Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Moneyballing the Utah Senate Primary: Liljenquist Won by a Mile


Well, it's officially over. In this David and Goliath rematch, Goliath won. 

Sigh. 

Now for a little recap.

In the movie “Moneyball,” a minor character points out that his team had a much higher “cost per win” than the main character’s team did and he wanted to know the secret to keeping costs down.  Why? Because it could save his team a lot of money.

What was the secret? Hire the most productive players, not the most famous (and costly).

So, now that it’s over we can “Moneyball” the U.S. Senate Primary here in Utah. Only instead of “cost per win” we can look at “cost per vote.”


Spent
Votes
Cost per Vote
Hatch
$10,000,000
146,394
$68.31
Liljenquist
$750,000
73,668
$10.18

Liljenquist spent a fraction “per vote”—680% less!  How did he get so many people to vote for him with so little money?  The answer: message.  The message mattered more than the money.  That’s the good news—the very good news. 74,000 people got the message!

The bad news is that without money, the primary obstacle becomes time.  How does a high-quality, principled, poor candidate like Lincoln compete for a national office without the money?  The answer is obvious—grass roots.  The problem (for us today) is that in Lincoln’s era there was not as much grass to cover so it could be covered in a short amount of time. Where would we be today without “poor” Abraham Lincoln?

I truly believe that a lot (a lot) of people who took the time do some homework and learn the truth about voting records and issues voted for Dan.  Just a little more time and a lot more people would have had the chance to learn that Dan was truly the better person for this job.

Sadly, those who chose not to dig deeper simply allowed themselves to be bought by Hatch’s campaign contributors and his “aura.”  Voting records and liberal attitudes be damned. Sad, but true—Utahn’s have just proved that they could be bought (because they were—at $68 a head).

This election has opened my eyes to something that is often bandied about in the media—“campaign finance reform.”  First truth...Hatch did not buy this election—insurance companies, healthcare companies, lawyers, hospitals, and lobbyists nationwide bought it for him.  Second truth...Hatch does not work for Utahn’s—he works for them.

And that is why Hatch hid—hid from his intelligent, capable, well-informed opponent and hid from average Utahns. He hid behind all that money.  Glenn Beck recently wrote a book called “Cowards.” I have not read it (yet), but I am beginning to understand where he is probably going with the idea.

There are so many things wrong today with modern politics. It is sad to see this country descend the way it has over the past several decades.  I guess those of us who see this will just have to keep fighting back in our own small ways (at a mere $10 a head).  We will fight on with the faith that someday, somehow, we will take back this country from irresponsible “it's not my fault” politicians like Senator Hatch (and all the companies that have bought him).  It will be a long, hard fight, but it is winnable one—I truly believe that.

In my view there is one small consolation—a lot of new, young men and women in other states did succeed in ousting their RINOs.  They will start changing things in a Senate where every vote counts.  These Senators will have the numbers to overrule and silence Hatch.  God bless every one of them!

Finally—Congratulations Dan on a great campaign.  In many ways—the most important ways—you won…by a mile! It was a pleasure and an honor to support you. Thank you for trying.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

A Vote for Dan Liljenquist is a Vote for Liberty

If I were to subtitle my blog today I would choose this: The Myth and Truth about “Power.”

Several years ago I earned a Master’s Degree in Sociology.  A theme that came up over and over again in social theory was “power.”  What I soon realized was that “social theorists” did not understand the concept of power. When they used this term, what they were really talking about was “force.”  In the vocabulary of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, force = “unrighteous dominion.”

In my view there are actually two kinds of power—the “unrighteous” kind, which is “force” and the equivalent of tyranny, and the “righteous,” or good kind, which is the equivalent of liberty.  Tyranny enslaves and destroys; liberty liberates and frees.

One of my fellow bloggers, Kristen (see "Dan for Utah" Weblinks), recently made this point about Senator Orrin Hatch's "power:"

It seems to be extremely important to Hatch's campaign that he retain his power.  Why else would a 78 year old man who has been in Washington 36 years but originally campaigned on the premise - "What do you do with a man who has been a senator for 18 years? Bring him home" be running for office again? Indeed, it is all about the power.  And he's not willing to give it up.  Power corrupts.  You leave someone in Washington too long and he becomes tainted with his own importance and the cronyism that pervades that culture.  Unfortunately such is the case with Senator Hatch.

Which brings us to the primary election today in Utah. In my view, the foundation of our choice today is about power, but not in the way you might think. Today's choice is about tyranny versus liberty. Sadly, Senator Hatch represents "tyranny" more than some would like to admit.  A vote for Hatch is a vote for “more of the same.” He has voted to enslave us and our children with trillions of dollars of debt (and then turns around and says that not only is he “not responsible” but is offended by the implication he helped put us here). He has voted to end the lives of human beings at their very beginnings for the sake of “science.” He has led the way in giving us justices who regularly vote to weaken the constitution. He has voted himself raises and perks and has furthered the encroachment by the federal government where it has no business being. Yes, it may seem harsh, but he has used his “power” in the service of tyranny.

Dan Liljenquist, on the other hand, represents a vote for liberty. He has a proven track record (already!) for “freeing” the citizens of Utah from the burden of a runaway pension plan.  He would vote to preserve human life at its very beginnings. He would fight for justices who would strengthen the constitution, not weaken it. Dan has already committed to "no perks" and "no pension" and to limit the size of government and government spending. Dan represents a vote for someone who would use his “power” in the service of liberty.

Whether we want to think about it this way or not, today Utah truly has a choice between tyranny and liberty. It is my solemn prayer that the citizens of this state are wise and choose liberty.  And a vote for Dan is a vote for liberty. 
*****
It’s time for new leadership in Washington.  It's time for 
Dan Liljenquist. 

Please get out today and vote for Dan!

Friday, June 15, 2012

Hatch: Victim? Liljenquist: Leader!

I just finished listening to the only debate to be held prior to the June 26 primary between Dan Liljenquist and Senator Orrin Hatch.  As part of the debate, each candidate was given the opportunity to ask a "last question" of their opponent with no rebuttal allowed.  Senator Hatch chose not to ask a question of Dan, but to use that time to pontificate, defend himself, and justify his record (I think a jab at FreedomWorks was in there; he called them "sleazy" for holding him accountable for his actions). 


Dan did ask a last question of Senator Hatch, and I paraphrase:  "Senator Hatch, do you consider yourself responsible in any way for the crushing debt that has been placed upon the citizens of this country?"


Hatch's answer: "No."


No! My research into the Congressional Record going back to 1978 shows he voted "Yes" 21 times to raise the debt ceiling and another 16 times to raise it via "voice vote." The "yes" votes yielded $7.9 trillion in debt; the "voice votes" combined with the "yes" votes amounts to $8.7 trillion in debt. In all, debt has increased 1,200% since Hatch took office for a total of $14.2 trillion--soon to be over $15 trillion.


And Hatch says he is "not responsible."  What does a "yes" vote mean to him? Does Hatch have a standard that says, "If I vote yes for something positive I am responsible (like "saving" Hill AFB), but if I vote yes for something negative I am not (like crushing federal debt)."?  I do not believe it is unreasonable to assert that "yes" means that he IS always responsible--no matter what the outcome.


I loved, loved Dan's closing statement. He was as shocked as the rest of us were by Hatch's "no" and he let his thoughts be known--that is why he is running.  To have a man sit there and say that he is "not responsible" for all the support he gave to federal spending for 30+ years is astounding--astounding!


In my view, "not responsible" for negative outcomes translates to "helpless victim"-- "I had to vote yes--'circumstances' made me do it.'  Senator Hatch: Helpless Victim of Circumstance.  


That one word--no--spoke volumes about what our current Senator believes about personal accountability.


Overall, Dan did a great, great job.  He was "on" for every question; he was prepared; he was eloquent.  If you did not get to hear it, it will be replayed on KSL tomorrow at 8pm.  The podcast is already online ("The Doug Wright Show (first hour) for Friday June 15, 2012).


Hopefully readers of this blog now have a better picture as to why I support Dan. He is young, he is vibrant, he is intelligent, he is fearless.  This state needs someone who will take responsibility for the decisions he makes.  This state (and this country) needs Dan Liljenquist. Dan Liljenquist: Leadership for Utah; Leadership for the U.S.A.


It's Time!

Thursday, June 7, 2012

The National Debt, Senator Hatch, and Your Family


There has been a lot of talk during this campaign season about the national debt with a lot of tables and figures attempting to show how it relates to us as individuals.  There is one statistic I have not been able to find.  This statistic would really make it personal—how much of an average household salary would it take to pay off the national debt?

Below is a table that answers that question beginning in 1977.  In that year, Carter was president and Senator Orrin Hatch was a wide-eyed rookie senator. The average household income was $11,743, the national debt was $719 billion, and the population was about 220 million. If you do the math, the debt, per person, was about $3,264, or 28% of an annual salary. In other words, if everyone in the country scrimped and saved and chipped in about a quarter of his or her salary for just one year, the national debt could be paid off.  You will see that Hatch voted three times in a row to not increase federal debt.

While that percentage dipped a little over the next few years to a low of 26%, it started to slowly rise in 1983 to 32%, then 35%, then 38% and then kept rising and rising and rising--and where was Hatch now? Voting "Yes" over and over again.  By that time, as Dan Liljenquist puts it, Hatch was "pickled." He had been in DC "brine water" so long he just started doing what Washington politicians all do--go along to get along.

Things really started getting bad when Clinton took office—60%, 61%. Then the Republican revolution in Congress brought it down to 59% in 1995 then down, down, down to 49% by 2000. But by 2004, it started going up, up, up again until now, in 2012, it would take almost a full year’s salary from every man woman and child to pay off the national debt. And it is only going to get worse.

The common talking point today is that Hatch voted 16 times to raise federal debt for about $7.5 trillion.  The actual voting record supports this--it is a fact.  He voted “Yes” and agreed via a voice vote a few times with only a few “No’s” sprinkled in. In the end, Hatch was mostly a“Yes” man when it came to spending our money--money we do not have.

One of the important things I learned from this exercise is that while it appears that Democrats may be more guilty than Republicans on this issue no one is blameless.  All parties and all presidents contributed to this problem.  This is an "inside the beltway" mentality. It is like the proverbial frog in a pot--it just kept getting hotter and hotter. The frog is now cooked, dead.

The thing I like about Dan Liljenquist is that he does not gloss over this problem.  He will look you straight in the eye and say—it is going to have to get worse before it gets better. The debt ceiling is going to have to go up before it can come down again. Dan is willing to treat a brutal fact for what it is—a brutal fact—and not gloss over it with talk of a balanced budget amendment. What good is a balanced budget amendment if you are spending money at this rate! In the real world they call it “living beyond your means.” Over spending is over spending whether it is with today’s dollars or tomorrows and whether budgets are balanced or not!

The good news is that this year we have a GOP US Senate candidate right here in Utah who understands these problems and has the skills and passion to solve them.  That man is Dan Liljenquist. Utah and the USA needs Dan and we need him now.


*****

Debt as a Percentage of Average Household Income 1977-Present

President
Congress
Year
Debt per Person
Average Annual Household Income
Debt as % of Annual HI (debt/HI)
Hatch Vote*:







Carter
Democrat
1977
 $3,264.37
$11,743
28%
No

Democrat
1978
 $3,545.65
$13,121
27%
No

Democrat
1979
 $3,755.15
$14,605
26%
No

Democrat
1980
 $4,093.79
$16,017
26%
Yes
Reagan
Democrat
1981
 $4,483.15
$17,375
26%
Yes

Democrat
1982
 $5,167.27
$18,422
28%
Yes

Democrat
1983
 $6,034.00
$18,859
32%
Yes

Democrat
1984
 $7,051.70
$20,295
35%
Yes

Democrat
1985
 $8,178.72
$21,405
38%
Yes

Democrat
1986
 $9,223.37
$22,588
41%
Yes

Democrat
1987
 $10,036.43
$23,685
42%
No

Democrat
1988
 $10,979.15
$24,879
44%
No
Bush,GHW
Democrat
1989
 $11,964.20
$26,550
45%
Yes

Democrat
1990
 $13,489.57
$27,601
49%
Yes

Democrat
1991
 $15,078.88
$27,937
54%
***

Democrat
1992
 $16,380.78
$28,547
57%
***
Clinton
Democrat
1993
 $17,597.50
$29,244
60%
Yes

Democrat
1994
 $18,441.60
$30,321
61%
***

Republican
1995
 $18,985.28
$32,191
59%
***

Republican
1996
 $20,073.06
$33,593
60%
Yes

Republican
1997
 $20,550.96
$35,086
59%
Yes

Republican
1998
 $20,770.43
$36,932
56%
***

------------
----


----


Republican
2000
 $19,429.62
$39,926
49%
***

------------
----


----
(Yes, 2002)
Bush, GW
Republican
2004
 $25,931.14
$42,167
61%
Yes

------------
----


----
(Yes, 2005)

Republican
2006
 $29,559.22
$45,817
65%
Yes

DemH/TieS
2007
 $30,825.77
$47,752
65%
Yes

DemH/TieS
2008
 $35,474.32
$47,832
74%
Yes

------------
----


----

Obama
Democrat
2010
 $45,426.45
$47,022
97%
No

RepH/DemS
2011
 $48,543.94
$49,909
97%
No
*Note: Hatch votes are a summary of the actual voting record on the debt ceiling. “Yes” and “Voice Votes” were combined to a Yes. The *** means no votes on debt were taken that year. Votes prior to 1989 can be found at any law library.