Agree with the Speaker on this. The Governor has lost his way and is doing it
more and more every day. Wish I had voted for Philpott in the primary.
Lockhart is right. We can take the easy way out and join Obamacare now and down
the road we will have funding issues, Federal strings attached, fewer doctors,
and poor healthcare. Utah is rated as one of the top states for healthcare
delivery. There is no reason to dismantle something that is working. And to
those that are unemployed or needy, Obamacare is not the answer. Tell me how
the Fed is doing delivering mail, or with social security ponzi scheme or any
other gov't program. Incompetence at best criminal at worst.
Tell the "struggling" out there that there is the possibility of an
internet degree, with one year of on campus study in most states. My daughter
has six children, and worked and "went to school at night" on the
internet and graduated with a degree in education at the age of 36, with all of
her children and husband cheering her on. After several years in the school
system, and doing off jobs after work, she rose to the rank of assistant vice
principal at a top charter school in California and is making six figures. It
can be done. Lot of very hard and determined work and effort, and, of course,
intelligence. Help is on the way and it is your own self determination to
succeed and get away from "Uncle Sugar." Sugar is not healthy for the
body and welfare is not good for your self preservation.
Considering the National Democratic party has doubled our national debt in six
years--spending over 8 trillion dollars above the crushing amount of taxes the
Feds already take in--Who on earth thinks we should trust a Democrat
with anything? I can't think of a single policy the Dems have that would
actually help the poor. Enslave the poor? Yes. Help them? No way.
@acerinox said, "Perhaps you could take a moment to demonstrate a clear
state interest in allowing anyone to marry anyone...no limits."We are getting a bit off-topic here, but since you asked:Firstly,
no one said "no limits." It's still only two adult,
mutually-consenting, unrelated, legally unencumbered, competent humans.When two people vow/promise/commit to love and support each other for the rest
of their lives, forming a unified household, it's in the state's
interest to grant them next-of-kin status, inheritance rights, and household tax
treatment. Because, providing legal stability to that household makes it more
likely to provide childcare and eldercare for each others' family members,
not to mention each other, care that might otherwise become the state's
financial responsibility. Stable households are valuable to the state in many
ways, economically and socially. The state has no other interest in
marriage. They let marriages dissolve (divorce rate 50%), don't address
out-of-wedlock births (41%), let single people adopt, and allow all manner of
fertility services. Plus, sterile people can marry.
As I suspected, the Lockhart quotes in this article were context-free and devoid
of any of the meaning or intent reported by the popular media. Why not judge
what she actually said, instead of reading just what some reporter wanted to
steer your focus to?After initial publication, the article was
revised to include a link to the actual transcript. Lockhart's speech
seems to bear little resemblance to the sensational news reports.
@ A Quaker--There is indeed a great deal of evidence that there is a state
interest in natural marriage, far too much to cite in my 210 words here, but if
you're sincerely interested, I recommend as a starter the study of "Why
Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences
(National Marriage Project, Institute for American Values, 2011.)In
the meantime, I thought it quite interesting that one of the chief arguments in
the case as presented to Judge Shelby was that "The right to get married
would be a very hollow right if it did not include the right to determine, to
choose, to make the decision about who you're going to marry. I mean
it's great to have a marriage right, but if you can't marry whom you
want to marry, what value does that fundamental right or privacy interest
have?" In other words, what is proposed is that anyone could marry anyone.
Perhaps you could take a moment to demonstrate a clear state interest in
allowing anyone to marry anyone...no limits.
Do our politicians understand that Obamacare only helps those 100% to 400% at or
above the poverty line? That is to say, a single woman making $18,000 is
at the line and qualifies for tax credits toward insurance premiums. But, if she
is a single mother, she is below the poverty line and does not qualify for
insurance assistance. That's the doughnut hole that is supposed to be
covered by Medicaid but not in Utah to make a political statement. "Return
to sender"Stop hurting children to play your political games.
Jim Matheson for governor. Better than either the extreme right-winger or the
even more extreme right-winger.
The opening day speech of the leader in the House of Representatives should have
been about identifying the critical state issues that need work, and possible
solutions. Using the speech to launch her campaign for governor was showing her
true colors - she's a politician instead of a stateswoman. Poor judgment
and poor taste.
@mcdugall"The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is nearly a
copy of Romney Care (MASS Health) and was modeled after an early 90's
Republican model for providing health care to citizens."There
are several KEY differences between ACA and what Romney did. First and foremost,
Romney's was a STATE program that was LOCALLY driven. IT had been reviewed
and approved before being passed. Remember Pelosi's words "we have to
pass (ACA) to see what's in it?" None of that garbage with Romney care.
Second, Romney's people actually created a system that worked,
ie no website glitches on a nine figure website.Third, Romney's
plan empowered the consumer, ACA takes power away from the end user. I could go on and on. I'm sick of people comparing Romney's plan to
ACA. If they were so similar, then you should be praising Mitt for creating
Obama's dream system.
To those who fret and fantasize about the single mother, raising child/children
working two jobs with no health insurance would sign up to donate a fixed amount
of money, after taxes toward a fund to pay for her alleged health care the
problem would be solved.This aforementioned person may not have
insurance but does have access to health care service. There is a difference.
ER's will treat emergency conditions. there are clinics that treat
problems.As to the Speaker's political future, who knows?
Should make for good press and fun lines for Pignanelli and Webb on Sunday.To those who opine why not vote "D". Let me count the ways....
One other note about Romney-care in Massachusetts. Something that only the very
conservative were willing to criticize during this last election is the true
impact. The Left wanted to praise it while moderate Republicans ended up
ignoring the issue. Again, very relevant to this current discussion.Romneycare and Massachusetts currently has some of the lowest uninsured rates
in the nation. They also have the highest premiums and the longest wait times in
the nation to get care. There wait times are on par with Europe. And with the
most expensive premiums in the nation they also receive large subsidies from the
Federal government to offset those premiums. In short, without those Federal
subsidies their premiums, already the highest in the nation would be much
higher. Some think tanks suggest upwards of 40% higher!As we go down
this road there are many warning signs. We've already passed by many, which
promised us premiums would go up, not down; we would not be able to keep our
doctors, etc, etc.This issue between Lockhart and Herbert is likely
the financial issue for Utah's future economy, jobs and taxes for the next
A cautionary tale for Lockhart, Herbert and Utah.In the late
1990's the State of Tennessee dramatically expanded Medicaid to these
currently proposed levels. It was done by a Democratic Governor, House and
Senate. In fact, the Democrats controlled Tennessee since that state was allowed
back into the Union after the Yankees left circa 1870s.By the early
2000's when one analyzed the budget you saw that this expanded Medicaid
program was on tract to bankrupt the state. It was consuming ALL new funding. It
was projected that within a few years they would even have to cut Education,
roads, etc to fund at the dramatically promised levels of an expanded Medicaid.
Mind you, this as state funding across the board was increasing! This program,
called Tenncare was consuming everything.With this on the horizon it
should be noted that a Democrat Governor and a 2/3 Democratically controlled
House and Senate did the only thing that could be done to save the rest of the
budget...they ended Tenncare and cut Medicaid back to the previous levels. This
literally saved the Tennessee budget.Other states have been down
this road before. Utah should listen to this non-partisan lesson.
How many of you "anti-Herbert" types voted for the very same Gary
Herbert in 2010 and 2012? Did he change much after he assumed the
governor's office when Huntsman left? I'm going to guess all of you
voted for him - not only once, but twice.
SophieI will go next. What do we do for the 250 year old
Revolutionary war vet's widow with 20 children (ha, beat you duggars) who
works 4 part time jobs with no coverage on health care (5 hours a week each job)
and who needs new wheels for her wheel chair and crutches because evil
republicans are on a quest to convert all wheel chair ramps into scrap metal to
build tanks out of them while polluting the atmosphere at the same time!/takes breath (what a sentence)Stop picking out random
terrible situations as basis for the way you see things. I know a two single
moms who could have landed in that boat but didn't. Lets not use them as
@Jefferson, Thomas: "I challenge anyone to site just one conservative
Governor from the state of Utah who's conservative leadership approach
would be comparative to the great Reagan or Thatcher,"Awesome! I
spit out my morning coffee as I read that. Hilarious. You've a great sense
of humor. Thanks for the laugh this morning.
"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and
may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly
stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as
it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still
must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration
of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."From
the LDS Newsroom on Political neutrality.
@aceroinox: You know... If SSM was legal (remains legal), there may be fewer
children being raised by their gay parents. This is because gay children
wouldn't grow up afraid to admit who they are, and wouldn't force
themselves to try living a straight life with someone they have no romantic
interest in and could never bond with, and wouldn't end up making a baby or
two which they end up having custody of after the divorce when they find their
true love in a member of the same sex.Besides, the statistics prove
that the government has no interest in marriage as a means of ensuring two
nurturing biological parents living with every child. The divorce rate is 50%.
Almost 41% of births are out-of-wedlock. There are single parents, multiple
competing adoption agencies, all kinds of blended families, and thousands of
kids languishing in orphanages. Plus, there is absolutely no requirement for a
married couple to bear children. On what basis do you conclude our government
takes an active interest in family composition?
I didn't think there was anyone who could raise my respect for Governor
Herbert. I freely admit I was wrong. There are Utah politicians worse than
Why would Lockhart think the governor needs to be a man of action? Does she not
believe as she has heretofore avowed that the government that governs least
governs best. This is the problem with governments...and government people.
They think that because they have this temporary, part-time job they have to do
something. This is where our plethora of rules and regulations (laws) comes
from. We've become so hedged up by ambitious, save-the-world government
functionaries that everybody is turning to the government to solve all of our
problems. It's like a sickness...thinking that government always has to
become something. Yes, there is virtue in becoming, but there is virtue in just
being, as well. Gary Herbert has done a good job in staying the course, not
moving until the handwriting on the wall tells him there are no other options.
This is a man whom I value.
Expanding Medicare and Medicaid would be an improvement in Utah. Currently
the members of Utah's legislature have distributed their own weight in
words complaining about Obamacare -- but what has the legislature actually done
to promote health? Has it pass legislation to deal with pollution --
something important to a person like me with astham and sensitive lungs? Has
the legislature done anything to completely discourage smoking in the state?
What will the legislature do to counter the threat of people driving into Utah
from Colorado with recreational marijuana? What is the legislature doing to
discourage the depressant drug misuse of alcohol? What has it done to fund
studies in mental health? What has it done to stop insurance companies doing
business in this state from discriminating against pre existing conditions.
Here's just a few things that Ronald Reagan did as governor:Signed
the largest tax increase in California's history.Signed the most
liberal abortion law in the country.Signed a bill banning the carrying of
firearms in public.Increased funding for education, both primary ed and
higher ed.Is this the ultra-conservative governor you wanted for
Utah? If so, I think I'd support him too. Reagan was really more of a
pragmatist in the Eisenhower/Nixon mold, it's just that his rhetoric was
Yep going against Amendment 3 means she is looking at a national position not
the Utah Governor. Sad.
I can't tell you how disappointed I am to learn that Speaker Lockhart is
hedging on her support for Amendment 3. Not only was Amendment 3 passed by an
overwhelming majority of the state legislature, but also by the citizens of the
State of Utah. There are good reasons for that, but one of the prime reasons is
that every child has a right to be raised in a home with a mother and father.
Certainly there are situations where because of divorce or death that becomes
impossible, but it behooves us as citizens and the government which (should)
represent us to ensure that we don't create and put our stamp of approval
on a family structure that precludes that blessing in a child's life. Now,
some will argue that there are same-sex parents who will do a better job than
some flawed traditional marriages. That is undoubtedly true, but is beside the
point: a child's right to both a mother and father is a basic right decreed
by nature. We have no right to summarily make that impossible.
Herbert has talked the talk, but he is not the kind of governor a lot of us wish
he was. Hopefully, he can take Lockhart's words and consider them as
constructive criticism. And I sure wish that he wouldn't have grabbed on
to that Race to the Top carrot (i.e. ObamaCore). Sure wish he wouldn't
have signed our state onto Common Core. And he sure made a poor choice for
education advisor. She is unprofessional and dishonest.
It is a pretty cheap shot for speaker Lockhart. The opening address
shouldn't be a campaign speech and it is not an opportunity to vilify
others. To use a sporting term, you play the ball, not the man.
@Jefferson, Thomas - Ronald Reagan would be a RINO by your definition. He was
known to compromise with Democrats on a whole pile of issues both as governor of
California and president. Study his record!Your eagerness to brand
anyone who doesn't toe your narrow ideological line as a RINO is what will
destroy the Republican Party. As if you were the Republican gatekeeper.
Afraid I am rather distrustful of news reports these days, especially that
purport to represent a Senate speech simply by quoting a few dozen words out of
a lengthy speech, interspersed with copious journalistic commentary. Although
the reporters interpretive impressions might be of some interest, I would be
more pleased to hear words the Senator actually said. I feel that most readers
of the Deseret News should be fully capable of drawing their own conclusions.
mcbillay,Contrary to your comment, the word I hear is that Lockhart
is very good. She is tough, bright, gets things done and would be a very good
governor.And I haven't voted for a Republican for governor
since the 90's.
Oh Brother. More of the same ol' same ol'. The state doesn't need
more extreme conservatism or knee-jerk anti-Obama slogans. It needs common sense
and caring, and creative solutions that don't gut education and other
public programs.The sad fact is that these programs that jsf mentioned
probably will NOT provide for this mom if she's working 2 jobs. The
qualifications are pretty stringent to qualify for help from the state. Having
affordable health insurance is a much better alternative.
I could support Lockhart for governor, if it weren't for the fact that she
has been a big supporter of HB116 the Utah amnesty legislation, that the Utah
Legislature doubled down on last year with SB225.Herbert has done
very little other than signing HB116 and SB225, but Rep Lockhart has been a
strong proponent of the Utah Compact and Amnesty for illegal aliens. Last year
she was the House sponsor of SB225. She is big supporter of the SL Chamber of
Commerce and the Sutherland Institute in their quest for more cheap foreign
labor for Utah employers.
Lockhart has no shame and, it would seem, little political integrity. Using the
opening of the legislature to do everything but announce her run for governor is
ridiculous. Tell what you're going to do as speaker, Lockhart, without
attacking the person whose job you want. It also isn't the best way to seek
the cooperation of the governor's office at the beginning of a legislative
session. Herbert is probably a big enough person to ignore Lockhart's
shenanigans for the good of the state but I hope he finds a way to take a good
dig at this political animal.
What is exactly is free government? Maybe we could have more of this free stuff
Niederhauser is talking about. And then Repubs accuse Obama of winning by
offering free stuff. The gas tax has not been raised since 1997. The gas tax
is one of the fairest taxes there is. Those who use our roads and highways pay
the tax. Matheson for Governor.
I'd imagine if you would drop the crap about Obamacare, and first explained
how many uninsured there are in Utah, and that we could insure nearly all of
them for next to nothing because someone else agreed to pay for it, then the
vast majority woudl be okay with it. I don't see where Lockhart gets the
idea that Utahns don't want to expand health care coverage.Anyway, tired of seeing people posturing for other offices while supposed to
be doing the work of the people. Gov. Herbert is about as conservative as they
come, last thing we need is a Mike Lee type as governor. Ugh!
I will vote for Lockhart - I won't vote for Herbert. Lockhart is grabbing
the bull by the horns. Herbert is waiting to see if it will follow him into the
Can we get over the idea that the AMA provides health care or affordable health
care. It does neither. Chip currently provides health benefits for this poor
working mothers sick child. Other programs provide care for this family.
Programs in effect prior to AMA. AMA does not. But the health exchanges will
gladly allow this poor women's identity be stolen by fraudsters.
Compassionate Dems will gladly make sure this poor working mother gets the
health care the middle class gets, by making sure the middle class has no health
I don't necessarily have a problem with Speaker Lockhart challenging the
governor, but she needs to do better than vague name calling.It's worth noting that "innovation," as state leaders frequently
call for, requires talent, funding and leadership — even if it is designed
to trim government and save money in the longterm. Calling for innovation is a
far cry from actually doing something revolutionary. I see nothing in Ms.
Lockhart's speech or background that leads me to believe she is capable of
producing the type of change she calls for.
@mcdugall"Since when has it become a core Republican value to do
everything possible to hurt and punish the poor and middle class?"Last time I checked, Obama had a (D) after his name.
Mcdugall, You may ask the same question of our President, Obama.
Since when has it become a core value of the Democratic party to hurt the poor
and middle class?Look at the evidence.
@Sal The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is nearly a copy of Romney Care
(MASS Health) and was modeled after an early 90's Republican model for
providing health care to citizens.
Rep. Lockhart, please stand in front of the single mom who works two part-time
jobs, neither of which offer employee health insurance coverage, who has a sick
child requiring expensive treatments and who is struggling every day to juggle
rent, food, and medical costs.Tell us your alternative to the ACA
that will give this woman access to health insurance.We know what
you _oppose_; far-right Republicans such as yourself have made that clear for
years now. There's neither a problem solving theme nor evidence of
reasoning in your statements of how much you hate all things Obama, but
consistency in your opposition is not the same thing as having a superior
alternative.What we're anxious to hear from you is specifically
what you _propose_ to do about healthcare costs being the #1 source of personal
bankruptcies in the nation.
Lockhart's speech was unprofessional, ignorant, dishonest, and detrimental
to the future of Utah.
So Speaker Lockhart wants a Governor of action and then gives specifics about
only thinks she wouldn't do (Medicaid, raise gas tax). Any
chance she shared any specifics about things she would do?If not,
I'm afraid she's just another politician who wants to get elected on
the basis of platitudes rather than specifics.
I agree with Speaker Lockhart about no new taxes and definitely not joining
Obamacare's Medicaid option. Governor Herbert needs to listen to the
people of Utah. We do not want to be a part of Obamacare.
It would be something really new to actually have a conservative Governor. The
last several have been nothing but wet-the-finger, RINO, leaders, if such can
actually be called leaders. I challenge anyone to site just one conservative
Governor from the state of Utah who's conservative leadership approach
would be comparative to the great Reagan or Thatcher, I'm not looking for
style, there's only one but as principled should not be hard, but is. Not
in my 50 plus years at least.
Don't worry. The Governor wasn't there.Just like he wasn't
there when Swallow resigned, or when the same sex marriage rally was at the
Sounds as if the national, conservative, political landscape of lions eating
their young has taken hold here in our happy state. Is the GOP setting itself
up for a civil war within the party ranks.
Since when has it become a core Republican value to do everything possible to
hurt and punish the poor and middle class?
"In his opening speech, Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, told
his colleagues that returning to fundamental principles is essential to securing
individual rights and free government" Which is code word for what exactly?
Wonderful. The House has 45 days to get something done and Speaker Lockhart has
decided to use it to launch her run for governor.Becky, we are
paying you to take care of our business - not yours. Your political posturing
can wait until the end of March.
I like and applaud the Speaker's approach of being innovative and open to
new concepts in addressing the issues and problems we currently face as a state.
It's often too easy and can almost be a habit to keep raising taxes (again)
whenever the apparent need for new revenue arises... which is and will be often.
Guiding principles can and should be solid and enduring while
approaches should be fresh, new and pliable in their application. If
her actions do comply with her words, she would indeed make a good state
governor and should be considered a viable candidate for 2016.
and so begin anew the circus that ends with a laundry list of silly and often
unconstitutional bills we all get to pay to defend and that make us the laughing
stock of America.
So Becky Lockhart is positioning herself to the right of this very conservative
governor. So that answers the question of whether or not she's running for
governor. I have this sinking feeling in my gut right now.