Utah Voting Recommendations for 2018 (Recommended*)

U.S.Senate

Tim Aalders* is a Republican running on the Constitution Party ticket. He is a conservative committed to the Constitution.

        Please don’t vote Democrat for any race. Republicans are working hard to maintain majorities in both houses of Congress. We simply cannot allow Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to gain control of the House or Senate—if they do regain a majority, America is in for more insanity, lies, corruption, character assassination, more “investigations” without merit judged on political necessity not the facts, suspension of due process and the rule of law and a host of dirty tricks that won’t end even after plotting multiple criminal conspiracies. The attempts to destroy Kavanaugh (Trump by proxy) by getting as down and dirty as they did only amount to something like a 30 second “G” rated preview of the actual “show” they’re planning to unleash on America if they get a chance.

If the Democrats are given an opening to complete the destruction of the institutions of this country and continue the descent into chaos, there will come a time when America will have to choose: surrender all this country stands for or fight another, terrible civil war. I pray that this will not occur and that we never have to make that kind of choice.

Mitt Romney is a good person with a good family who has made his fortune on Wall Street through hard work and a quick mind. He was the well-liked and successful Governor of Massachusetts. He ran for President of the United States as a Republican. Mitt is known for his desire to please, and in answering questions and debating the issues tends to take the path of least resistance. This has earned Romney the due reputation for flip-flopping.

Based solely on his actions (his words can’t entirely be trusted), Romney has most closely positioned himself as an establishment, “regressive” Republican. Most likely he would be voting with the establishment regressives which on occasion vote with the Democrats, particularly on spending bills. Mitt can be expected to support the establishment on most occasions. However, while Mitt cannot be relied upon to vote his “conscience” based on having fixed, and well-described principles, Tim Aalders can be relied upon to follow the Constitution. If you can’t vote for Romney, please consider voting for Tim Aalders for the U.S. Senate (and vice versa). Both are Republicans and would count toward Majority control of the Senate.

U.S. House District 3
John Curtis is the Republican nominee for U.S. Representative. He cannot be recommended.

        Gregory C. Duerden is the Independent American Party candidate for U.S. Representative. I don’t know enough about this particular candidate to make a recommendation. However, from what I know about individuals that are members of the IAP, they seem to be Patriots possessing a strong sense of doing what’s right according to the founding principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Utah State Senate District 15

        Keith Grover* is the Republican nominee for State Senate.

Utah State House District 61

        Marsha Judkins* is the Republican nominee for State House of Representatives.

Utah County Commission Seat B
Bill Lee* is the Republican running for County Commissioner

Utah County Attorney
David O. Leavitt* is the Republican running for Utah County Attorney.

Utah County Clerk/Auditor

         Jason Christensen is the Independent American Party candidate for Utah County Clerk/Auditor.

        Amelia Powers* is the Republican candidate for Utah County Clerk/Auditor.

Constitutional Amendment A: Would relax the schedule of days to change the number of days (200) per calendar year to the number of days (200) in a 365 day period that a military person needs to serve out-of-state on a federal active duty order in order to qualify for a property tax exemption for his/her residence.

Being called to active duty out-of-state (i.e. deployed to a war zone) is unquestionably a hardship for the military person and any family left behind. Providing a property tax exemption for a military person’s Utah residence when deployed elsewhere for 200 days or more is a little thing to express Utah’s gratitude for the service done for the country, a little thing that would likely mean a lot to the individual and family. Recommendation: Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment A.

Constitutional Amendment B: would authorize a property tax exemption to the property’s private owner for land or buildings leased to state or local governments.

There currently exists a market, subject to the usual pressures of supply and demand, for leasing and giving in lease property by a private owner to a second party without class distinctions or advantages. Giving a tax exemption to a private owner for leasing his property to state or local government would create a “preferred” class in the state or local governments and a “non-preferred class” in everyone else.

Artificially manipulating either side of supply and demand (such as providing the proposed tax exemption) disrupts and distorts market forces that can lead to unexpected consequences including unfair and prejudicial behaviors and to the instability of prices and availability.

In the case of a preferred lessee, the private property owner would be receiving the usual lease payment from a government lessee plus the amount of the tax exemption. A non-preferred lessee would make the lease payments but would not provide anything extra to the owner. Property owners might begin lobbying state and local governments to get their properties leased to the preferred class which would generate more income for the owner. This could open the door to corruption as government personnel might decide to lease from an owner who provides a kickback for leasing his property.

Property might be held vacant waiting for a potential preferred customer while denying access to a second-class customer. Lease prices might be reduced for preferred customers and increased for all others. There is no place in America’s free markets for government manipulation of market forces—after all, that’s what socialists and communists do in exercising absolute central control of their economies. Recommendation: Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment B.

Constitutional Amendment C: Currently, only the Governor can convene a session of the legislature outside the usual 45 day annual general session. If members or leaders of the legislature believe an extra session is needed but the Governor disagrees, there is currently no way for the extra session to be convened.

The proposed Amendment would authorize the Legislature to convene a limited session, with 2/3 of House and Senate members agreeing that convening is necessary due to a crisis such as fiscal crisis, war, natural disaster or emergency affairs of the state. It would further require the Governor to reduce state expenditures or convene the Legislature into session if state expenditures will exceed revenue for a fiscal year. The Amendment would further require such extra session to be held at the state capitol unless it’s not feasible.

While the Governor may have a good reason for refusing to call an extra session, it seems unreasonable that a Governor would deny a request from the legislature to convene an extra session in the face of a pressing need or crisis. However, it seems entirely reasonable that in the case where a Governor refuses to call a session needed to deal with a serious crisis that the legislature with 2/3 of its member agreeing with the stated need to convene, and for that extra session to be held in the state capitol.

Most certainly, if state spending appears to be exceeding revenue, the Governor should act to correct the situation. If the Governor should neglect to correct said situation, the Governor should be required to convene the legislature into special session to fix the problem. Recommendation: Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment C.

The Issue of Fiscal Responsibility (details of recommendations concerning Mitt Romney, John Curtis, Education Funding in General or anything to do with Common Core, Nonbinding Opinion Question #1, Prop 2, and Prop 3).

Federal spending has been increasing exponentially over these past decades leading to astronomical deficits (debt).  This simply cannot continue indefinitely; at some point, we must turn this around and cut spending to the point of being able to pay down the deficit rather than borrowing more each year. Any spending that is not absolutely necessary should be halted immediately; this should start with slashing the departments and funding of the federal government that do not pertain to its prerogatives as given in the Constitution.  

Federal, state and local governments, businesses and individuals that had been regularly petitioning federal funding (for building monuments to themselves, earmarks, pork barrel jobs and other such things that might be nice to have but are not essential) have been informed by the people since the inception of the Tea Party and the discovery of Rand Paul that they must halt the indiscriminate outflow of money and pay down the deficit.

This means that every one of us, from high office to the lone individual, needs to refrain from seeing federal money as a windfall for us and come to the realization that any federal money comes from us—it is and always will be our (taxpayer) money that we are wasting. In fact, taxpayer money from the federal government to the states is perhaps the least efficient method of funding state projects.

Federal taxes collected from Utah taxpayers passes through many hands as it moves from the IRS through the Congress, to the various agencies until it is rebated back to Utah as a tiny fraction of what was originally paid by Utahns. When Utahns pay taxes directly to the state to fund state programs, that whole dollar for dollar amount goes toward Utah’s expenses. Ideally, we should end all federal rebates, dramatically reduce federal taxes and raise state taxes to where the states can pay for their programs without obtaining federal funding and the attached strings.

In ancient times, leaders capable of bringing money from Washington to the local communities were held in high regard. These leaders had to have a highly-developed facility for spending taxpayer dollars and due to success in this realm were often showered with reelection votes by a grateful people. Even in modern times, leaders who remain relics of the fiscally irresponsible past begin pavlovian salivation each and every time the federal money bell rings. Neither Utah nor any state can tolerate anymore state leaders that fit this description.

One perk that seems to inspire so many of these leaders today is the natural outcome of a great political truth: “The more taxpayers’ dollars you are in charge of spending, the greater your political power and the greater your opportunity for enrichment.” Given this fact, it’s not hard to understand why politicians seek multiple terms in office and, despite claiming to be fiscal conservatives, can never quite bring themselves to cut spending.

In the fiscal dire straits we find ourselves with a deficit in excess of $23 trillion, while bringing home federal bacon has been praised and rewarded in the past, it is now seen to have been a reckless, selfish and inhumane practice that allowed profligate spending by several generations that could then stick the tab for their overindulgence on their grandchildren and future generations. This despicable behavior is generational theft and it should be outlawed. Of all the animals upon the earth, only a handful of species, along with man, eat their young.

All Americans should unite behind this cause and demand of our representatives, our leaders at every level of government and of ourselves that we halt this child abuse. This starts with each of us ceasing to request government money, benefits and other perks; this movement should work its way right up the food chain. After decades of passing the buck to those who are helpless to prevent it, it will be difficult to stop this ingrained practice; it may be as difficult to stop generational theft as it was to stop the evil practice of slavery—pray it doesn’t take a civil war to do so. What it will take for sure is a major paradigm shift, a switch to a new culture of temperate spending, valuing and looking out for our descendants and extending fairness to future generations.

In Utah’s recent history, a number of prominent political leaders have heard the siren call of federal taxpayer dollars, were quite successful at provisioning the funding and completed a showcase project. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney took over the Utah Winter Olympics when rumors of ethical improprieties began to circulate about the former Director that led to Romney taking over the task of putting on the Olympics. Under Romney’s direction a highly successful Olympics was carried out, with but a single flaw. Mitt petitioned the federal government to bail out the Utah Olympics and with the federal funding was able to carry it off. Recommendation: Mitt Romney cannot be recommended without reservation.

Current Congressman John Curtis (formerly Mayor of Provo) is another Utah politician inspired by the prospect of a large federal grant. Curtis has been, until recently, a Democrat and today still clings to the same principles and values of big government and big spending. Curtis decided to undertake a project consistent with Democrat themes, that of a mass transit system (BRT), pleasing his friends in the Utah transportation industry. BRT would spur additional mass transit that would pave the way for high-rise, high-density housing, pleasing developers.

Beautiful, serene, small-town America would be harrowed under; to emerge from its chrysalis into a new, bustling urban center. Most residents object to BRT, believe that it is a tremendous waste of money (whether or not it’s local or federal, it all comes from the taxpayers), are against tearing up pioneer landmarks, are not in favor of blocking the flow of automobile traffic followed by the eventual elimination of vehicle travel in the Provo-Orem area and oppose the urbanization of Utah County. Curtis is undeterred by either the will of the people or the difficulty in raising the money he has already appropriated for BRT.

           

Curtis signed on for $75 million in federal grant matching funds. Another $75 million would be obtained by increasing taxes on Utah County taxpayers. He puts a bond issue before the voters for “fixing potholes, etc.” but it’s widely known it’s to pay for BRT—it’s rejected. Curtis instituted special “fees” on utility bills ostensibly because of the rising cost of power, but rather than go for the stated purpose, Curtis appropriates the proceeds to pay for BRT.

Residents of Provo put forward a petition, gathered the required signatures and submitted the completed application for an initiative to Lt. Governor Spencer Cox. The application called for an initiative to be placed on the next ballot to determine whether the people wanted Curtis to proceed with his BRT project or whether the people’s will was to kill the project. Curtis ran to his UTA and DOT cronies and they went to Lt. Governor Cox’s where they conspired to stop the people that opposed BRT by whatever means necessary as the resistance movement was interfering with a project that would bring a great deal of money to the State from the federal government, the project would make some important wealthy people even wealthier and the project was seen by UTA and DOT as critical to their continued power and control within Utah government as well as to their plans for future exclusive domination of mass transit in the state.

iProvo was the multi-million dollar fiberoptic infrastructure venture that was to have provided ultra-high-speed connections to the world and establish Utah County as an international hub of commerce. The project was financed by huge bond issues with the people of Utah County on the hook if iProvo failed to meet expectations. Under Curtis’ guidance, iProvo was reportedly devalued by a series of bad decisions, bad management and transactions of questionable ethics culminating in the sale of iProvo to Google for $1.00. Of course, local residents are still paying off the huge bonds that were issues to finance the construction of iProvo.

Curtis refuses to listen to the voice of the people, he has no concept of fiscal responsibility and he has a knack for turning promising ventures into absolute failures. If Curtis has not crossed the line of moral and ethical behavior in many of his dealings in business and politics, he is constantly tip-toeing around that line. He does not seem to have integrated clear boundaries between right and wrong and has yet to be accountable for his behavior in politics. Recommendation: Even though Curtis is running as a Republican and would be counted as far as reconfirming Majority status of Republicans in the U.S. House, I cannot in good conscience recommend him.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Lt. Governor Spencer Cox continue to lead the field in this state for seeking and obtaining huge sums of federal taxpayer money for state projects. They have sought infusions of federal cash at every juncture, notably in adopting Common Core (CC) which brought with it the dumbing down of childhood education and the “regressive” indoctrination and brainwashing of our children.

In return for allowing CC to do damage to our children, our fearless leaders got a few worthless beans promise of significant federal funding (Race to the Top) and continued annual funding from the feds. Utah never received any Race to the Top funds, but we did get a recurring bill from the NGOs that developed the Common Core package for all the proprietary materials, standards, curriculum, monitoring, testing and data gathering that accompany CC. The additional expenses for CC have dramatically increased indirect spending on K-12 education (i.e. money that doesn’t go directly towards teachers or to the children). Recommendation: Vote NO on anything supported by Governor Herbert or Lt. Governor Cox, anything purported to be for education, Common Core, or anything that involves obtaining federal funding for state programs.

The insatiable thirst of these leaders for revenue from the taxpayers, either through direct taxes on Utahns or indirectly through federal rebates of Utah taxpayer money to the State that comes with onerous strings attached, has led to significant increases in property and gasoline taxes over the last 10 years. Then, despite a recent multi-million dollar revenue surplus, Utah’s tax and spend Governor, Lt. Governor and Legislature have placed on the ballot “Nonbinding Opinion Question #1” which is political-speak for “We’d love your support for another gas tax increase on top of all the recent increases, but we’re going to do this regardless of whether or not we have your support.”

The stated purpose of this tax is “To provide additional funding for public education and local roads.” The listed purpose of the money going towards education is a lie to appeal to your sympathies in order to gain support for another tax increase. The small print reveals that the money from the additional gas tax will ALL go towards expensive and unnecessary mass transit. The excuse given of pleading for “the children” is that if the state government hasn’t as much money as they want to spend on transportation, they’ll take it from the general fund, which monies, they say, could potentially otherwise be spent on education.

Since K-12 education funding does not come out of the general fund, using “education” as an inducement to support the government in enriching the Utah transportation industry is a deceptive ploy. Question #1 goes through various contortions to deceive and confuse the voter. Stripping away the window dressing, this is an insult to the intelligence of the Utah voter, an insult prescribed and delivered by Governor Herbert and Lt. Governor Cox. Recommendation: Vote NO on Nonbinding Opinion Question #1.

Prop 2 – Establishing a State Program for Medical Marijuana. Most will agree that enough has been said and written about this issue, both pro and con. However, there is the prospect of a Compromise Solution that, while not yet in final form, has apparently found wide-spread agreement on common ground issues among the interested parties. If Prop 2 passes, there will be those who will push (and rightly so) for full implementation of the initiative which would go way beyond and preclude any Compromise Solution.

While Prop 2 and the Compromise Solution process each have a significant number of strong supporters among Utahns, completing negotiations, writing and passing legislation for a Compromise Solution simply cannot occur if the Prop 2 initiative is to be the law in Utah. If we think we have seen contention in Utah over the issue of medical marijuana to date, I’m not optimistic we can avoid a level of confrontation that far surpasses our current observations. Recommendations: Prayerfully vote your conscience, based on your sound, fixed principles and values.

Another assault on the Utah taxpayers’ checkbooks based on the love of federal funding is “Medicaid Expansion.” Medicaid is a state program to provide healthcare coverage for those who could not afford to purchase coverage on their own. Under the terms of Obamacare, the mandate included that the states expand their Medicaid programs to provide taxpayer-funded coverage to a greater percentage of low-income families than the states had previously decided on their own to cover.

As states began to adopt Obamacare terms and provide expanded coverage, it was found that many of those to be provided the “expanded” Medicaid already could afford and actually had purchased health insurance; of course, once informed of eligibility for free Medicaid, this was accepted and private insurance dropped.

Now that the Obamacare mandate no longer exists, each state must decide whether or not to expand their coverage. For states that implement Medicaid Expansion, the federal government will pick up a good portion of the tab for the increased coverage; however, this decreases each year until, in a few years, the entire burden of expansion will be on the state alone. Since Medicaid Expansion goes beyond providing coverage for those who can’t afford their own, it is more of the same, familiar Democrat Themes: Bigger government and bigger spending, working towards government single-payer healthcare, income redistribution, fostering greater dependence on government and discouraging self-reliance. Recommendation: Vote NO on Prop 3 “Medicaid Expansion.”

Prop 4 – Gerrymandering - Attempt to Make Redistricting Fair and Unbiased While Providing No Partisan Advantage. I have never liked the idea of gerrymandering as it seems so un-American. This being the case before reading about Prop 4, I assumed that I likely would be supporting it. As it turns out, fixing gerrymandering is more difficult than one would imagine. Nevertheless, in order to maintain our Republic with our representative form of government, we must draw district boundaries. Periodically, due to changes in demographics (especially in our very mobile society), district boundary lines must be redrawn to compensate for these demographic changes. This is known as “redistricting”.

Someone must be given the task, on whatever schedule is decided upon, of performing this redistricting. Ideally, redistricting would be performed in a fair and unbiased manner void of efforts to obtain an advantage. Saying or writing that is easy, the hard part is designing a way to do this that gives you the ideal end-result. Prop 4 is an attempt to do this most difficult part. Unfortunately, this attempt goes through a number of unwieldy machinations and ends up failing miserably to accomplish its objective.

The problems with Prop 4, in my opinion, are these: it creates more unnecessary bureaucracy, there is no need to change the way redistricting is currently done, the changes proposed by Prop 4 do nothing to improve redistricting and each redistricting would cost several millions of dollars and take several years to resolve as the State of Utah would be forced into suing itself to block the legislature from doing its job. Each redistricting would eventually be decided in the courts by unelected judges, instead of by the elected representatives of the people lawfully charged with this responsibility.

Further information on Prop 4 
https://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2018/10/utah-prop-4-is-disaster.html

Recommendation: Vote NO on Prop 4 – Failed Attempt to Make Redistricting Fair & Unbiased Without Providing Any Partisan Advantage.

Official Ballot for Provo City, Utah Special Bond Election – Provo Police, Fire & City Facilities Bond.

This would authorize Provo City, Utah to issue bonds not to exceed the amount of $ 69 million for acquiring, constructing and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center and city hall. In addition, the replacement of the Canyon Road fire station, for related improvements in Provo City and to provide money for refunding outstanding general obligation bonds (the bond refunding is explained in detail in the ballot).

I received a survey sponsored by Provo City on the subject of the proposed bonds for the described project a number of months ago in which I was highly critical of the project as described in the survey. After submitting my completed survey, I wrote our Mayor, Michelle Kaufusi, regarding my concerns about the necessity and location of the project and the subsequent cost to Provo residents. I’m certain there were other communications in this regard.

The Mayor’s first response to the apparent public resistance to the project was to create a video tour of the City Center buildings that was released to the news. In the video, Mayor Kaufusi gives the public a look at the leaking and semi-fallen apart eaves, the cracks in the foundation where water was leaking into the police Evidence Room in the basement, and a good number of former closets that had been converted into makeshift offices for needed personnel due to the shortage of space. Everywhere on the tour, the buildings were bursting at the seams and falling apart beyond repair. The foundation repair alone would have cost almost as much as the total amount the city was requesting in the bond issue.

Mayor Kaufusi’s next move was to request from her constituency any and all concerns and objections. I don’t have any idea how many responses the Mayor received or what the major concerns of the people may have been. However, some of my specific concerns and suggestions were apparently considered and adopted in the final planning stages (whether because of my communication or in spite of it I don’t know).

Earlier plans had been to construct the police and fire headquarters and the dispatch center in the former Sears building at the old Town Center Mall. The new City Hall was to be built at another location also not in the heart of the city. In my letter to Mayor Kaufusi, I questioned whether the condition of the current city offices was truly unsalvageable, whether the offices might be renovated or alternatively, all or any portion of the buildings where renovation could not be justified could be torn down and new buildings constructed which would include options to go vertical as needed.

I expressed my belief that any move of a part or of the entire city complex away from the Downtown area would be a blow to commerce in the center of the city and would be seen by city businesses and residents alike as abandoning a city center struggling to reestablish itself as a vibrant commercial hub. I suggested that if land were required other than or in addition to the current City Center parcel to meet the city’s needs building on the City Center parcel could be expanded to include the good-sized parking lot(s) behind the property for City Center personnel parking, and appropriate parking could be provided with a multi-level parking structure occupying significantly less square feet than the current flat parking lot(s).

Other property, either adjacent to or nearby the current parcel could possibly be acquired for this purpose. Specifically, there is a park-like parcel of land part of the Covey Center for the Arts adjacent to the City Center complex. I’m certain there would be a number of other good-sized pieces of land or smaller lots that might be merged to become large enough for the planned construction—land in the Downtown area that might be acquired and used for this purpose. I have not seen the finalized plans for this, but I do know from the wording on the ballot that the city is planning on building the new offices in the Downtown area. Also, rumors have it that the city will be using land adjacent to the current complex.

When Mayor Kaufusi was first elected, I was not convinced she was the best person for the job. In addition, I was concerned, perhaps unfairly, that she would handle her responsibilities as Mayor in a similar fashion to the previous Mayor John Curtis who ignored the voice of his constituents and relentlessly pursued his personal agenda without regard for or accepting responsibility for the numbers who suffered collateral damages at his hands.

To my pleasant surprise, Mayor Kaufusi is off to a terrific start in her job. I’m impressed that she is regularly communicating with Provo residents and businesses, that she sends out a newsletter explaining what she’s doing and things that are happening in and around Provo, that she regularly seeks feedback on issues of importance to Provo residents. I’m amazed that Mayor Kaufusi finds time to listen to her constituents and that she seems to carefully consider what she hears and then acts where action is appropriate. I’m gratified to know that Mayor Kaufusi responds to criticism in a mature manner, hearing constructive criticism, absorbing and understanding the positive portions and then taking action that works for the betterment of our city.

Recommendations: Vote YES on the Provo City, Utah Special Bond Election. I also recommend that you join me in supporting Mayor Michelle Kaufusi in her important work for Provo City and its residents.