Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Give thanks to pundits, voters and courts for the entertainment

This Thanksgiving season we give thanks to pundits, voters and the courts for making a normally sleepy municipal election the most unpredictable and entertaining in recent memory. In addition, the fun of last Tuesday — including federal Judge David Nuffer'sSB54/Count My Vote decision — has ramifications for next November. After all, the Big One is less than a year away, and it’s never too early to speculate.

A year ago, it appeared all but certain that popular Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Beckerwould win a third term. What happened, and should incumbents be nervous in 2016?

Pignanelli: “Yes, you need substance in politics — but your style also says something about how you arrive at conclusions.” — Charles Kennedy

Donald Trump and Jackie Biskupski are as different as two people could possibly be (thank goodness!). However, these two share an amazing ability to tap into a frustrated angst plaguing their target audiences and succeeding despite contrary predictions from the “experts.”

Because there were no major policy differences, this very intense election was all about the leadership style of the incumbent, an obvious issue for many residents. The Becker campaign tried to force a discussion about Biskupski’s credentials, but it was ham-fisted and failed.

Current incumbents with high approval ratings need to reassess their true strengths and weaknesses or face a Becker-like situation in 2016. Furthermore, Biskupski taught fellow politicos that correct messaging through social media and retail politics is strong enough to overcome any traditional television commercial effort.

“The Donald” and “Mayor Biskupski” formally served notice that electioneering in America and Utah has dramatically changed — in many ways for the better.

Webb: As the saying goes: “Be worried. Be very worried.” No question, voters are restless, cynical and unhappy — and susceptible to populist “outsider” rabble-rousers who rail against the status quo and make big promises. Politicians can take nothing for granted. The presidential race is chaotic in both parties. A back-bencher rebellion toppled the speaker of the U.S. House. A lot of grass-roots voters are poised to vote for anybody but the incumbent.

This mindset isn’t quite as strong in Utah. But Becker was still the victim of some of this sentiment, and also suffered from normal three-term voter fatigue. In reality, Becker and Biskupski differ more in style than substance, and the city will do just fine.

On Election Day, Judge Nuffer invalidated a line from SB54 that required political parties to open primary elections to unaffiliated voters, but upheld provisions allowing candidates to gather signatures to get on the primary ballot. A gleeful GOP Chairman James Evans declared victory, claiming the party can force all GOP candidates to use the caucus/convention system. How does this impact elections?

Pignanelli: The judge opined the Utah Republican Party is "severely burdened” by the participation of unaffiliated voters in a primary because these individuals "do not share" their views. This is an outrageous conclusion since the GOP consistently attracts an overwhelming majority of unaffiliated voters in general elections. But Republican leaders are prevented by current law from disqualifying candidates for choosing nomination through a petition.

Webb: James “shrink the tent” Evans is trying to kick mainstream Republicans out the door and keep elitist activists in total control of the party nomination process. He is also leaping to wild legal conclusions unsupported by the facts, the law — or common sense.

The entire Count My Vote movement (in which I am a happy volunteer) seeks to expand participation in the political process, open it up to all citizens. Evans is trying to keep political power in the hands of elite activists who mistrust the masses.

He’s saying the Republican Party has no room for mainstream citizens who want to welcome independents and unaffiliated voters to support Republicans.

It is going to be really embarrassing for the party when a prominent Republican seeks to gather signatures, as the law allows, and Evans is there holding an ax in front of the TV cameras, barring entry to the election process.

Thankfully, plenty of level-headed Republican leaders, including the lieutenant governor and many legislators, will tell Evans to read the plain language of the law, upheld as constitutional by Judge Nuffer, and stop looking and acting so silly. Common sense will prevail.

Some politicos were surprised over the apparent defeat in Salt Lake County of Prop 1 (which led in the polls) and the Millcreek incorporation win (which failed last election). What lessons can be learned?

Pignanelli: Incorporation activists learned from their losses and launched an information intensive campaign that normally would bore voters, but attracted attention through clever messaging. Many politicos are claiming that Prop 1 was burdened with the bad publicity of the Utah Transit Authority. But I think the issue is deeper than just UTA bonuses. There were enough residents wondering why additional taxes are needed for transportation projects when they were already paying fees for such services. The Americans for Prosperity Super PAC aligned their witty communications of opposition with these concerns.

Webb: Millcreek is simple. It will become Utah’s newest city, thanks to a well-run grass-roots campaign that communicated effectively with voters.

Prop 1 is more complicated. It won in at least 10 of the 17 counties where it was on the ballot, including two large counties (Davis and Weber), and could still win in Salt Lake County with some 24,000 ballots yet to be counted. But Utah Transit Authority, the best-run transit operation in the country, has a big perception problem to overcome before voters will enthusiastically support more transit funding.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Anti-establishment trends continue after third GOP debate

The current political climate is weird and getting weirder. In the aftermath of Wednesday’s Republican debate, we offer insights from two old establishment guys who admit to being rather baffled.

What is going on at the grass-roots level of politics in this country? Why have Donald Trump and Ben Carson been attracting big crowds and winning in the polls while establishment candidates languish in obscurity? Are we finally seeing a turning point in the campaign?

Pignanelli: “There are some people that are great campaigners, like Trump, and some people that are actually ‘good in reality.’ So far the ‘good in reality’ people are not doing so well in the polls." — David Brooks

Because politicos are so confused, I am thinking a lot about this dilemma (which is difficult since most of my limited brain matter is taxed trying to understand teenage communications).

Several national dynamics are occurring at the same time. The post-Great Recession economic rebound is the most sluggish in history. Our social traditions are evolving. The snooty Washington, D.C., intelligentsia is clueless. Americans have unprecedented access to news and information that reveals officials are impotent to effect reform. Therefore, faith in government and societal institutions is at an all-time low. So when a governor or senator brags about experience, he is just digging a deeper hole.

This election is not about substance, but style. So candidates who exude competence but smell of establishment (i.e. Gov. Jeb Bush) are struggling. Trump and Carson mock everything with blatantly false statements but attract support because frustrated Republicans love their outsider status and unorthodox approach.

Webb: I’ve been saying for months that the Trump/Carson blimps are going to fizzle. While the Wednesday debate isn’t going to make or break the campaign, we may have heard the hiss of escaping gas.

Conservative Republicans are understandably and justifiably disgusted with Washington and all things establishment. But at some point, even the most angry, disillusioned, anti-government activist assuming any common sense at all has to ask which conservative candidate can win the general election and prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president.

Trump, Carson and Ted Cruz would be calamitous in the general election. Clinton would win independents, moderates and all minority groups by large margins and rout the Republicans. Marco Rubio, Chris Christieand possibly John Kasich and Carly Fiorina have fighting chances to win centrist votes and beat Clinton.

It’s time for the bottom tier to get out of the race. Unfortunately, that includes Bush, a terrific leader who can’t win.

Are Democrats also seeing anti-establishment trends?

Pignanelli: Yes, but Democrats express frustration a different way. Liberals are concerned with Clinton’s track record on environmental, economic and social issues. They found solace in an anti-establishment icon who never filed as a Democrat until several months ago. Other Democrats — abhorring Clinton's email controversy — expressed disgust to pollsters. But they returned to her fold when Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden opined that Clinton’s ethical travails were not an issue. However, they are forcing Clinton to make statements that may be harmful in the general election.

Webb: Leftist Democrats will never be entirely satisfied with Clinton because she’s a total opportunist, not a true-blue liberal ideologue.

But liberal Democrats are smart enough to unite behind a winner, even if they don’t get everything they want. Democrats will be unified while Republicans are still brawling. And it’s entirely possible Trump will spin off as an independent, despite his promise not to, throwing the election to Clinton.

Is this grass-roots phenomenon as strong in Utah? Does it portend problems for Salt Lake Mayor Ralph Becker, Gov. Gary Herbert and other mainstream candidates?

Pignanelli: Utah politics is not immune to this national angst. Becker's philosophies and accomplishments are aligned with most city voters, but many now object to his style. In Salt Lake City, the establishment is performing well but a chunk of voters believes it is unresponsive or lacks connection to their needs.

Herbert and other 2016 incumbents are fortunate to have the benefit of the mayor's race as a guidebook. High approval ratings the year before the election offer little advantage. If grumpy citizens suspect an establishment candidate is out of touch — regardless of achievements — they will flip support.

Webb: Certainly an anti-establishment streak exists in Utah. But it’s not as strong as in many other states. I recently attended a conference on energy and air quality where speaker after speaker talked about the willingness of Utahns to collaborate and work together to accomplish important ventures. Two top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in recent high-profile speeches, called for compromise and civility on divisive issues. Utahns are pretty good at detecting charlatans and extremists. Members of Utah’s congressional delegation don’t need to pander to the far right as much as they do. I have faith in our voters.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Political survey results offer interesting beliefs among Utahns

As twisted, demented political observers, your columnists love everything about polling and the dynamics driving the results. Even better, we can always make our observations substitute for an intelligent explanation. We offer our insights on recent interesting surveys of Utahns by Dan Jones & Associates for UtahPolicy.com.

Local Republicans are out of sync with Republicans nationwide in presidential candidate preferences. Jeb Bush fares much better than Donald Trump (61 percent-32 percent) in a head-to-head matchup. Ben Carson is popular (18 percent support), but most mainstream candidates are competitive. Hillary Clinton (11 percent) is losing to Bernie Sanders (22 percent). Why are we different?

Pignanelli: “Every city has a Donald Trump; ours is just the Trumpiest.” — Padma Lakshmi, host of "Top Chef"

Utahns rightfully swell with pride over notable achievements — transforming this desert into a paradise, the Transcontinental Railroad, advancement in science and technology, 2002 Winter Olympics, etc. Add to this list of extraordinary accomplishments the rejection of Donald Trump buffoonery by commonsense Utahns.

When Utahns peel back the gentle demeanor of Carson and discover a real liberal (i.e. his platform includes eliminating private health insurance, free medical school education, more regulations on banks), support for the neurosurgeon will diminish. Bush and Marco Rubio are the likely top favorites in January.

Sanders' popularity fatally wounds the old canard that “A Utah Democrat is a Republican anywhere else.” Undecided (34 percent) is still the leading candidate among Democrats. This bloc, and Vice President Biden’s 16 percent, will move, dependent on perceptions of Clinton’s performance in congressional hearings.

Webb: I continue to await, with most other sensible Republicans, the decline of Trump as the rest of the country comes to its senses. I fear it might be a long wait.

Utah Republicans, to their credit, have resisted the Trump mania. They want substance, not just hot air. They understand Trump is not a real conservative. Unless Bush starts to show some life, I expect Rubio to rise in Utah. The Republican disarray, both in Congress and the presidential race, is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats.

Utah Democrats’ infatuation with Sanders shows Utah Democrats aren’t as sensible as Utah Republicans (of course, we already knew that). The Utah Democratic Party skews pretty far left (as also shown in the Salt Lake City mayoral race).

In 2012, Utah received greater than usual attention in the election because of favorite son Mitt Romney. Will we be relegated back to the electoral hinterlands or do other reasons exist for Utah to be significant in the election?

Pignanelli: Utah Democrats and Republicans will declare presidential preferences on March 22, 2016. This is three weeks after Super Tuesday and would normally be a moot exercise. However, with so many contestants likely to divide the pie, the remaining handful will view a late March victory as a valuable weapon for the spring caucasus/primaries.

Thus, Utah can expect a number of GOP contenders visiting in the snows of January and the rains of late March. If Sanders is still competitive by then, Utah will be a real battle battleground for Democrats.

Webb: We’ll watch our neighbor Nevada get a lot of attention, and we’ll see candidates come to Utah to raise money. Whether Utah is relevant beyond that will depend on what happens in the earlier primaries — whether a candidate in each party wraps up the nomination early. The Clinton nomination is inevitable. We’ll see how long Sanders wants to hang around. The GOP nomination, on the other hand, could be in play for a long time. But forget Romney stepping in at the last minute to save the party. Ain’t going to happen.

The Salt Lake City poll released last week confirms Jackie Biskupski still leads Mayor Ralph Becker. Is this a surprise?

Pignanelli: The mayor's race is an important election, and not just for who will be residing in City Hall next year. The successful and losing strategies for “all mail” balloting in Utah will be clarified. More importantly, the outcome will set the standard for the upcoming 2016 elections as to traditional media and the evolving dynamics of campaigning. A Becker loss demonstrates bombardment with television commercials no longer moves voters. Utah is trending with other parts of the country that social media, smart messaging and a focus on basic retail politics deliver results — explaining a Biskupski victory and the Trump phenomenon.

Webb: Becker is famous for building a strong grass-roots campaign infrastructure and campaigning aggressively door-to-door. But Becker was caught off-guard and unprepared by Biskupski’s strong primary election showing and he’s struggled to recover. TV advertising can provide exposure and build name ID, but it’s no longer enough to get people to vote.

Mail-in ballots make the election less predictable, so it’s hard to guess what will happen in the final week. Becker does well among males and more moderate voters, but unless they vote in high numbers at the end, Biskupski is looking strong.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Elections, near and far, begin to take center stage

We’ve written a lot about Republican internecine warfare. Now the Democrats are engaging in family feuds. Our analysis:

Ballots are in voters’ hands for the Salt Lake City mayoral race, and capital city voters are closely divided, according to a new UtahPolicy.com poll. Why is this race so close, and who’s going to win?

Pignanelli: “The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that Democrats are cannibals that live off each other, while the Republicans live off the Democrats.” — Will Rogers

External and internal fights in many ethnic minority communities and families are bitter nasty personal battles. (The bloodshed is especially atrocious within the two clans to which I swear fealty — the Italians and Irish.) Smaller numbers breed antagonistic familiarity and intolerance of personal quirks. We simply know each other’s warts too well.

Such are the dynamics plaguing Democrats in Salt Lake City. Ralph Becker and Jackie Biskupski served together in the Legislature and possess similar voting records. Their friends and supporters share membership to lefty political organizations. Yet the activists in each campaign know and despise their counterparts. The candidates' leadership styles are radically different and a source of pride or irritation — depending on perspective.

Despite mutual political interests, many city Democrats don't want the mayor back. Biskupski took advantage of this with a brilliant primary campaign. Becker now must solicit support from creatures that exist outside the liberal tribe (aka LDS Republicans). His success or failure in this task will determine the election results.

Webb: With little more than two weeks to Election Day, this race has tightened considerably. With a larger advertising budget, Becker has risen from the dead (he was trounced in the primary election), and seems to have some momentum. As always, the outcome depends on turnout (hard to predict in a first-ever mail-in ballot race) and which candidate excels in get-out-the-vote efforts. Becker is rallying his more moderate supporters, while Biskupski is energizing those with Becker-fatigue after eight years. Neither candidate is terribly dynamic, but both are good people. My guess is Becker squeezes out a win.

The Democratic presidential debate last week was relatively tame, although Bernie Sanders was entertaining. Did Hillary Clinton strengthen her position as front-runner, or did she display weakness?

Pignanelli: As a sick, demented political hack, I offer the following: Clinton performed well and dominated the entire evening, which will give Vice President Joe Biden second thoughts. She eliminated doubts as to her electioneering abilities. The two best debaters this election are women — Clinton and Carly Fiorina. Three of the five candidates in the Democratic debate held prior elected/appointed positions while affiliated with another political party.

“Democratic Socialism” in America was a serious discussion. (My eyes still hurt from extensive rolling.) Except for castigation of billionaires and Wall Street types, the Democrats refrained from the mass insults that predominated in the GOP debates.

Webb: While Republicans can’t even elect a House speaker, let alone coalesce around a sensible presidential candidate, the Democrats are clearly uniting behind a resurgent Clinton. Although I disagreed with most of what she said, Clinton had a great debate. Of course, she was sparring with a socialist and three lightweights who barely had a clue. I’d love to see her go against Fiorina and defend her scandals and the many domestic and foreign policy failures of Barack Obama's administration.

Clinton’s opponents have clearly pushed her to the left, but she’s adept at sneaking back to the center. As her Democratic nomination becomes more inevitable, she will become more moderate and appeal to independents and centrists. Meanwhile, the Republicans will continue to rip each other apart, veering far right to win primary votes.

Thus, it is more important than ever for Republicans to eventually nominate a mainstream candidate with great communication skills. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would be general election disasters. I really like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, but I doubt they can handle Clinton. Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie are the Republicans’ best hopes.

Back in Utah, Medicaid expansion is on life support as House and Senate Republicans rejected UtahAccess+. Is a resolution possible before the 2016 legislative session?

Pignanelli: As a close observer of this issue, I reached two conclusions. First, every suggested proposal is dead. Second, well-respected physician Sen. Brian Shiozawa will not relent until a political palatable mechanism to fund Medicaid expansion is found. This popular lawmaker may craft a solution that eliminates the state obligation and the coverage gap. If he doesn't, the issue is postponed to 2017.

Webb: Gov. Gary Herbert notes that Utahns are paying nearly $800 million in federal Obamacare taxes each year and getting none of it back. That’s nuts. Surely, a way exists to bring home most of the tax money we’re paying, use it to support low-income uninsured people and cap services and amounts so they don’t grow out of control. Eliminate the risk. Utah’s budget can absorb the required state match if it is capped. I recognize the feds have to approve Utah’s plan, but push them to accept a Utah solution.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Speaker of the House race picks up, with Chaffetz a possibility

Politics can be awfully unpredictable — especially leadership races in legislative bodies. As of this writing (Thursday afternoon), Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz was back in play for the speakership of the U.S. House of Representatives. Understanding that anything could happen by the time this column appears on Sunday, here’s our take on congressional leadership politics.

What are Chaffetz’ chances now that Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has stepped aside?Will he support an effort to draft Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan?

Pignanelli: “No one in America cares about this ‘Game of Thrones’ contest for speaker.” — Gov. Chris Christie

Chaffetz became well-known in Utah for his strong legs (as a BYU place-kicker), but recent events demonstrate he possesses a really good nose … for percolations in politics. He predicted McCarthy's caucus problems.

Arguably, Chaffetz had no choice but to run. McCarthy’s insinuation that the congressional Benghazi investigation was motivated to damage HillaryClinton is a kryptonite her campaign is using aggressively (the commercials are already airing) to preempt Republican attacks in future hearings. This may hamper Chaffetz’s Government Oversight Committee in the short term.

A dynamic driving the momentum behind Donald Trump are Republicans frustrated with Congress. Chaffetz is tapping into this sentiment with promises to pass GOP priority legislation and force vetoes from President Barack Obama — all music to conservative ears. Chaffetz is often mocked for his love of media exposure, but is also respected for incredible communication skills (a now valuable gift in light of McCarthy’s missteps). With McCarthy gone, Chaffetz will attempt a coalition to counter the other announced candidate, Florida Congressman Daniel Webster.

Politicos agree if the beloved Paul Ryan indicates an interest to serve, the election is over. Chaffetz is close to Ryan and will back efforts for a unanimous floor vote to name him as speaker. This guarantees Chaffetz retains chairmanship of his powerful committee.

Webb: Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is one of the top political offices not just in the country, but in the world. The speaker is second in line for the presidency, only behind the vice president. The speaker negotiates directly with the president and the Senate, welcomes foreign heads of state — and can even invite the pope to address Congress.

So it’s a heady thing for a four-term congressman from Utah to seriously seek the speakership, whatever his chances. However, if leadership races at the federal level are anything like Utah legislative leadership contests, they are notoriously hard to predict. Nothing is more cutthroat, and sometimes deceitful, than leadership elections. People lie. Even the best vote counters get things wrong. All sorts of behind-the-scenes dynamics occur.

So anything is possible. Chaffetz could win. An interim speaker could be appointed. Speaker John Boehnercould continue temporarily. House Republicans could rally behind Ryan (perhaps the best outcome). A deal with the Democrats could be brokered (although that’s not likely).

Can Chaffetz or Ryan unite a highly fractured House?

Pignanelli: Depending on one's ideology it's easy to embrace or dismiss Ryan’s and Chaffetz’s political activities. But it is impossible for anyone to deny the abilities of these popular politicians. Ryan is respected for a deep intelligence, mastery of budgetary policy combined with a folksy friendly approach. Chaffetz is especially talented with public messaging and building coalitions inside the caucus and with Democrats. (Several times I witnessed liberal members of Congress publicly praise his bipartisan demeanor).

Webb: The Republicans are going to look very foolish if the chaos continues very long. If they can’t even elect a speaker, how can they govern the country?

Whatever happens in the speaker’s race, can the House govern effectively, or is more dysfunction ahead?

Pignanelli: Many observers in Washington, D.C., believe the current political environment is so toxic that no lawmaker with deep experience wants to be speaker (explaining Ryan’s reluctance). Republicans are mad their legislation has stalled. Powerful left-wing special-interest groups pressure Democrats against compromise with moderate Republicans. Ryan or Chaffetz face a daunting challenge and should demand rational flexibility from their caucus before accepting the gavel.

Webb: Congress very quickly faces some really tough debt ceiling and budget votes that could shut down the government. The leadership turmoil throws into question the House’s ability to deal with these issues. Further dysfunction will only damage the Republican brand and hurt the party’s chances of winning the presidency and retaining control of the Senate.

I know the far right hates to hear this, but it is downright stupid to think they can win on all these big issues. Besides budget issues, they and their base back home demand that Congress repeal Obamacare, shut down Planned Parenthood and toss out the Iran nuclear agreement. All this while House conservatives don’t even control the House, which is only one-half of one-third of the federal government.

Here’s a simple fact: They don’t have the votes! Let me repeat that for the hard of hearing. They don’t have the votes! They can’t win in the Senate and Congress can’t override a presidential veto. In our democratic republic you don’t get your way unless you have the votes. It’s a minor detail that the far right can’t seem to grasp.

So if you don’t have the votes, what’s the smart thing to do? It’s pretty simple. Govern smartly and run good campaigns to win more votes. Win the presidency and win a bigger margin in the Senate. Then you will have the votes.

You win the presidency and more of the Senate by being competent, mainstream, common-sense problem-solvers. You don’t alienate and offend voters by shutting down the government, tilting at unpopular ideological windmills, and by causing chaos and gridlock.

After you win the presidency and more of the Senate then, by golly jeepers, you can turn the country around. You can have your way (although if you go too far too fast you’ll be booted out at the next election).

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: With government shutdown avoided, focus shifts to Medicaid expansion

The scary prospect of a federal government shutdown has been avoided, making Halloween less frightening in Washington, D.C. But in Utah, Medicaid expansion has risen from the dead, terrifying the Utah political world. We explore the huge (to use a Trumpism) political ramifications of these events.

Under the radar until recently, state leaders have been floating the idea of taxing medical providers to cover the state cost of adding up to 95,000 low-income people to Medicaid rolls, beginning in 2020. All legislators discussed the idea last week. Does the plan satisfy conservative lawmakers and will Medicaid expansion pass in a special session later this year?

Pignanelli: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." — Winston Churchill

Whether normal well-adjusted keen observers or demented political hacks (my species), politicos are in awe of this incredible development.

For several weeks Speaker Greg Hughes and House Republican leadership have repeatedly suggested the concept that medical providers who benefit from additional Medicaid funds should assume the state obligation. With just one statement, Hughes & co. have irrevocably changed this debate and ended the PR siege against them. Brilliant.

Yet, there is a political cost to this novel approach.

Federal law allows these tax architects to determine which medical classes and categories to be assessed and the rate. But here's the rub: discrimination inside a class/category is prohibited. For example, lawmakers cannot just target doctors receiving payments from the program but must tap all physicians, including those who do not see Medicaid patients. Almost 20 classes of identified health care providers — which contain hundreds of companies and thousands of individual practitioners — will pony up regardless of any benefits received. (“Unfair!” is the kindest response so far.)

Originally a contained skirmish, Medicaid expansion has escalated into a full-blown war with armies of lobbyists, trade associations, social media activists, grass-roots warriors, etc. (I represent several clients with dogs in this fight, part of the larger wolf pack growling at the Capitol.) The public hearing Tuesday will be historic, substantive and very entertaining.

The fight on Capitol Hill is no longer about widening Medicaid, but whether providers (regardless of receiving any Medicaid payments) must participate in funding this program. Each legislator now has thousands of constituents who will be impacted — few will be asking to have the fee imposed.

The dynamic has forever changed.

Webb: The new plan is a good-faith attempt to solve a problem and pay for the costs of expanding a government program. That’s a laudable objective. I wish the national Congress would pay for the programs it creates instead of borrowing.

But it’s extremely difficult for Utah’s Republican Legislature to raise taxes by $52 million, even though the tax is levied only on medical providers (some of whom will receive additional business), not on the public.

Given the state’s strong economy and revenue growth, Medicaid expansion could be financed through general tax revenue, which was Gov. Gary Herbert’s original proposal. The state’s economy will be bolstered by $450 million annually in new federal money, which will generate additional state tax revenue.

But in the short run, spending an additional $52 million for Medicaid expansion may mean less money for education, transportation and other state needs. It’s also difficult to predict how fast Medicaid costs will grow, increasing the state’s risk.

This is a tough issue with no easy answer. Utah policymakers essentially have three choices: Don’t expand Medicaid at all, forgoing $450 million in federal money and leaving some 100,000 Utahns uninsured; expand Medicaid using existing state money, or expand Medicaid and pay for it with a medical-provider tax.

The provider tax is the best solution among some very difficult choices. Federal regulators ought to approve it, and the Legislature ought to pass it.

Regardless of passage or failure, are there political ramifications to the Medicaid proposal?

Pignanelli: Legislators concerned with Medicaid expansion can claim — legitimately — they tried for something through a provider tax. But significant opposition and federal law prevented a possible solution. So any further attacks from advocates for "lack of compassion" are mooted.

However, anti-tax activists and other right-leaning organizations are displeased this is even under consideration. In response, Hughes and leadership could counter the exercise exposed the public to the financial issues surrounding this entitlement program.

Politicos are watching the public positioning of Herbert, his challenger Jonathan Johnson and future gubernatorial wannabes. Opportunities for advancement, and missteps, are in abundance.

Webb: No matter what the governor and legislators do, they are going to face angry advocates and political minefields. We hire them to make the tough decisions, so step up and decide.

A federal government shutdown was diverted (more like punted). What political storms does this cause for national politicians and the Utah delegation?

Pignanelli: John Boehner’s resignation satiated the blood lust … for now. The nation needs to be ready for an impasse in December.

Webb: Circular Republican firing squads are occurring more frequently. The party’s rigid right wing seems intent on losing the next presidential election and losing the Senate, setting back the cause of conservatism for years.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: With government shutdown avoided, focus shifts to Medicaid expansion

The scary prospect of a federal government shutdown has been avoided, making Halloween less frightening in Washington, D.C. But in Utah, Medicaid expansion has risen from the dead, terrifying the Utah political world. We explore the huge (to use a Trumpism) political ramifications of these events.

Under the radar until recently, state leaders have been floating the idea of taxing medical providers to cover the state cost of adding up to 95,000 low-income people to Medicaid rolls, beginning in 2020. All legislators discussed the idea last week. Does the plan satisfy conservative lawmakers and will Medicaid expansion pass in a special session later this year?

Pignanelli: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." — Winston Churchill

Whether normal well-adjusted keen observers or demented political hacks (my species), politicos are in awe of this incredible development.

For several weeks Speaker Greg Hughes and House Republican leadership have repeatedly suggested the concept that medical providers who benefit from additional Medicaid funds should assume the state obligation. With just one statement, Hughes & co. have irrevocably changed this debate and ended the PR siege against them. Brilliant.

Yet, there is a political cost to this novel approach.

Federal law allows these tax architects to determine which medical classes and categories to be assessed and the rate. But here's the rub: discrimination inside a class/category is prohibited. For example, lawmakers cannot just target doctors receiving payments from the program but must tap all physicians, including those who do not see Medicaid patients. Almost 20 classes of identified health care providers — which contain hundreds of companies and thousands of individual practitioners — will pony up regardless of any benefits received. (“Unfair!” is the kindest response so far.)

Originally a contained skirmish, Medicaid expansion has escalated into a full-blown war with armies of lobbyists, trade associations, social media activists, grass-roots warriors, etc. (I represent several clients with dogs in this fight, part of the larger wolf pack growling at the Capitol.) The public hearing Tuesday will be historic, substantive and very entertaining.

The fight on Capitol Hill is no longer about widening Medicaid, but whether providers (regardless of receiving any Medicaid payments) must participate in funding this program. Each legislator now has thousands of constituents who will be impacted — few will be asking to have the fee imposed.

The dynamic has forever changed.

Webb: The new plan is a good-faith attempt to solve a problem and pay for the costs of expanding a government program. That’s a laudable objective. I wish the national Congress would pay for the programs it creates instead of borrowing.

But it’s extremely difficult for Utah’s Republican Legislature to raise taxes by $52 million, even though the tax is levied only on medical providers (some of whom will receive additional business), not on the public.

Given the state’s strong economy and revenue growth, Medicaid expansion could be financed through general tax revenue, which was Gov. Gary Herbert’s original proposal. The state’s economy will be bolstered by $450 million annually in new federal money, which will generate additional state tax revenue.

But in the short run, spending an additional $52 million for Medicaid expansion may mean less money for education, transportation and other state needs. It’s also difficult to predict how fast Medicaid costs will grow, increasing the state’s risk.

This is a tough issue with no easy answer. Utah policymakers essentially have three choices: Don’t expand Medicaid at all, forgoing $450 million in federal money and leaving some 100,000 Utahns uninsured; expand Medicaid using existing state money, or expand Medicaid and pay for it with a medical-provider tax.

The provider tax is the best solution among some very difficult choices. Federal regulators ought to approve it, and the Legislature ought to pass it.

Regardless of passage or failure, are there political ramifications to the Medicaid proposal?

Pignanelli: Legislators concerned with Medicaid expansion can claim — legitimately — they tried for something through a provider tax. But significant opposition and federal law prevented a possible solution. So any further attacks from advocates for "lack of compassion" are mooted.

However, anti-tax activists and other right-leaning organizations are displeased this is even under consideration. In response, Hughes and leadership could counter the exercise exposed the public to the financial issues surrounding this entitlement program.

Politicos are watching the public positioning of Herbert, his challenger Jonathan Johnson and future gubernatorial wannabes. Opportunities for advancement, and missteps, are in abundance.

Webb: No matter what the governor and legislators do, they are going to face angry advocates and political minefields. We hire them to make the tough decisions, so step up and decide.

A federal government shutdown was diverted (more like punted). What political storms does this cause for national politicians and the Utah delegation?

Pignanelli: John Boehner’s resignation satiated the blood lust … for now. The nation needs to be ready for an impasse in December.

Webb: Circular Republican firing squads are occurring more frequently. The party’s rigid right wing seems intent on losing the next presidential election and losing the Senate, setting back the cause of conservatism for years.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Pignaelli Pope Francis' visit, Fiorina's rise dominate political spectrums

Politics is fascinating, in part, because unexpected external factors sometimes influence policymaking. This is just a fancy professorial introduction to questions dominating the media from unlikely sources — Pope Francis and presidential contender Carly Fiorina. We review the impact of “His Holiness” and “Her Toughness.”

Pope Francis has bluntly jumped into political issues, ranging from the evils of capitalism, climate change, immigration and the arms trade to abolishing the death penalty. So political commentators are arguing about the pontiff’s influence in policy deliberations. Should Utahns expect the pope’s comments to alter national politics?

Pignanelli: “I admire the pope. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can tour without an album.” — Rita Rudner

When the Vatican announced the new pope chose Francis as his papal name, hundreds of millions of Catholics exclaimed some variant of "wow!" After Jesus Christ and his mother Mary, the most popular figure in Christendom is St. Francis of Assisi. This beloved 13th-century Italian monk (my patron saint, of course) founded the Franciscan Order, authored songs and prayers still in use today and dedicated his life to help the poor, animals and children.

The pope is fulfilling the tradition of St. Francis by describing his papal role as “the duty, in Christ's name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them.”

Pope John Paul II is credited as an influence on the downfall of the Soviet Union and John XXXIII for expanding religious tolerance.

Francis’ credibility will not diminish, so he could have a subtle influence on global and American decisionmakers in the years to come.

Webb: I believe Pope Francis is a sweet, humble, caring leader, truly concerned about young people, families and those who are suffering around the world. But I’m not so enamored of his politics.

Obviously, both liberal and conservative politicians embrace the pope’s comments that bolster their ideological positions. But it seems to me that liberal politicians enjoyed his visit, and his speeches, much more than conservatives. For example, conservatives cheered his exhortation to “protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.” But then he expanded the thought by advocating the “global abolition of the death penalty” — not the global abolition of abortion.

President Barack Obama, of course, basked in the pontiff’s reflected light, selectively highlighting issues on which they agree (like climate change) and ignoring topics about which they disagree (like abortion).

Personally, I embrace the pope’s message on immigration and the refugee crisis. His focus on the importance of family is wonderful.

He has had a successful trip to the United States, but his visit won’t change politics here very much.

Does the pope offer any lessons for Utah's religious leaders?

Pignanelli: People of all faiths respect the pope for his humility and desire for changes in church policies. Although he is close to 80, his charisma appeals to the young.

Mormons openly express their affection for Pope Francis. I believe he is popular with LDS faithful because he reminds them of their prophets. For example, President Gordon B. Hinckley and Pope Francis share the same down-to-earth, grounded approach and popular appeal.

Pope Francis has delivered many pronouncements, articulating important proposed changes to church guidelines — but final enactment on any is still waiting. Conversely, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more circumspect in announcements but are very efficient in enacting objectives. So while there is much to admire in the Vatican leader, Rome can learn a lot from observing Salt Lake City.

Webb: If top LDS Church leaders jumped into contemporary politics as much as Pope Francis does, they would be severely criticized for trying to influence public policy. So one lesson for church leaders of any denomination could be to ignore the critics, follow Pope Francis’ example and take positions on all sorts of issues.

That’s not something I recommend, however. I believe a much better role for religious leaders is to teach faith in God and obedience to fundamental Judeo-Christian principles and commandments. They should focus on eternal, universal truths and the basics of a righteous, service-oriented life.

If they do that, and their adherents follow their counsel, then the politics will take care of itself.

Certainly, religious leaders have every right to jump into the rough-and-tumble of politics. But when they do so, they become another politician, another advocate, subject to criticism and opposition.

In the last GOP debate, businesswoman Carly Fiorina energized moral conservatives with her attacks on abortion. She seemed to shame the Republican Congress for funding Planned Parenthood. Will her impassioned plea force another budget impasse and government shutdown?

Pignanelli: The government shutdown strategy was on life support until Fiorina’s debate performance. But Senate and House leaders are now scrambling to stop the new momentum for protest. How this ends will boost or doom Fiorina’s prospects in 2016.

Webb: I doubt Congress is paying much attention to the presidential candidates. Fiorina didn’t specifically suggest shutting down the government. If Congress does so, Republicans will pay a high political price and it will set back the cause of conservatism and pro-life efforts.