeting, John Bowers, a West Valley City resident, showed up at the regular council meeting because he thought there was a public hearing. Still, he addressed the council during regular public comment. He said he opposes the idea of such ordinances because it would force employers and landlords to compromise their morals, if they don’t agree with homosexuality.

“We are destroying people’s fundamental rights,” he said.

jsanchez@sltrib.com

Associated Press

Louisville, Ky. » Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn’t taken a friend’s advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old’s biology lessons.

Mule’s precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth’s excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin’s theory.

“I thought she was going to have a coronary,” Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. “She’s like, ‘This is not true!’ ”

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth’s creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children “religious or moral instruction.”

“The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians,” said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. “Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program.”

Those who don’t, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press.

“I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids,” said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn’t attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

Parents who shield their children from a modern education so as to protect their religious beliefs are not much different than parents who won’t let modern medicine treat their sick children. When taken to an extreme it is sad and serious and borders on child abuse. Parental rights have limits.

What can be done about it? Probably very little, except that we should do everything we can to inform the public about the lack of academic merit these schools have—a warning label so to speak.

“Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God will find many points in this book puzzling,” says the introduction to Biology: Third Edition from Bob Jones University Press. “This book was not written for them.”

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its “History of Life” chapter that a “Christian worldview … is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is.”

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

The size of the business of home-school texts isn’t clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don’t give out sales numbers. Slatter said home-school material sales reach about $1 billion annually in the U.S.

Publishers are well aware of the market, said Jay Wile, a former chemistry professor in Indianapolis who helped launch the Apologia curriculum in the early 1990s.

“If I’m planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I’m going to at least find out what my demographic is,” Wile said.

In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.

“We’re not religious home-schoolers, and there’s somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered,” said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.

Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.

Wendy Womack, another Lexington home-school mother, said the only scientifically credible curriculum she’s found is from the Maryland-based Calvert School, which has been selling study-at-home materials for more than 100 years.

Apologia and Bob Jones University Press say their science books sell well. Apologia’s Exploring Creation biology textbook retails for $65, while Bob Jones’ Biology: Third Edition lists at $52.

Coyne and Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter reviewed excerpts from the Apologia and Bob Jones biology textbooks, which are equivalent to ninth- and 10th-grade biology lessons. Porter said he would give the books an F.

“If this is the way kids are home-schooled, then they’re being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology,” Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

Wile countered that Coyne “feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis [evolution]. We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up.”

Adam Brown’s parents say their 16-year-old son’s belief in the Bible’s creation story isn’t deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.

Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he’ll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.

“He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school,” Polly Brown said. “But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education.”

–

On the Web

For more insight and analysis

Apologia Educational Ministries » www.apologia.com

Bob Jones University Press » http://www.bjupress.com/page/HS+Home

Jerry Coyne’s blog, “Why Evolution is True” » http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

Salt Lake Tribune

Washington » Liberal commentators have pounced on Sen. Orrin Hatch, calling him a hypocrite and a liar for his attack on the legislative shortcut Democrats favor to pass health reform.

But Hatch, R-Utah, isn’t about to back down. He said left-wing TV personalities and Democratic operatives are just “whining.”

“They can’t stand to have the facts pointed out to them,” he said.

The D.C. dust-up is in reaction to a column Hatch wrote for Tuesday’s Washington Post , stating his case against relying on an infrequently used Senate rule called reconciliation to stop Republicans from talking health reform to death.

Designed for budget-related items, reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered and allow for limited debate, moving quickly to a final vote that takes only 51 senators, a simple majority, to pass.

Senator Hatch, for his own political purposes, has distorted to the point of lying about the history of reconciliation and totally ignores his own role in using reconciliation. This is pure hypocrisy—the stuff that has ruined America’s respect for its political leaders. Here is Senator Hatch, a supposed statesman, who speaks proudly of his Mormon Church, who can’t speak the truth unless it works to his advantage.

Naturally, Republicans are not keen on the idea and no one has been as outspoken in his opposition as Hatch, who first argued against this route a year ago in a letter to President Barack Obama, well before the debate turned intensely partisan and bitter.

The closer Democrats have come to a reconciliation vote, the more Hatch has turned up his rhetoric. Consider this paragraph from his Post op-ed: “This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospect of bipartisanship.”

The liberal reaction was swift and fierce, led by MSNBC personality Rachel Maddow, who spent eight minutes on an MSNBC nightly program to denounce senior Republicans, such as Hatch, for using arguments she said were disingenuous and irresponsible.

“You are a family values chastity lecturing lecher,” she said. “You are hypocrites.”

Like other critics, she discussed Hatch’s votes on previous reconciliation bills pushed by Republicans. And in particular, she took issue with Hatch saying the rule has been used for substantive legislation only when it had “significant bipartisan support.”

“That is a total utter complete 100 percent unambiguous lie,” she said.

Whether you side with Hatch or Maddow comes down to your definition of “substantive,” because Republicans have used reconciliation to pass and extend the controversial Bush tax cuts on partisan votes and a deficit reduction bill in 2005 that cut Medicare and Medicaid. The tactic was also used on welfare reform and the bill creating COBRA insurance, though the final votes on those items were not as close.

Bloggers for The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo and even Washington Post columnists piled on, all noting what they considered errors in Hatch’s argument or blatant hypocrisy.

Hatch read their criticism and even watched Maddow’s commentary, which he called “pretty low-brow stuff” and “out of line.”

“The left has gone berserk over this,” Hatch said. “I have to admit I’ve written a lot of op-ed pieces over the years but this one has created more debate and more antagonism than anything I’ve ever written — which means it must be pretty good.”

Hatch faced criticism from more than just political opponents. Thomas Mann has studied Congress for decades as a scholar with the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and he also took issue with Hatch’s argument, particularly the senator’s claim that using reconciliation in a bill like health reform is unprecedented and an abuse of the rules.

“Talk about hyperbole,” Mann said. “Both parties and most senators have situational ‘principles’ when it comes to the use of reconciliation.”

He said the Democrats’ plan is “a modest use of the procedure, one fully within the law, Senate rules, the history of the process and the Framers’ intent for the Senate.”

And it wouldn’t be needed, Mann said if the Republicans hadn’t “decided early to reject any version of the comprehensive reform that Obama and the Democrats ran on.”

Hatch termed Mann’s argument “pure bunk.”

The House and Senate have already passed their own version of health reform. Under normal circumstances, a conference committee would meld them into one and both bodies would take a final vote. But the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown in liberal Massachusetts threw a road block across the normal route.

With Republicans universally opposed, Senate Democrats are one vote short of being able to fight off a filibuster. The Democrats’ new plan, which is fraught with political difficulty, is to bypass the Republicans by asking the House to pass the Senate version.

Then the House would pass a second bill loaded with agreed-upon changes, which the Senate would move under reconciliation.

Mann, along with Democratic operatives, say this second bill of fixes is a legitimate targeted bill that fits within the rule’s limits, but Hatch disagrees.

“That is a gimmicky thing the Democrats are using to pass the whole bill,” he said. “It is the only way it could pass.”

And he believes if Democrats are successful in using reconciliation to push such a major change in federal law, it may become a common legislative tactic undercutting the minority’s ability to filibuster and decreasing the forced bipartisanship now created by Senate rules.

The Senate has only used reconciliation 19 times since 1974, often on highly contentious issues. Senators designed the rule to ensure legislative gridlock didn’t cripple the federal budget and hurt the nation’s economy, but it has been used on other social legislation such as welfare reform.

Sara Rosenbaum, a health policy expert at George Washington University, said: “Virtually every health policy advance — including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers millions of children and which Hatch championed — has been a product of the reconciliation process.”

Others include the creation of COBRA insurance for those who lose their jobs and hospice coverage in Medicare.

“It’s true there have been some health things done, but nothing this big or this controversial,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a Republican economist. “Americans are tired of partisan efforts by the Congress and there is no more partisan way to go forward than this.”

In pushing for health reform this week, Obama never uttered the word reconciliation but he did call for the “same kind of up or down vote” as legislation that went through this process.

He said searching for a bipartisan vote on health reform is fruitless because of “honest and substantial differences between the parties.”

The White House wants to see a final vote within the next two weeks. During that time, Hatch promises to continue to challenge the Democrats on their bill and their preferred way forward.

“It is just too big an issue and that is not what reconciliation was designed to do,” Hatch said.

The Democrats’ plan on health reform

Step one » House passes the Senate version of health reform.

Step two » House passes a second bill with negotiated changes.

Step three » Senate passes negotiated changes using reconciliation.

Step four » Both bills go to the president for his signature.

Challenges » House Democrats must keep factions together on the first vote, despite disagreements on cost, abortion and other issues. And Republicans argue that using reconciliation violates Senate rules, a decision that will ultimately be made by the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian.

Review What is reconciliation?

Reconciliation in effect protects bills from filibusters and thus from the requirement for a 60-vote supermajority to end debate, and instead allows legislation with a budgetary impact to pass by a simple majority after limited debate.

Source: The New York Times

Your turn Have a question about reform?

Do you have a question about health care reform? Have you heard something you don’t understand or you’d like us to investigate? Send your question to hcreform@sltrib.com and our reporting team will answer it.

(These remarks were made by Olene Walker at the original press conference of the Ethics Reform Initiative)

November 24, 2009

It is with some degree of personal conflict that I am here today, because I realize that in doing so, I will be on the opposite side of the ethics question from some of my friends in the legislature. I do want the citizens of Utah to know that the vast majority of legislators have a high degree of integrity and are giving invaluable service to the state of Utah. However, I find that many citizens of the state feel that the members of the legislature receive many gifts and privileges from lobbyists. Having served in the legislative and executive branch of Utah government for twenty-five years, I realize that the majority of the items are relatively small such as meals, tickets or travel. I have come to realize that such small items are not worth the impression that the public has of the negative aspects of lobbyists’ influencing legislators. As a result, I have determined it is time that the legislature finally pass laws that are meaningful regarding ethics and integrity. It is because I love Utah and value our democracy process that I am here today.

This is a beautiful statement by a beautiful woman. The purpose of the ethics reform initiative is not to castigate our good legislators, or to demean their public service, but to enhance it. The current public impression of what goes on casts a negative view upon the entire legislature, and for some unexplainable reason the legislature seems oblivious to the need for reform.

For thirty years I have watched ethics legislation, campaign reform and legislation limiting lobbyist activities die in the rules committee, or the few that have passed often contain loopholes that lobbyists can work around. Because Utah is often recognized as the best managed state in the nation, we have rationalized that it doesn’t matter that the Center for Public Integrity gives Utah an F for its financial disclosures. The truth is that any organization needs rules and standards to function in an ethical manner. It is ironical that so many of our laws contain specific guidelines, but we have not been willing to impose guidelines and rules regarding ethical conduct by the legislature. Basically, the current law governing ethical action by legislators is so vague that it is extremely difficult for any action to be taken by fellow legislators. I know that when I served in the House, I would not have chosen to question any other legislator’s action even though it may have been questionable.

When I first ran for the legislature in 1980, I ran as a Republican in an area that was known as a democratic district. I spent only $4,000 of my own money. In the eight years it increased to over $20,000. In many contested areas today the cost can be near $100,000 and the Senate Districts significantly higher. We have always said that reporting was sufficient and that any citizen could get the reports in the election office or on line, but the truth is that few do. Usually it is only the more visible legislators that have those reports scrutinized by reporters. Utah is one of only five states that have no limits on contributions. Also, in Utah contributions can be given to candidates by corporations. This is prohibited in most states. The result of not having any caps on contributions or not having rules governing contributions is that 81% of the contributions given to candidates for the legislature are given by special interest groups. This is unacceptable in our great state of Utah.

When I was responsible for the election office from 1992-2002 I watched the number of lobbyists double and triple until today there are 481 lobbyists registered with the Lt. Governor’s office. With that number of lobbyists, it seems to me that it is critical that we have specific laws governing their relations with legislators. I also think it is unacceptable to have legislators immediately become lobbyists when they leave the legislature. It also should be unacceptable for lobbyists to simultaneously serve in the legislature.

For these reasons Utahns for Ethical Government studied this problem and determined that it was time that we as citizens of Utah be given the opportunity to do several things including:

1. To establish standards for contributions to candidates.
2. To establish an ethics commission of five individuals drawn from a list of twenty individuals who are agreed on by leadership of the House and Senate. The commission would operate on a non-partisan basis and would review complaints for validity prior to holding hearings and referral for legislative action.
3. To establish a standard of conduct for legislators

It is essential that all citizens realize that this calls for legislation and not a constitutional change. It also means that the legislation can be amended in the future, although any amendments should not gut the initiative.

It is my earnest hope that as citizens and legislators we can pass this initiative so that in future we will have ethics legislation we can all be proud of.

by Olene Walker

Former Utah Governor

Did you know that gerrymandering is permitted in Utah in this day and age? What is gerrymandering, you ask?

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of election districts by legislators for political advantage. It has occurred in our country since 1812 when Elbridge Gerry created a redistricting plan for Republicans to keep a Massachusetts Senate seat from Federalist hands. The resulting legislative district map looked like a salamander.

There are fair minded Republicans, but they don’t last long. Former Governor Olene Walker is a ‘former’ governor because she is a woman and too thoughtful and fair in her approach to politics for the right wingers of her party. She has been willing to speak out for fairness on numerous occasions and now she is calling for fairness in establishing Congressional Districts.

The unfair Republicans have rigged and gerrymandered the state in an atrocious manner in a vain effort to keep Democrats from being elected. She is simply asking for fairness and rational thought, rare commodities in her party. Great people like Olene Walker are a credit to politics. Oh that there were more like her!

In Utah, we have legislative districts that divide cities in half, right down Main Streets in Moab and Randolph.

We have Tooele County splintered three ways to fill the legislative districts of distant incumbents from other counties.

North Salt Lake has an appendage called Rose Park whose residents are served by a state legislator in Davis County.

Park City was split to prevent any representation by the minority party.

More examples abound on the Web site www.fairboundaries.org, which shows the outcome when elected legislators can draw their own election boundaries, and consequently pick their own voters — right down to home addresses and LDS ward boundaries. The ripple effect for those less senior legislators means far-flung constituencies and geographic hurdles for public service.

Why should you care?

You should care because gerrymandered lines are drawn which clear-cut through cities, ignore county boundaries, jump rivers and streams, ignore mountain ranges, in order to assist legislators in re-election bids or to freeze out newcomers. This, unfortunately, perpetuates a 90 percent re-election rate for legislators and diminishes your importance as a citizen and a voter.

Under federal law, legislative districts must be basically equal in population within a certain percentage, but it is clear that communities and neighborhoods could have been left intact far better than they are on the current gerrymandered maps we have.

Granted, Utah’s constitution broadly grants authority to the Legislature which “shall divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly.” However, no other constitutional or statutory guidance is provided to our state legislators on how redistricting is to be done. With such an open door to abuse this power, legislators fall prey to human nature and self-preservation.

For example, other state constitutions require that anti-gerrymandering provisions be utilized: 37 state constitutions require contiguous borders; 24 require compact groupings, 30 require equalized populations, 20 require respect for political boundaries, and now six even require convenient distances so legislators can travel easily to meet their electors.

Of the 34 state constitutions that allocate redistricting authority to legislators, 16 provide some form of an independent redistricting commission. Many states have detailed statutory protections in state code. Utah has nothing to stop redistricting abuses except your reliance on legislators’ promises to “trust them” again for another decade.

The initiative, “Utah Redistricting Standards Commission,” was created by grass-roots citizen/patriots from both sides of the aisle to provide neutral standards and procedures for the drawing of the initial maps to be recommended to the Legislature. All the criteria mentioned in other state constitutions are included.

As a former Utah governor, lieutenant governor, state legislator, educator and businesswoman, I implore you to support this initiative. As a wife, mother and grandmother and a resident of St. George, I ask you to sign the petition.

Sign the petition, either in person or on-line so that the anti-gerrymandering measure will be on the November ballot.

Olene Walker is former governor of Utah.