Citizen Gorman

For the Children (Really)

2011-03-14T20:50:00.001-07:00

The overuse of the phrase “it’s for the children” to justify any collectivist/socialist agenda by the left has become nearly iconic. Truly, they have come to lean on this as the answer to any question raised. It seems to matter not whether “the children” want, need, or will benefit from the policy initiatives they prop up with this buzz phrase these days.

So, it is ironic that the highest profile battle being waged in the headlines today is one where the effort to truly accomplish something “for the children” is being demonized by the left in Wisconsin. But, make no mistake. The passage of Governor Walker’s budget repair bill is a huge win “for the children” as well as for school choice.

To most thinking people, the benefit to our kids of having a healthy balanced budget free of cumbersome debt they will someday work to repay is obvious. But, what may not be obvious is the very clear “win” for quality education this policy victory in Wisconsin represents.

Under the previous stranglehold of collective bargaining with teachers unions, school choice initiatives were often casualties in state contracts with teachers. The unions that do not share educational outcomes as their focus frequently thwarted policies that science supports as both student-first and outcome-based. Rather, policies that helped neither the best teachers nor the students’ success were protected. The backward and disproven educational business models the unions protect did one thing extremely well… That is, these failed policies protected the unions (and the millions of dollars in membership dues that could later be wielded for political power) by preserving a monopoly over educational opportunities in the state.

With the passage of the now-famous bill in Wisconsin that did away with most collective bargaining for teachers unions, the state is much better positioned to move forward with education policies that actually benefit a well-educated work force and produces Americans who are prepared to compete in an international job market. Unions that are focused solely on teachers’ benefits were actually strangling the progress of educational policy, as well. That is why the passage of this bill is such a boon for school choice advocates and parents across the state that simply want their child to be educated.

There are a good number of school choice advocates in Wisconsin policy making arena, including their legislative leadership and the Governor. In fact, the governor’s first budget proposal already contains expansion of the state’s voucher system and other dramatic school choice initiatives, according to School Choice Wisconsin. If you care about a well-educated electorate and the future of Wisconsin’s youth, you should be celebrating this victory over the union contracts that squashed school choice previously and encouraging your state legislators to support the educational opportunity elements in Governor Walker’s budget proposal.

Follow this author on Twitter @PamelaGorman or www.Facebook.com/PamelaGormanPage

As originally published at www.PunditLeague.us

Choice. Who Doesn't Love Choices?

2011-03-03T22:07:00.003-07:00

The school choice movement could just as easily have been called “parental choice” or “consumer choice” or “let-the-children-learn” or “whatever works education.” In essence, “school choice” is an umbrella term that covers all types of education and specifically allows for whatever will best serve the student.

Whether the child is best educated by public school (the best one they can find to attend), private school, home school, charter school, online school, etc. doesn’t matter to the school choice advocates. What does matter is that the government gets out of the way of learning and allows American students to be educated… the way that works best for them.

I’ve been a school choice advocate as long as I’ve been a mother. When my teenage son was a toddler, I started hearing about this strange new concept called “vouchers.” I asked questions and started reading… Since then, I became involved in public policy not just to fight for the future of our children, but it certainly was a driving factor. For those who have not ventured down this path to consider school choice, I thought I’d help explain it in simple terms. But, for those who have considered it, but always assumed it to be a conservative idea, it seems an explanation as to why school choice is not just good for the goose, but is also good for the gander might be in order.
If you believe in the free market, you love school choice. Conservatives get this instinctively. The idea being that students, like consumers with their purchasing power, will flood to the best possible educational opportunity. This causes great educational programs to flourish and causes lesser programs to either up their game or be left to find another use for their facilities. That’s not sad. That’s competition.

And, it isn’t harmful to public schools. In fact, it may be the only thing that can save them.

Here’s an illustration… Imagine a bakery that sells stale bread next door to a great new bakery that sells sumptuous fresh bread and great coffee. The consumers quickly figure this out and pretty soon the stale bread will be replaced with fresh bread at the old bakery or the business will fold when all of the consumers flock to the bakery where they are assured a quality product. The same is true of a public school that has ever-spiraling test scores and graduation rates. A charter school moves into the neighborhood, and low-and-behold the public school actually experiences a bump in performance… That, my friends, is statistically proven.

So, conservatives get it. But, what is remarkable is that when you travel the country, it isn’t always a partisan issue. I’ve worked on school choice issues alongside Democrat legislators on task forces and policy groups. In some states, this is the battle championed by a handful of Democrat legislators from inner-city districts working in conjunction with the business community and activists. If that shocks you, then you would not be alone. Here in Arizona, the Democrats almost universally buck any school choice policy that is presented today. But, in other states, where inner city schools have lower income constituents’ children trapped in a cycle of educational failure, the Democrat representatives have joined forces with school choice advocates to fight for the right to a decent education for the children there. It makes sense. It is good policy that serves the families they represent.

Why should a child be forced to attend the failing neighborhood school just because they were born into that neighborhood which their parents have no financial means to move leave? If a school is unsafe, why should a parent be forced to send their child into a war zone of drugs and gangs simply because a local government dictates that population must be restricted from crossing boundaries arbitrarily (or politically) determined by some obscure process in which they have no real power?

In Wisconsin, it was former State Representative Annette "Polly" Williams (a Democrat, African-American legislator from the central city) who had finally had enough of the failing schools in her area. She stood up to the teachers' unions and establishment when she partnered with other Democrats, with a Republican Governor, with the business community, and with anyone who would listen to help fix the horrible situation of Milwaukee's central city schools.

The push is to simply put the funding dollars “on the back” of each student and let them be led to the best possible education with those dollars providing the means, in effect providing the essential consumer driven market effect that leads to a vastly improved school system, overall.

The idea of school choice, though broad in its application, has one guiding core principle. Educate the American child. That’s it. It is arguably both the first and the last priority. As a parent, I like that. But, as a citizen of this country, I will fight for it because I believe our country’s future depends on getting this right. Even if you aren’t a parent, you should care and support this movement.

In a sense, the funding for education is a community effort because a well-educated workforce is good for employers, good for the kids, good for the common wealth when kids become productive members of society (I.e. taxpayers), and good for the family unit that can support each other and reduce the ever-increasing need for the welfare safety net provided by the community’s collective contributions.

But, perhaps most importantly, our little experiment we call “America” with our glorious constitution, free elections, and guaranteed republic only really works with a well-educated citizenry. If you care about those things, you need to care about education… And, by extension, you need to care about (and embrace) school choice.

Follow the Author on Twitter @PamelaGorman and www.Facebook.com/PamelaGormanPage

As originally posted on PunditLeague.us

A Profile in Excellence: From Pizza to Politics

2011-02-22T15:13:00.002-07:00

Dennis Tran - worlds fastest pizza maker at 55 seconds.

I was sick recently and found myself watching a show on the food network that was taking a look inside the Domino's “30 minutes or less” company heritage. Apparently, they have these annual competitions where fast pizza making employees from all over the world compete for the title as “World’s Fastest Pizza Maker.” I found myself strangely moved by Mr. Tran’s victory, but not just because I love both efficiency and pizza. It was the very real victory he enjoyed. People rushed to embrace him and it looked like he might have even shed a tear.

In a world where you are either keeping up with the Jones’s or trying to justify your worldview, as a global melt down seems to be taking hold, it is refreshing to see humans just celebrating excellence… In whatever it is they do.

In the teaching of my faith, we are told to do everything we do as if we are doing it in service of Christ. There are a lot of theological reasons for that, but those aren’t necessary for the point to be made. We should all strive to do everything with excellence. And, when someone displays excellence, we should be quick to celebrate with him or her (not downplay their actions as less than another’s because it doesn’t seem “important” or because later activities undid their work).

I find it exhilarating to watch my fellow humans celebrate accomplishment, even if I don’t totally “get” what they are accomplishing. It is the shear impossibility of the moment and the raw human emotion that displays which draws me in. It is addictive and I find myself seeking it out.

We watch a lot go on in public policy everyday that we don’t stop and acknowledge as moments of excellence. I, on the other hand, sit in awe. One of my greatest blessings is the ability to be right there, in that moment, and milk it for every drop of victory there is. It is what gets me by. And, right now, I am watching a show of excellence unfold in the state of Wisconsin.

Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans in their State Senate and Assembly are bravely taking a stand. It moves me to watch as various members of the body stand in front of a roaring angry mob with nothing but a microphone and a little earpiece to connect them to the national news interviews while they absolutely NAIL their interviews. It moves me to see a brand new Governor paraded through a series of interviews and press conferences and not be shaken from his resolve that this must be done for the future of the state he loves. He is calm, he is articulate, and dare I say… he’s more presidential than our own President. Governor Walker nails the interviews. Everytime. And THAT is excellence.

Next year, someone else may beat Dennis Tran’s world pizza making record. But, he deserves the credit for doing whatever it is you do with excellence and commitment.

Similarly, the forces that gain their strength from a well-funded Democratic party through union dues may someday undo what is being fought so valiantly for in Wisconsin. But, history will forever reserve a spot for the memory of the excellence being exhibited there right now by Governor Walker, Senate Leader Scott Fitzgerald, Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, and a whole host of other Republican legislators who have risen to challenge and are truly working with excellence.

*Standing Ovation*

Update: Apparently, Tran's segment on Food Network (while moving) is out of date. Pali Grewal is the 2010 World’s Fastest Pizza Maker at 39.1 seconds. :)

Originally published at PunditLeague.us

Follow this author on Twitter @PamelaGorman or Facebook.com/PamelaGormanPage

Social Media for Politicians? Heck, Ya!

2011-02-08T20:45:00.000-07:00

What a difference five years can make…

I saw a news story recently here in Arizona where the use of social media by lawmakers was lauded as a smart tool for elected officials to keep the public informed. The reporter even admitted his first stop in covering the work at the state legislature is the Facebook and Twitter accounts of local lawmakers. You can watch it here.

I agree, and am an active user of social media (as I was when I served in the Arizona Legislature, myself). But, I can’t help laughing at how long it took the mainstream press to catch on to this. I mean, they are in the information business and all.

Way back in the dark ages (2006) I entered the social media venue as a state lawmaker. But, rather than embrace the effort and celebrate my extra time spent creating easy access for my constituents to the work I was doing at zero cost to the taxpayers, I was ridiculed in the local press. These “keepers of the public interest” journalist types wrote about how silly it was that some of us younger politicos were somehow tainting the office by engaging in social media forays.

Luckily, I was given a heads up of the story to break the following morning, which gave me time to go into my brand spanking new Myspace (remember Myspace?) page and turn it into a promotional page for my work. I remember thinking it was very nice that the state’s largest newspaper (remember newspapers?) was going to direct their readership to my own little corner of the social media universe and decided to seize the day, rather than hustle and beg them to kill the story.

There is a constant push and pull in this struggle to control the information flow, and that isn’t new. But, the new embrace of social media by political figures and journalists alike is a good thing. As Arizona Speaker, Kirk Adams, says in his interview regarding his new nickname “Tweetmaster”, “It is like having a printing press in your pocket.”For voters hungry for unfiltered information about the policies that will affect them, social media is offering something no traditional media form has been able to in history… real time, live, direct access to their policy makers.

One doesn’t have to struggle, though, to see the downside of this. Let’s face it, some politicians are quick on their feet and have great judgment in regards to messaging and when it makes sense (and when it doesn’t). For those that don’t, the expectation that they get out there and join the information revolution is not going away. So, to those that honestly look at their abilities and time constraints and think, “Holy smokes. I can’t do this. It is a disaster in the making…” I’d suggest finding someone who can and will help you put your best foot forward with social media very quickly. Bright ideas and IT expertise will only take you so far and a career can crash with one improper post by a politician… Which is why many have moved so slowly to embrace the technology and some legislatures have really tried to clamp down on the activity.

The good news is that professionals with real political savvy are springing up all over to help. And, like choosing any professional for an important job that could ultimately make or break your business, you need to hire someone with a proven track record.

Keep in mind, though, that anyone who tells you they are a social media expert may be that, but still have no clue how politics, policy, or news cycles work. I am happy to make specific recommendations to anyone who contacts me, but generally, I’d suggest you get someone who has really “been there” in the trenches professionally long enough to do the job right the first time.

I wonder where we will be five years from now, if this is how far we’ve come since 2006? Star wars-like holographic images of speeches? *Shudders*

Originally posted on PunditLeague.us. Follow the author on Twitter @PamelaGorman

We’re All Here Today to… (hold on, got a text coming in)

2011-01-18T23:32:00.002-07:00

We’ve got a growing problem in America with technology mishandling. But do we even know it? The problem is seen in use of technology, but technology isn’t the problem. Like many “tools” the technology is being blamed for what is really a people problem.

The value we place on our relationships, the ones that we have nurtured and benefited from for years, is being diminished rapidly as we find greater value in our connectedness to others through constant on-demand exchanges with people or organizations not within our presence. Here’s an illustration to explain…

Say you go to a networking event, like a reception or cocktail party or a business luncheon, and the person you are talking to is clearly passing time with you while constantly looking over your shoulder for someone “more important” to interact with. Believe me, it happens to everyone. Most people talk about this afterward in a very revealing light to their friends. “Ya, he shook my hand and chatted a bit, but he was scanning the room for someone else to talk to the whole time.” Or, in a personal setting, “The whole time we were at lunch, she was looking around the restaurant to see if someone ‘important’ had come in.” How does that make us feel?

Almost overwhelmingly, it makes us feel lousy. It affects not only our self-worth and self-esteem, but perhaps more importantly, it also defines relationships. The power structure (or “pecking order” as it were) is delineated by the perceived value placed on relationships, whether intentional or not. It can also anger us if we interpret the behavior of the other as a signal that he/she has incorrectly assumed a greater power role in the relationship that we believe exists. In layman’s terms, this is the “who does he think he is?!” response.

Now, how different is it really to be in the middle of a real life exchange with another human and have them pull out their gadget and begin texting or emailing someone else who didn’t bother to show up? What a glance away over your shoulder can do to your psyche is dramatically multiplied as 10 seconds or more ticks away awkwardly while the person you are taking the time to meet with abruptly enters another “meeting.” In that mere 10 seconds, you have time to process the rudeness, assign meaning to it in terms of your relationship with this person, and very likely place judgment on the person standing before you. Little by little, your relationship with this person is eroded. It is a very powerful non-verbal statement.

And, before you defend this behavior by saying, “Everyone does it these days, so it is just accepted,” remember this… It is a normal human condition to fail to accept this excuse for ill treatment. Even if we do it ourselves, we don’t justify it in others. We may have come to accept it, but there is still and assignment of judgment and erosion of the relationship as we realize that the person we are with has just moved us down the pecking order in terms of value.

Here is a way technology could really help with this very human problem… I’d love to see a feature on my Blackberry that allows me to turn on an auto-responder text and email that says something like, “I’m presently in a meeting. I will get back to you at my earliest convenience.” By getting this quick response, in all hopes the text friend will hear, “I’m presently with a valued human being who has gone to the trouble to be with me in person. I value you, too, which is why I turned on this auto-responder. I will get back to you when my time with this person is through.”

A way we could all do better in the meantime is to agree, together, to put our devices away for the duration of the exchange. Make a quick comment, like, “I’m going to ignore my gadget during our meeting so I can focus fully on what we’re doing here and respect your time and trouble getting here.” Realize, though, that in doing this you actually have to honor that commitment. Also realize that those addicted may become nervous without a line of sight to their device. And, accept that to some you meet with, they really DO think you are less valued and less important than they are, or their plethora of electronic friends. But, it is worth a try, in any case.

These non-verbal messages you are sending both by action and inaction are screaming louder that you can possibly imagine. In foreign cultures, something as simple as glancing at a business card when it is handed to you is highly rude and will define everything that comes after it. In others, NOT taking time to look at the card has the same effect. When you travel internationally as a delegate, these important relationship-busting behaviors are part of your briefings. Experts realize that it makes no sense to travel half way around the world in person, only to offend the other party by implying a lack of respect for them. It would do us well to also recognize the dangers of mishandling our gadgets, both here at home and abroad, in this same light.

Relationships matter in every culture whether they are face-to-face or remote access. But, for many the physical touch and proximity of human space is still a powerful tool in business and in friendships. Don’t mess both up by allowing your gadget use to send non-verbal messages you never intended.

Follow the author on Twitter: @PamelaGorman

As originally published at punditleague.us

Reefer Madness! (And Other Stupid Things to Blame)

2011-01-13T00:16:00.000-07:00

It is a normal human reaction when faced with unfathomable acts of terror to seek some safe place to apply one’s outrage because to accept that these isolated events are both horrific and unpredictable, with a potential for repeat, is too frightening. To accept that one simple truth would also force a person to recognize that it could happen anywhere to anyone… including the people they love.

So, humans seek a solvable problem to direct their emotional energies toward, as that gives them a semblance of peace and allows them to continue to believe that this won’t happen again… if they could only fix X.

In the case of normally freedom loving people, this is a temporary lapse in judgment brought on by fear. In the case of the left, that fear combines with a sense of opportunity. Regardless of your political leanings or previous opinions on the rights of citizens, it is imperative that we all take a deep breath and remember to use logic in place of emotion when considering our laws and how we enforce them.

On Saturday January 8, 2011, a man chose to kill several people. Because we don’t know why this happened, and we feel helpless to prevent it from happening again, we are naturally asking a lot of questions. Questions are one thing, but making assumptions (and sponsoring legislation as a result) is dangerous.

I’ve watched the hysteria unfold and kept my mouth shut while I prayed and mourned for those who are affected by this unspeakable horror. My only comments have been at the audacity of those who seek to blame others for this man’s transgressions. When CNN/ABC/CBS and dozens of leftist blogs try to pull you in, it almost becomes laughable. Even when Katie Couric dragged me into it with a video of me enjoying the shooting sports in her goofy imitation of a journalistic piece, I did not jump in. It would do others well to do the same, but this takes an enormous amount of personal restraint and emotional maturity. I realize that.

I also realize that those who immediately began blaming Sarah Palin for having a stupid graphic on a map or an entire nation of everyday people who are involved in the Tea Party movement are simply not equipped with my same emotional maturity and self-restraint. They might also be daft. But, they also have a wound from the major whooping in November and they were already hurting. And, like a small child who may lash out because of the pain in those first moments after a bad fall, they are grasping for someone to blame.

The interesting pattern of their childish and emotionally immature response to this tragedy tells a lot… First, they blamed a political ideology that is kicking their proverbial ass. Then, they blamed the one public personality that shares that ideology (and who they most fear). When it became obvious that there was a strong chance the killer actually shares their own ideology, they then blamed the people on the airwaves who supposedly made this guy so angry that he had to shoot people to feel better. The problem with this is that if extrapolated, then all liberals who don’t like talk radio become suspect as possible killers… So, that didn’t last as long… Suddenly, the left began to join in the chorus with all sane folks who were unified in their rhetoric that this is a time to mourn and remember the victims.

If this self-correction had been where it ended, there would be no reason to write this blog entry. But, unfortunately (and not surprisingly) what is coming now is the 2nd generation of rhetoric. By now the left has regrouped and organized their fear mongering messages and have decided to use this senseless tragedy as an opportunity to accomplish unpopular policy. Sound familiar? It should. It is the classic “never let a good crisis go to waste” mantra of the left.

So the race to blame is now really about the chance to eradicate those pesky freedoms and push for “solutions” that otherwise have no chance. Case in point? Guns.

Those of us with the emotional maturity to separate policy making from emotional outburst must be vigilant we don’t allow them to frame a debate that has NOTHING to do with Saturday’s murders and everything to do with the left’s pre-existing agenda. Don’t give an inch. The gun is not to blame. In fact, he could just as easily used a bomb and more people would have died. So, the gun was really not even necessary and he would/could have killed even more without it. So, let’s take the gun out of the equation, because it is illogical and blaming a tool is a crutch for the weak mind.

The killer is to blame. There is nothing to blame that “made” him a killer, necessarily. Even the mentally ill don’t normally kill. So, let that one go, too. Bad things happen and yes, there are bad people in the world. Clearly Loughner is one of them. But, if you are intent on blaming something or someone while you grow up in your emotional maturity, here’s a stupid thing to focus on besides the killer, himself…

Reefer Madness!!! Yes, pot... And, yes, it is wrong and ridiculous to consider, but just as justified a discussion as gun control is. So, here goes… One thing that is readily accepted about the shooter is that he smoked a lot of pot. In the early days, “experts” opined that his written ramblings on YouTube showed that he was likely schizophrenic. They also pointed out that it is “known” that marijuana is very bad for the brain chemistry in those with this affliction. With medical marijuana sweeping the nation (and about to become legally dispensed in Arizona), is this an area that “responsible” adults in policy making must consider? And the guy who sold it to him… He’s to blame, too, I suppose. Do I think we should blame the pot, especially since we aren’t even sure if he suffers from this illness? No. Lots of people use pot for a lot of reasons and I see no evidence it makes them killers. But, it is as worthy as any other in the blame game. So, heck, why not?

Here are some others if you don’t want to go after pot. Maybe it is his violent video games or the ever-increasing brutal nature of the special effects coming out of Hollywood. Maybe it is the hocus pocus black magic he likes to play with in the back yard (I hear those dark spirits are bad company). You know, maybe he got his skull-to-dried-up-orange ratio wrong in his alter brew… Hate when that happens. Or, maybe his girlfriend broke up with him. Or, maybe he can’t get a girlfriend because he is incredibly weird and ugly. Maybe he looked in the mirror and realized he looks like a crazed possessed killer and just sort of went with it. Perhaps Congresswoman Giffords is just too pretty and articulate for him to let her live, lest he be held to her standard. Or, maybe he loves her but she didn’t return his requests to come over and watch the Lord of the Rings Trilogy with him and that, well, really hurt his feelings. Maybe she stopped responding to his frequent emails regarding how Bush really bombed the twin towers and he became convinced she was part of the conspiracy.

The fact is, no idea we can come up with is really a reason to kill. And, as reasonable mature adults, we need to accept that and stop looking for a person or an object to blame.

Follow the author on Twitter @PamelaGorman

As originally posted at PunditLeague.us

Great Scott! Did He Just Say That?!

2011-01-05T16:42:00.000-07:00

This week marks the first for many newly-elected officials to be sworn into office. If you’re a messaging-sensitive person like me, and a policy wonk, you can glean a lot from the speeches given at inauguration ceremonies. The first speech from a newly-elected governor is often a sort of “heads up” to the legislature as well as the constituents. You have to read between the lines a bit, due to the broad differences in understanding of the audience. So, I’m as interested in what they do say as what they don’t say.

I tuned in to watch Governor Rick Scott’s first speech in Tallahassee this morning and was pleasantly surprised at the content of his remarks which were full of talk of reform. While it appeared the teleprompters weren’t working (he had to use a paper script), he still delivered his speech humbly and with notable sincerity. I don’t know Governor Scott, but I am convinced he really wants to accomplish the items he outlined in his speech. And, since I know at least one of the people being considered for his staff, I believe him when he says he is trying to get the best people around him to get this job done. Here’s what stood out to me…

His focus was heavily on bringing employers to Florida. He talked about reducing regulatory burdens, litigation costs, and taxation. And, while Governor Scott gave specific examples of how his administration planned to take on this “axis of unemployment,” he made one statement that was extremely encouraging. It might have slipped past you if you weren’t listening for it. I was.

He said they can’t “guarantee” businesses profitability, but would give them a “fair chance” at being profitable. Allow me to decode…

A lot of what the business community asks the state government for in terms of policy undermines the overall health of the employment opportunities in the state. As a group business may ask for lower taxes, reduced regulation, and protection from unfounded litigation. This is all good and creates a healthy economy by enticing would-be employers to the state and also boosts hiring with companies already in the state across all industries. But, individually, they come asking for subsidies to “guarantee” their profits, regardless of the viability of their business plans. (They also come asking for help driving out their competitors in ploys that are often thinly veiled as requests to be better regulated in order to protect consumers. But that is a topic for another day).

You might better know these “guarantees” as “corporate welfare.” On a purely philosophical note, that isn’t the proper role of government. But, in practical application, it is a nasty way for politicians to secure support from specific business sectors while pushing the burden of the costs of government onto other employers and individual taxpayers directly and indirectly through loss of jobs and lower pay. The reality is that if one business gets a big break in its own costs from the government, then someone else is going to pick up that slack. Everyone else’s costs go up to pay for that favor to one. Cost shifting of this sort goes on all over the place and is nicely termed “incentives” by the economic development crowd. It prevents lowering of the overall tax burden on all employers and individuals, normally hitting small business especially hard.

So, when Governor Scott specifically made this remark, it seemed he was putting everyone listening closely on notice. Florida, as he said, is moving toward being the best place to be an employer. But, what he also said was that they would have a healthy business environment that gives an equal chance for everyone. And, that means no special favors for one at the expense of the rest. I, for one, found this to be both encouraging and courageous. Let’s hope he gets those “good people” needed to drive his agenda!

Originally published at PunditLeague.us

Airplane Anonymity

2010-12-30T16:44:00.000-07:00

Travel a lot? If you do, this is probably not a new concept to you. Frequent travelers have developed a whole host of coping strategies to get through hours of time in close proximity to strangers. When I used to be in public office, it could be painful if my strategies failed. As a result, I sort of became a master of avoidance and anonymity...

On airplanes, you are a trapped audience. There is no escape, really, but with all of the full flights now there isn’t even a way to move seats for a little distance. So, when I was a legislator, I would try very hard to avoid admitting what I do for a living. I'd bring work to do, I'd put on my ipod (even if the battery is dead- still a great way to stop unwanted conversation), and I'd try to be completely settled in my seat and engrossed in something before the rest of my row mates would come to sit down next to me.

If all of this failed and the natural conversation started with “So, what do you do?” I'd answer, “Oh, I just work for the state government.” -- That is normally enough to frighten them and they would astutely recognize that continuing down this road would be boring and painful.

But, once in awhile, they would persist, “Oh, really? What do you do for the government?” I'd be coy as long as I could be without lying (there is always that nagging truth that they may actually recognize me). “I work in the legislative branch.”

More? “Oh, I mostly go to meetings and read a lot.”

And, if I really had to, I would offer, “Actually, I am responsible for writing bill language and amendments. It’s sort of cool, I guess.”

This last one is brilliant because it takes the super nosey seat mate down a road that allows me to argue policy without acknowledging I was an actual policy maker. And, I can present policy in very accessible and persuasive ways that just might allow me to take on the unsuspecting pupil as a new inductee into the School of Gorman... It isn’t entirely good sportsmanship, I suppose.

But, I have been trapped next to rabid left wing goofballs who seem to think their opinion is so laden with compelling thought that I am going to abandon my world view, my free market philosophies, my love for rugged individualism and perhaps even join hands and sing a camp fire song with them. Again, for the record, nothing you can say which you have gleaned from your Moveon.org email blasts is going to convert me. It WILL make my ride miserable, however.

So, I avoid the conversation. It is one of the few rights to privacy I have managed to cling to all of these years… my airplane anonymity.

This post is dedicated to the handful of friends I have made when I experience system failure with my whole strategy. You all know who you are because you all said to me at the end of the flight, "I don't normally talk to the people next to me on flights!" And THAT is how I knew we were going to be life long friends! :)

Bite Your Lip

2010-12-30T16:12:00.001-07:00

As an Arizona Senator, I had the benefit of working with state legislators from all over the United States through multi-state policy groups designed to help representatives from each state both do their own jobs better and to better understand what was going on in other sovereign states. Over the years, I apparently became known for immigration policy in many of these settings. Sometimes this was a good thing, other times not so much.

Strange as it seems to an intelligent reader, these folks who had no real experience with our federally ignored border seemed to have a strong opinion that they never failed to share. I tried my best to gently inform them, but often left those conversations with the realization that my understanding of the border issue, having "been there" was causing them cognitive dissonance with their own strongly held (read: ignorant) beliefs.

Now that I am out of office, I would like to suggest to all elected officials that they take a deep breath and accept there are things you don't know yet. There are things you can't possibly understand not having "been there." And, while you were biting your lip enduring yet another cry for help from Arizona for the destruction of our state caused by our open border, we were biting our lip, too.

We bit our lip when you wailed that the billions in federal aid you received after your hurricane simply wasn't enough. We bit our lip when you implored us to support a federal bailout of your largest industry because it would be crushing to your state budgets if all of those private for-profit companies failed. We bit our lip when you asked us to force drivers to use more ethanol products because your farmers couldn't possibly be expected to actually sell corn for market value in ways other than through forced market creation by the federal government. We bit our lip when your state created its own mini-European welfare state and then went broke, but you insisted that as one of the largest states you somehow deserve extra federal bailout dollars to continue your broken promises to your constituents.

The glaring difference is that OUR problem is also YOUR problem. The open borders in Arizona present a national security risk that is absolutely the sole responsibility of the United States. And, you swore to support the Constitution which provides for protection of the states. And, yes, this includes the federal dollars needed to provide that protection. So, while we all have our problems in our states, the problem in Arizona is a shared problem and it must be dealt with by the combined treasuries from all 50 states... through a federal appropriation.

I'd encourage elected officials from all 50 states to come to Arizona and see this national problem for just that... a NATIONAL problem. Until then, please bite your lips a little harder.

Originally posted on PunditLeague.us

Being There

2010-12-30T16:10:00.001-07:00

Not Just Another Stupid Resolution

I’m not one that’s big on New Year’s resolutions. In fact, I like to be a contrarian and do strange things like starting a diet on December 1st, just to be different. But, this year, recent events have shaken me to the point that I am willing to lay down my preconceived notion about the futility of January 1 resolutions. What has so moved me? Sadly, it was the death of a friend.

Have you ever been so fortunate to cross paths with a person who is completely “there” when you are with them? So many of us are busy with our mind elsewhere. Some of you even have the audacity to stop midsentence to join a different conversation on your electronic gadgetry (you know who you are). But, there ARE those rare individuals who have an uncanny ability to stop their minds from wandering and really just be there with you.

Christopher Smith was one of those rare birds. People who knew him very well and those of us who knew him from work all say that he was a special soul. Yes, he was smart, funny, generous, warm… But, I could say that about several of the amazing friends I have. What set this person apart was this unique gift he had to always make me feel like he had been looking forward to talking to me, even when the meeting was merely chance. He looked me in the eye and we talked about real stuff in the midst of whatever chaos we found ourselves in. When I would arrive home from one of the various political events and someone would ask who was there, the name “Christopher Smith” would come first to mind. It wasn’t until he died a week ago that I realized he may have often been the only one in the room who was 100% “there.”

I think the world needs more of this, not less. So as I ponder his death on the day of his funeral, I am choosing not to get caught up in the tragic way his last 6 month of life were spent or the ghastly way he was murdered. Rather, I am remembering the last time I spent time with him. And, I am regretting that I wasn’t totally “there” when he took the time to walk along with me as I left the groundbreaking ceremony. He told me about the health issues he was struggling with as a result of taking some cholesterol drug. I didn’t really “hear” him when he told me he was in so much pain at one point that it was debilitating. I was in such a hurry to jump in my car that day that I didn’t simply stop and be there. I gave some sincere comforting words (probably clichés) and let the flurry of activity surrounding the launch of Congressional campaign distract me from taking more time with a friend who was struggling. Looking back, I can’t even remember if I offered to help or even pray for him. For that lapse, that incredibly self-absorbed response, that wasted opportunity, I have deep regret.

So, my New Year’s resolution is going to be in Christopher’s honor. I am going to do my best to try and fill the void left in the world by this special man. And, because I will undoubtedly fail miserably to fully replicate his gift, I am calling on my fellow Americans to do the same. Maybe if we all try a little harder to live in the moment and fully “be” right where we are, there would be a lot more folks walking around feeling validated and appreciated and a little less lonely. Let’s really be with those who take the time to be with us.

On Christopher's Facebook page, his profile reads this "I aspire to be a leader, a man of honor, a man of vision, a man of passion, a man of faith demonstrated by action, a true and loyal friend and a defender and promoter of liberty." I believe he accomplished it. May we all aspire to do the same… Rest In Peace, my friend.

Originally posted on PunditLeague.us

The Dream Act: Unsafe for Children

2010-12-30T16:08:00.001-07:00

In lawmaking, the words matter. And, one of the biggest ills in making laws are the “unintended consequences” of the choice of words in a bill. This is one big reason why the issue of interpretation by the courts of vague or sloppy language must be considered when creating law. Add to this the intentional maneuvering to find loopholes in laws by various interest groups, and it is easy to see why writing a bill is not easy business.

Many, for instance, have presented the Dream Act as some sort of act of kindness or as a way to build our military. In fact, the language of this bill has a glaring hole in it that could be seen by anyone who bothered to read it. I have to assume that the folks who talk about amnesty for illegal alien children have not read the bill or are not being intellectually honest when they speak of it.

The bill has a section that specifically allows the offspring of illegal aliens to opt out of the military and education requirements for citizenship. And, if you actually read it, you would see that the opt out requires little more than a letter stating that fulfilling the requirements of the law would present a “hardship.” Because the bill offers no definition of what is means by “hardship,” it is virtually impossible for a court to later have clear direction in determining what constitutes a life situation that prevents the young person from properly meeting the requirements of the law. Additionally, it could be determined on a subjective case-by-case (read: politically motivated) basis by the government agency employee who receives the letter of excuse.

In application, though, this becomes a much bigger problem than simple confusion in terms of interpretation. In application, this one section creates a powerful psychological motivation for foreign entities to rush into our country illegally with their children. In effect, either intentionally or unintentionally, the Dream Act’s provisions encourage illegal crossings with children in tow.

If you were a parent living in another country and wanted to earn money to feed your family back home, you might take the risk and cross the border alone, at your own peril, for that chance. But, compliments of the new Dream Act, you see the golden ring hanging much lower that would allow you to not only earn money for your family, but the promise that your children will gain citizenship if you bring them along on the dangerous trek. The U.S. government is making that promise in this new law. The Dream Act promises you that you can just write a letter with some random excuse of “hardship” to prevent your child from serving in the military or having to find a way to pay their tuition in college.

I’m a parent. I get the powerful desire to want the very best for my child. If you’re a parent, you have to be honest. You’d take huge risks to assure a better life for your son or daughter, too.

Aside from the clear arguments we all can make against once again trying out amnesty to see if it will fail again, we must realize that the Dream Act takes this to a whole new level. It ENCOURAGES parents to illegally drag their children from their homeland, across dangerous crossings, living illegally as second-class humans in hiding. It isn’t good for our country, but it is even worse for the safety and well being of young people who will be brought in much greater numbers due to the enticement created by this misguided legislation.

Originally posted on PunditLeague.us

The Proper Role of State Government

2010-12-30T16:04:00.000-07:00

As part of the application process to work for Governor-elect Scott Walker (WI), an essay answer to a question about the proper role of state government was required. Below is my answer to that question. My own question remains, though. Who is reading all of these essays?! LOL.

The proper role of state government is to provide for those areas of interest where the private sector or individuals cannot carry out duties for themselves. It is my firmly held belief that people don't want to fail. So, when you get government out of the way, businesses are created and grow which means people can work and grow. If you can fuel an entrepreneurial spirit in individuals and allow such an environment to flourish, people -- not government -- begin to accomplish special things in all aspects of their lives. This extends well beyond their pocketbook, but it starts there.

Fiscally, the state should consider itself little more than a clearinghouse for the collective purchases of the taxpayers. This means that if there is a project for which it is only reasonable to assume collective funding is necessary, the state should provide the oversight necessary to enter into contractual relationships with private contractors who can be held accountable for both the quality of the end product and the expediency with which the project is completed. Except in very limited cases where highly sensitive private information is exchanged, most activities the state overseas on behalf of the taxpayer would be better provided through experienced oversight of the private entity that contractually agrees to carry out the activity.

The state, therefore, should act solely as a qualified expert agent for the taxpayers to benefit from economies of scale and not as the deepest darkest pockets in the marketplace.

The state should also stay out of the business of “helping” people make better decisions in how to live their everyday lives. History proves out that the very moment a new limitation on behavior is decreed by state law, a new loophole is created that often drives human behavior to ridiculous outcomes. The addiction to social engineering through government regulation and statute is unhealthy and doesn’t work. By limiting the size and scope of state government, I believe people will generally make decisions that create a better life for themselves.

State government’s role is to preserve freedom and create a healthy atmosphere for choice and competition among the people and employers in the state. The state, essentially, should be working for the citizens… not the other way around.

Don't Cry for Me, America

2010-12-30T15:59:00.001-07:00

I’ve received an outpouring of emails, tweets and Facebook messages since losing my bid for Congress in the last few days. I am truly grateful. Thank you, to everyone, who contacted me after the race was over and also to everyone who sent along encouragement throughout the race. Your words were truly touching.

In nearly all of the emails, though, there is a theme that speaks of “next time” I run. Some even suggest I run for a higher office! It seems that folks assume that another campaign is something that will naturally come next. That is where the disconnect lies, I guess. So, I’m writing this to help folks understand what I apparently did not clearly communicate during the race. Here it is… Being an elected official is not my heart’s desire, affecting public policy is. And, there are a myriad of good ways to do that besides being elected. My plan is to go forward in one of those “other” ways now.

Since the beginning of my political career, I have been motivated by an intrinsic need to always be productive and to be moving toward some goal. I want to make a difference and have my life on this earth be one of purpose. In the realm of politics, that goal is to see the conservative ideals of limited government and personal freedoms win out over the collectivist and socialist movement that is tearing away at our nation’s foundation. But, the mode of elected office was always just a tool for accomplishing my goal of making a difference. It gave me a vote on public policy as an Arizona legislator and a voice to inform citizens and to hopefully be a thought leader for the conservative cause.

Being elected was a necessary role to play in order to be able to cast a vote on public policy issues I believe affect the lives of Americans and to help people have access to their government that almost seems convoluted by design. I was willing to play the part and do the necessary work of getting elected so that I would have the opportunity to do the REAL work of thoughtfully reading and considering legislation. My greatest joy, though, was in helping constituents weave through government red tape through the power of my office.

It was a great experience being elected to my state legislature. I like to believe I made a difference and set the standard a little higher, while hopefully giving courage to others to also be “real” in their dealings. The work I did with multi-state policy organizations allowed me to build friendships with state legislators all across this nation that I cherish. I also like to believe I made a difference in these policy groups, too, passing free market based model legislation and participating in the debate with representatives from many states. But unlike many candidates out there who recently lost their elections, I am not gearing up for another run.

Running for Congress in 2010 (though I lost) was a life experience I will always cherish. I am confident that my conservative principles are not what kept me from being elected. It wasn’t my hard work and reputation as an articulate and principled leader on conservative policy issues that pushed away votes. Voters didn’t say “no” to me because of my solid voting record or my remarks at debates. All of that was well received. Rather, the voters chose a well-funded candidate who they heard from frequently throughout the race because that candidate had a war chest of campaign cash with which to communicate regularly with voters. Pure and simple. Voters wanted what I represented, but they just didn’t know I existed because the money wasn’t there to reach out and tell them.

In spite of the funding shortfall I ran with, I count my blessings. The new friends of like patriotic mind that I came to know because of this congressional run make up a varied and incredible network of talented and committed Americans. These are people that most voters have no idea are even out there. But, thank God they are! I will be looking for ways I can help future conservative leaders to overcome their own funding deficits in the coming months with this talented group of patriots. I learned a lot that should not go to waste and I am looking for an outlet to share it all with good conservative candidates who are still in the fight.

There is also a chance that my unique call-it-like-I-see-it commentary will find an audience so I can continue to inform voters. After all, once you see the puppet strings, you never believe the puppet’s dance is his own again. Having been there, I watch American politics with an intimately informed eye. Now that I am a private citizen, you might be interested to see what I see with the benefit of the “back story” on things not seen in public. Keep watching. Heck, maybe I’ll write a book.

Bottom line? I love America, consider her worth fighting for, and intend on remaining a voice in the mix if folks still want to listen. And, my campaign team and supporters gave it our all. We did amazing things with very little money. I believe we inspired many along the way. I am very interested in remaining a force for good and helping to strengthen this momentum for the rebuilding of America. And, I am hoping to be able to do that without running for office.

So, while I have learned to never say “never” - my garage will no longer have the “campaign materials storage” area set aside as it has since 2003 when I first began running for office. It is time for someone else to step up and run. I’m hoping to enjoy being a private citizen for a while and reacquaint myself with family and friends. I am thrilled, for instance, to finally be able to volunteer some time for my son’s football booster program. Look for me happily selling Snicker bars and bottled water to Boulder Creek Jaguars football fans from the concession stand.

P.S. I will also need a paycheck, so if you know anyone that can use my skill set, network, and knowledge of public policy, please pass my name along. And, if you’re a publisher and want a great story written, boy do I have an interesting story to tell!

Originally published on Redstate.com - Monday, August 30, 2010