Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Walker's survival could foreshadow battles in Congress

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 12, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    Walkers survival is Obama's doom. Wisconsin was a BIG loss for unions and the Obama agenda going forward because it clearly demonstrated that a state could indeed CUT its debt from over 2 billion down to 100 million and reduce unemployment from 7.8% to 6.7% all the while forcing a leveling the playing field for unions. People in the state responded positively for Walker because they clearly saw an improving economy brought on by following principles opposite from what Obama preaches (borrow and spend). Wisconsin is going to be a GREAT case study that Romney can use to show that - cutting and not spending - is the best way forward to jump start a dead economy. This is really exposing Obama-nomics for the fraud that it is and showing people that common sense is a far better way forward for the country as a whole.

  • rmurdock16 South Jordan, UT
    June 11, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    I remember Dan...wait, no, I don't. He missed 24% of the votes the year AFTER his pension reform Missed the key redistricting vote while on a Disney Cruise, expanded the s-chip federally unfunded entitlement program, accepted a billion dollars of TARP bailout (voting against the most conservative Utah legislators). I think I'll support Romney, and replace 6 years when he retire. 63% conservative rating for Dan just won't hack it.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 10, 2012 8:32 p.m.

    Re: Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    "Senator Dan Liljenquist was still in his first 4 year term. He did it without seniority."

    There is a world of difference between being a state senator and and United States Senator. When Hillary Clinton was elected to the US Senate she went in like a whirlwind and was quickly put in her place as a junior senator where she was expected to be seen and not heard.

    That is just the way it is. Seniority is everything in Washington.

  • Chuck E. Racer Lehi, UT
    June 10, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    I wish LaVarr Webb, who is right on 99% of what he says, could realize something about vouchers. It will not privatize education as desired. It will "publickize" private schools as they accept the subsidy. It will end up bringing all the regs on the private schools, while forcing private schools, who wish to remain independent by not accepting vouchers, out of business. Look at what happened to Sweden and what IS starting to happen in Indiana. That takes away choice rather than enhancing it.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 1:32 a.m.

    I do have concerns that vouchers could be a tool to have State Government, (and perhaps even the Federal government), have more control over private schools.

    The Federal government has no Constitutional right to be involved in education.
    The State Constitution is pretty clear that "Neither the state of Utah nor its political subdivisions may make any appropriation for the direct support of any school or educational institution controlled by any religious organization. "

    So vouchers couldn't directly help any private religious school, any school accepting vouchers could have more government control, and any private school not accepting the vouchers could be at a disadvantage to those that do.

    I am more open to private charity scholarships and/or tuition tax credits, as they are less apt to run a foul of the State Constitution or create more government intrusion. The numbers would have to be looked at and work, as the last thing we want to do is hurt either the students or the teachers. Charter Schools are public schools with more local control. They interest me. We should monitor their progress. In some cases Charter Schools are doing great.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 1:28 a.m.

    Last Utah General Legislative Session for 2011, I remember seeing bill after bill sponsored by Sen. Dan Liljenquist pass the house. I was amazed at the respect he and the bills had. I was amazed at how both republicans and democrats voted for them.

    For example, his 2011 SB 180 Medicaid Reform bill passed both houses with no votes against it from either party and was signed by the Governor.

    With at least 7 bills, both the house and senate, both republicans and democrats all voted for the reforms Senator Dan Liljenquist proposed. In all, 9 of his bills were signed by the Governor.

    We need that in Washington DC. These are the same areas that are bankrupting our nation. Again, we need Dan Liljenquist in Washington DC. Yes, we have a US Senator with 35 years of seniority, but remember that in 2011, Senator Dan Liljenquist was still in his first 4 year term. He did it without seniority.