Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Utah is an island of rationality in a sea of political lunacy

The year of political lunacy continues, although Utah is a relative island of rationality. We take a look at what’s happening.

The legislative session ends Thursday at midnight. What’s the outlook for the session’s big issues?

(Pignanelli) "I learned while in the state legislature, important legislation is always a work in progress." — Marco Rubio

Our lawmakers appropriately resolved the most important issue of the legislative session — they rejected the well-intentioned but incorrect proposal to replace Columbus Day with "Indigenous People's Day." A holiday celebrating the tremendous civilizations existing before the arrival of European explorers should be established — but not at the expense (in my unbiased opinion) of honoring that noble, colorful and courageous collection of humanity who immigrated from the Italian peninsula — on the second Monday of every October. The importance of Italians to America is best illustrated by the maxim: "We found it. We named it. We built it."

In the months leading to the legislative session, there was an expectation of additional one-time and ongoing revenues. Unfortunately, recent revenue projections are less than announced, so legislators have the tough task of trimming relied-upon expenditures before they were even passed. However, lawmakers will likely provide a substantial percentage increase to public and higher education.

Sen. Stephen Urquhart successfully secured Senate support for elimination of the death penalty, and there are even odds it could pass the House. He shrewdly articulates the pain of the legal process surrounding execution is an enormous burden to victims and to the state. This is causing many current supporters of capital punishment to reconsider.

Funding and prioritization for transportation and water projects will again dominate final discussions, as will proposals for Medicaid expansion and other human service programs.

(Webb) It has been a relatively quiet session, overshadowed by the wild and crazy presidential race. That’s fine with legislators, as this is an election year and most prefer to run without big controversies hanging over them.

By Thursday midnight, Utah’s 104 citizen lawmakers will have paid for critical state needs, including more money for education, and balanced the state budget. They will have dealt forthrightly with the major issues facing the state. Modest Medicaid expansion is likely, extending health care access to Utah’s most vulnerable low-income population. As of this writing, legislation repealing the death penalty, medical marijuana, funding for homeless services and non-compete agreements were still being debated.

This was a “steady-as-she goes” session without giant initiatives, but hints are being made that the next session might be the time to make a big push for much higher education investment.

Contrasted with the national Congress, Utah’s Legislature is a model of efficiency, collaboration, common-sense and competency.

Will Mitt Romney’s speech last Thursday at the University of Utah slow Donald Trump’s surge toward the GOP nomination?

(Pignanelli) Romney's performance was interesting and fun, but cultivated many questions for politicos (i.e. Why not earlier in the primary season? Is this a one-time gig or will you lead a larger effort? Groundwork for convention, candidacy? etc.)

Romney's unprecedented actions confirm 2016 is a historic election year. Trump continues to demonstrate the established rules of campaigning that governed American politics for 70 years are no longer relevant. Furthermore, the Romney attack is the first salvo in the civil war now absorbing the Republican Party. A massive realignment of demographics and ideology is changing the political landscape. Although these dynamics are frustrating and often frightening, it is great entertainment.

(Webb) I thought Romney’s speech was substantive, compelling and absolutely spot-on. He exposed Trump as the charlatan he is. I hope it helps people come to their senses who are nervous about Trump but are attracted by his boldness and some of the things he says. Don’t be fooled. Trump is not going to suddenly become sensible.

Perhaps the speech will bolster the broad establishment crusade to deny Trump the nomination. But I fear it’s too little, too late. While the race remains unpredictable, the only chance to stop Trump is a deadlocked GOP convention resulting in chaos, furthering the meltdown of the national Republican Party. This ruckus is going to get crazier. Rather than slitting your wrists, sit back and enjoy it.

Will Trump be a no-show at the Utah GOP presidential debate March 21?

(Pignanelli) Utahns must hope that by mid-March Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (and maybe John Kasich) have each collected several important victories. This ensures a brokered convention and thereby the March 21 debate will capture the rapt attention of voters and observers across the planet. Mr. Trump cannot ignore such an audience.

(Webb) Utah is probably Trump’s worst state, but that’s not why he would skip it. In a week or two, the state of the race will be much clearer (either obvious that Trump will win, or obvious that it’s going to be a fight to the convention). If Trump has the nomination all but locked up, he will want to focus on Hillary Clinton and the general election, not debate Republicans still nipping at his heels.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Legislature offers contradictions in standard issues and new trends

Some people ask us if we ever run out of column topics. The answer is no. New and recycled issues, events and controversies pop up like whack-a-mole. If anything, there’s too much to write about. Here are a few current topics that caught our fancy.

Is hosting a Republican presidential debate on March 21 a big deal for Utah? 

(Pignanelli) “The media has wrested complete control of the presidential primary debates from the parties and candidates … and they've become a circus.” — Mark McKinnon

These are strange times. “Interesting” and “fun” are rarely used adjectives to describe GOP events. But many Americans (especially this one) are having a great time watching Republicans wrestle each other in the debates. Thus, these internal cage matches are generating record ratings.

The national attention and tourist dollars Utah receives from hosting the debate will be (to utilize the favorite adjectives of Donald Trump) tremendous, fantastic and beautiful. But the relevance of the verbal contest will be in direct correlation to the results of the Super Tuesday and other March primaries.

Over half of the delegates will be pledged to candidates when the event airs. So all true politicos are praying for the following scenario in March: Trump wins a handful of primaries while the remaining contenders win upsets in their home states (i.e. Ted Cruz claims Texas, Marco Rubio takes Florida, John Kasich wins Ohio) and a smattering of other contests. Then the possibility of a brokered convention is more than just a fantasy. With such an environment on March 21, our beloved state will be recipient of global attention not felt since the Olympics. This dynamic could foster street protests, international media coverage of local delicacies like fry sauce, a wave of spring skiers and traffic jams.

Let's all hope the Ides of March bestow the laurels of triumph on at least three political presidential gladiators and that joyous confusion dominates. Then the real victors will be 3 million Utahns.

(Webb) It’s a cool thing for the state, but we ought not to get euphoric. Some 27 states and territories (including some big ones) will vote between now and March 21. Many pundits are saying the race will be all but over by mid-March. If Utah is going to be Marco Rubio’s “firewall” against the Trump onslaught, then he’s in big trouble.

Still, just having Donald Trump’s big mouth in Utah will be HUUGE. We have plenty of establishment targets for him to ridicule. We prefer polite language and we believe immigrants deserve respect. We like to hear real solutions to problems, not just boastful bluster.

The real impact of the debate and the presidential caucus voting the next day will be to capture all the attention and all but eliminate media focus on local races. Usually, we’d be talking about which Utah candidates are getting their supporters to the caucuses and what’s happening in local races. Instead, it will be wall-to-wall Trump. That may actually be good for Gov. Gary Herbert and not so good for challenger Jonathan Johnson, who will have a hard time winning any news cycles with The Donald sucking up all the political oxygen.

Usually, governors provide long-term vision for the state while the Legislature tends to be reactive. Key lawmakers are hoping to push more expansive long-range planning. Can this be done?

Pignanelli: Legislators are leading the way on judicial reform, moving the prison, accountability in higher education, economic development initiatives, technology promotion in public education, etc. The governor has highlighted several key objectives for educational degrees and job creation. The executive and legislative branches may be bumping into each other in pursuing a vision, but that's a good problem.

Webb: I have been impressed that the Legislature, particularly Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, wants to plan for a doubling of the state’s population over the next few decades. Certainly, lawmaking bodies are by nature reactive, dealing with the issues of the day and worrying about the next election. It’s hard for lawmakers to make needed investments that may not pay dividends while they’re in office. At the national level, Congress seems totally incapable of doing the hard things, like dealing with entitlements and ballooning deficits.

But Utah’s Legislature has taken tough action that will pay off long into the future. It voted to move the state prison. It voted to raise gas taxes and give local governments authority to boost local transportation taxes. It is trying to figure out how to provide water for twice as many people and how to boost Utah into a top 10 state in education. We need to support legislators who are willing to make investments that will benefit our children and grandchildren.

Is the petition signature process for automatic primary ballot placement having any impact on deliberations?

Pignanelli: Obtaining the necessary signatures for the primary elections are the new bragging rights for lawmakers. Some admit avoiding extremist delegates has loosened their decision-making process. So the net results of expanding outreach to voters and moderating legislative debates is a real positive.

Webb: Some 130 candidates have declared their intent to gather signatures. That’s a terrific start to this new process in its first year, especially considering the Republican Party has created a great deal of confusion in its unfortunate battle to eliminate this option. I believe the impact, this year and even more in the future, will be very positive both in elections and in the creation of public policy. State legislators, for example, will be more accountable to all voters, not just to party delegates.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Supreme Court nominations and Utah delegates

As Utah’s Legislature slogs along, wild and crazy politics at the national level are capturing the most public attention. Some Utah congressional leaders are in the thick of it.

What role will Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee play in the confirmation or lack thereof of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice? 

(Pignanelli) "Supreme Court arguments and decisions are fascinating to a few of us and really pretty boring to most.” — Dan Abrams

I have sympathy for the family of the deceased U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But it does warm my heart to witness the public expression of respect and admiration by Republicans for a short, swarthy, gregarious Italian.

For 40 years, Sen. Hatch was the "go to” guy for Democrat and Republican presidents in pushing their nominations. Utah's senior senator is not too "go to"-ish this year, especially if the president nominates an East Coast liberal jurist.

The president should exercise his constitutional prerogative and select a replacement for Scalia, but based upon the recommendations detailed by Justice Scalia in a recent opinion. Look for a quality lawyer with public university education, living in the middle sector of the country. This nominee should enjoy the benefit of a practical experience and not the cocoon of academia or a long thread of judgeships. He or she is a centrist (a word rarely used), well respected in legal and community circles.

This strategy sends important signals. The president is willing to work with Republicans on filling the bench. More importantly, a much-needed message is conveyed: Americans do not need to attend an elite university, or live on a coast, to be raised to the highest levels of our government. The entire nation will benefit from such an exercise.

(Webb) Orrin Hatch has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court appointee over the years, and even today as a “consensus” nominee. That obviously isn’t going to happen, but Hatch will be in the middle of the nomination process.

Mike Lee is a young, scholarly, intellectual conservative senator/attorney with a keen legal mind. One day he could be the nominee of a conservative president, especially if he continues to display his practical, problem-solving side.

It was a mistake for Republicans to say they won’t even consider the president’s nominee. The president should nominate and the Senate should run it through their regular process. It’s highly unlikely the president will choose someone capable of being approved by the Republican Senate. But go through the process. As they say in old movie Westerns, “Have the trial and then hang him.”

Utah’s four U.S. House members are supporting Sen. Marco Rubio for president, while Sen. Hatch is supporting Jeb Bush, and Sen. Lee is staying neutral for now. Why the Utah support for Rubio, and why don’t Donald Trump and Ted Cruz attract more support in Utah?

(Pignanelli) Our congressional delegation is reflecting the habits and preferences of their constituents. They may never admit it, but Utah Republicans have more in common with Barack Obama (commitment to family, appreciation of intelligent discourse, abhorrence of intolerance, etc.) than with Trump. Furthermore, Utahns are not an angry people (it's impossible to stay mad living in this great state). Thus, Cruz has little traction. Our state has a legacy of pragmatism — which explains the affinity for Rubio and Bush.

(Webb) I’m proud of Utahns for not buying the Trump snake oil. He runs third in Utah, behind Rubio and Cruz, among both Republicans and voters in general. Utah might be his worst state in the country. Trump has now criticized the pope. I assume Mother Teresa will be next. I don’t know who’s left for him to ridicule (perhaps God?). If he runs out of living people, I suppose he could turn his vulgar mouth on George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Will Utah get a new national monument courtesy of President Obama before year’s end?

(Pignanelli) Although criticized by detractors on the left and right, some politicos believe the Public Lands Initiative pushed by Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz prevents such a move. The president could be reluctant to slap down efforts towards compromise and dialogue.

(Webb) The more extreme environmental groups are dismissing the lengthy and comprehensive Public Lands Initiative (PLI) process, giving Obama the excuse he needs to designate a monument.

It will be an action both tragic and disdainful, protecting less land than would the PLI and ignoring local input and concerns. It will further exacerbate the tension and hostility that exists between federal land managers and traditional user groups. If Obama makes the designation, forget about any truce or attempt to find common ground on public lands issues. It will be an ugly fracas, both locally and in the congressional arena. It’s not too late to work through differences on PLI and avoid a disaster.

Shrewd consultants are absorbing and adapting while the dinosaurs are refusing to change.

The legislative session is already nearly half over, with some delicate issues facing Utah’s lawmakers. Here are some of the trickiest.

Should major policy issues like Medicaid expansion and tax increases for education be placed before voters if the Legislature won’t pass them?

(Pignanelli) “These things [gang warfare] gotta happen every five years or so … helps get rid of the bad blood.” — Peter Clemenza, "The Godfather Part I"

Experience has taught me occasional use of the “Clemenza Rule” makes for good policymaking.

For several years, various business, community and political groups have been battling each other over education, transportation, planning and Medicaid issues. Legislators have served as tireless proxy warriors for these conflicts, but per Clemenza, the battlefield needs to be expanded to the general public.

Although initially divisive, there is great societal advantage for the various factions to wage a political war for the hearts and minds of Utahns on these issues. Initiatives, referendums and ballot questions provide great opportunities for vigorous discussion and deliberation by voters on selective matters (plus, the fighting between the campaigns sheds the bad blood). Utahns possess the common sense and intelligence to supply appropriate direction to officials through these electioneering activities.

[Readers: The insightful analysis of Mr. Clemenza is another example of how the challenges of modern life can be resolved with the wisdom contained in America's greatest literary masterpiece: the two Godfather movies.]

(Webb) As a general rule, public policy should be enacted by the lawmakers elected to represent us. However, it doesn’t hurt for voters periodically to weigh in directly on major issues. Unlike California, where citizen referenda are out of control, few issues get on Utah’s ballot.

Legislators wouldn’t be shirking their responsibility by periodically putting something on the ballot, either as an advisory vote, or to create a new law. They already require local governments to put certain tax matters, like bonding for school buildings, on the ballot.

Some issues are really big, really important and really difficult. So why not let citizens express their support or opposition? The tax increase for education proposed by many business leaders and Education First, for example, could be a game-changer for Utah education, helping Utah gain top-10 education status. But the tax boost is large enough that the Legislature will never pass it. So why not let voters decide if they want to make the investment?

Same with Medicaid expansion. It’s a difficult issue pitting our compassion against fiscal prudence. So why not let citizens directly have a say?

Should online retailers be required to collect sales taxes?

(Pignanelli) These are the inventions and achievements that propelled humanity to higher levels of enlightenment, health and prosperity: utilization of fire, the wheel, agriculture, wine, the printing press, marinara sauce, flight, wireless communications and the Internet. Web applications continue to expand and improve our everyday lives. Therefore, all should be nervous about government messing with this remarkable development. The time will come when we can adequately assess taxes on e-commerce retailers, but not now. Innovative small businesses are selling products by traditional and online means, and we need to allow this to develop.

(Webb) The sales tax is one of the three legs of a balanced tax system that provides money for essential public services. We can’t continue to let the sales tax erode away. More and more purchases are being made online, and the trend will accelerate. Paying sales and use tax is the current law, whether purchases are made online or at a local store. Collecting the tax is not imposing a new tax. It’s just treating online merchants the same as your neighborhood shops.

Certainly, this is difficult. A patchwork of state laws covering the thousands of local tax rates is tough to manage. But Utah ought to require tax collection, reducing tax rates to keep revenue neutral, and continue pushing for a federal solution.

Medical marijuana legislation took a hit when the LDS Church came out against it. Any chances of passing?

(Pignanelli) State Sen. Mark Madsen deserves a merit badge of courage for raising this subject in the last several legislative sessions. His bill is DOA because of the recent announcement, but the issue survives. [Gov. Gary Herbert deserves a shout-out for using the word "Doobie" in a press conference when explaining his position.]

Legislation offered by Sen. Evan Vickers and Rep. Brad Daw will likely pass, allowing consumption of certain cannabis extracts. The always sensible Sen. Brian Shiozawa is offering a resolution requesting the federal government to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug so researchers can investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. Suffering Utahns deserve to access this relief.

(Webb) There’s a reason many law enforcement officials oppose medical marijuana. They see the abuses. If marijuana is to be accepted as medicine it ought to go through the rigorous safety and approval processes required of new medicines. Medical value should be determined by scientific research and laboratory tests, not by politics or anecdotes about miracle cures.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will affect Utah

The caucuses last week in Iowa and the presidential primary next Tuesday in New Hampshire will affect Utah — beyond just the selection of candidates. As political hacks, we are compelled to discuss the wacky world of presidential politics.

National pundits are saying that the 2016 election is breaking traditions and the commonly accepted rules of elections. Beyond just the rise of Donald Trumpand Bernie Sanders, what are revolutionary activities and developments that are occurring? 

Pignanelli:"Technology is a strange thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand and stabs you in the back with the other." — Carrie Snow

The national space program spawned more than just satellites and landings on the moon. America's efforts to conquer the great beyond advanced technology, satellites, and numerous everyday products (i.e. Tang, safety stripes on roads, freeze-dried foods, etc.)

Similarly, presidential campaigns launched or enhanced activities once new, but that we now take for granted (i.e. polling, consumer profiling, etc.) So the behind-the-scenes exertions in Iowa, and those likely to occur in the following primary contests -are HUUUUGE! (the Trumpism de jour). Although the media attention has focused on non-mainstream candidates, the real story is the success of new approaches and the failure of traditional outreach to voters.

Ted Cruz has more than just great field operations; he utilizes the most advanced technology in the history of electioneering. His use of data mining, thorough micro-targeting, and intense analytics is unprecedented. More than anything else, this explains his victory and defense against the Trump onslaught in Iowa.

Conversely, the traditional television carpet bombing used by the Super PACs paid no dividends to the candidates and obviously did nothing to harm rising star Marco Rubio. Trump’s inexpensive tweets had more effect than the commercials.

Webb: Whatever technology and targeting techniques are used, candidates must still tap into aspirations, fears and attitudes of voters. In this regard, the current anti-establishment fervor is really nothing new. Human nature remains the same over decades and centuries. Voter behavior follows familiar patterns in response to economic conditions, world affairs and government competency. Keen observers from the Greek philosophers and Shakespeare to modern historians have written about the same political intrigue and rebellion against the establishment we're seeing today. Far greater upheaval has occurred countless times in many countries. So what we’re seeing today isn’t unprecedented, and eventually we’ll see a return to normalcy.

What are the impacts of 2016 political trends on Utah politics and possibly the private sector? 

Pignanelli: Our state is technology savvy, so we will be poked and prodded by data mining and profiling in future elections. The geographical distribution of Utahns, combined with our Internet connectivity, can easily drive the creative engines for political operatives.

Where Utahns and other Americans will truly experience this revolution is how products are marketed to us. The Cruz campaign demonstrated how to create brand identification and loyalty. Increasingly, the messaging we receive to influence shopping habits will be selective and dictated by complex algorithms and caches of data.

Webb: Advanced technology is driving a wrenching societal transformation, and the effects are reflected in the presidential campaign. I grew up in west Orem in the ‘50s and ‘60s. For many decades, a young man could graduate from high school, get a secure blue-collar job at Geneva Steel, get married, buy a modest house, raise a family, eventually buy a fishing boat and a truck and camper for hunting trips, and end up with a decent retirement.

Those days are obviously long gone. People who are not prepared for the high-tech, quick-changing, interconnected, mobile global economy are working at McDonald’s and are left out of today’s economy. Pretty soon, robots will take their jobs at McDonald's. So there are a lot of angry, disaffected folks. Utah is doing better than most states, but the crucial lesson is that if we don’t want populist, rabble-raising politicians to lead a country of angry people (like Argentina), we had better provide great education so our young people can have good jobs and good quality of life.

How do these factors benefit or disadvantage the new petition process for a party's nomination? 

Pignanelli: The "good old days" of keeping delegates happy for a re-election bid are over. Most candidates and challengers will utilize the new technologies to secure petition signatures for their campaigns while driving down the interest in their opponents’ efforts. This will be much more expensive, but also expansive in outreach to voters.

Webb: As of this writing, some 110 candidates were gathering signatures from party members to get on the primary election ballot. That includes about 60 legislative candidates and nearly 50 county candidates. That’s quite remarkable given the Republican Party’s unrelenting effort to create confusion and discourage signature-gathering. From now on, candidates will need to appeal to all party members instead of courting a relatively few delegates who tend to be more extreme in their political views.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Gubernatorial and legislative dynamics always interesting to watch

The Utah Legislature is a week old and Gov. Gary Herbert has outlined his priorities in his State of the State speech. The gubernatorial/legislative dynamics are always interesting to watch.

What are the issues the Republican Legislature and the Republican governor are likely to agree on? What are the tough issues likely to be disputed?

Pignanelli: “A speech is like a love affair. Any fool can start it, but to end it requires considerable skill.” — Lord Mansfield

As a member of a live audience for the State of the State for 10 years, I comprehend why governors love them so much. It is the only time each year that lawmakers must respectfully sit in silence without offering any contrary opinions, while the chief executive proclaims his/her objectives.

Gov. Herbert made it easy on the Legislature with few demands. By listing the accomplishments the state has achieved in a number of areas, he was sending the signal to lawmakers ”don't mess it up.” Legislators are in constant communication with party delegates, activists, committee leaders, and so he will keep relations with them strong.

Without using the words "Medicaid expansion," he did reference health care for Utahns. The Legislature is unlikely to adopt the governor’s program, but a streamlined version will be considered.

Media outlets are grateful that the governor covered many topics, with a delivery of less than 30 minutes. Brevity and efficiency in all things — but especially government and speechmaking — is admired and appreciated.

Webb: Utah sports a conservative Republican governor and a conservative Republican Legislature, and they are in sync on the big philosophical themes — low taxes, limited government, free enterprise and traditional social issue principles. So Utah should win the Miss Congeniality award, right?

Well, not quite. They will agree that education is the top priority, but they will fight over details of funding and reforms. They will fight over Medicaid expansion, but may find agreement on a modest approach. Herbert asked lawmakers to support economic development in rural areas, and he challenged legislators and the education community to boost high school graduation rates to 90 percent in the next four years. He called for elimination of outdated laws and changes in the regulatory structure to allow the 21st century sharing economy to thrive. He won’t get much argument from lawmakers on the value of those proposals, but the details may prove rancorous.

Another prominent Utahn, a Democrat, has announced his candidacy for governor. What impact will gubernatorial election politics have on Herbert's agenda?

Pignanelli: Regardless of party, Utahns should be proud of the caliber of citizens vying for the governorship. In addition to the popular Herbert, three entrepreneurs are offering their experience.

The recent entry is Michael Weinholtz, who enjoys a strong reputation in the business and charitable community.

Overstock Chairman Jonathon Johnson hired some of the best political advisers in the state to push an inter-party challenge to Herbert. Thus, his decision to pursue only the delegate route for the nomination suggests support and a vigorous convention strategy.

Herbert has the advantage of resources, popularity and national recognition of Utah accomplishments. But he understands the potential of his opponents and will subtly maneuver to decrease potential attacks from them.

It would be a clever political tactic for Herbert to claim that his opponents succeeded in business because of his administration's programs.

Webb: The election is going to be hotly contested, but Herbert is in pretty good shape as the incumbent. He’s riding high in the polls, especially among conservative and moderate Republicans and independents, which make up the bulk of the electorate.

Republican Johnson will attack from the right, and Democrat Weinholtz from the left. Both will attempt to portray Herbert as a manager lacking visionary leadership to take the state to the next level.

Herbert is in sync with citizens in calling for increased education funding and modest Medicaid expansion. He’s proposing no tax increases or borrowing. His agenda is safe, conservative, steady-as-she goes — without any moon shots or grandiose proposals. So he does remain vulnerable to charges that he’s not sufficiently visionary or futuristic.

But with a strong economy, low unemployment and the vast majority of voters thinking Utah is going in the right direction, Herbert will be tough to beat.

Is the perception correct that the governor and Republican legislative leaders are at odds more than usual?

Pignanelli: The Legislature has increased its influence on state government operations, at the expense of the executive branch. Also, 21st century legislative leaders are more willing to publicly disagree with the governor. These dynamics may create the impression of hostility, but is only a reflection of politics in an expanding state.

Webb: They get along as well as can be expected, but gubernatorial/legislative politics are never simple. The governor is one person, while the Legislature is 104 unique, independent politicians with differing priorities and mandates — many thinking they ought to be governor themselves. This natural tension is good for democracy as long as it doesn’t result in the sort of gridlock and dysfunction that is choking the federal government.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Utah Legislature blasting off with election-year session

The Utah Legislature blasts off tomorrow morning, commencing its 45-day, election-year session. We take a look at the state of Utah’s lawmaking body.

Various recent polls measuring the Legislature’s job performance range from a lousy 39 percent approval rating (Salt Lake Tribune/Survey USA) to a healthy 57 percent approval (UtahPolicy.com/Dan Jones). How do Utahns really perceive the Legislature?

Pignanelli: "Public opinion is stronger than the legislature, and nearly as strong as the ten commandments." — Charles Dudley Warner

Republicans, Democrats and independents frequently inquire how I spend time at the Capitol "with those people" and remain sane. I always respond the best therapy for a legislative session is a strong dose of humor.

Utahns have amusing perceptions towards their Legislature. Some think it a bizarre political World Wrestling Federation contest with cartoonish characters wrestling each other, while grunting and groaning. Others are suspicious of a secret society where mysterious figures convocate in dark chambers, chanting strange oaths and incantations. Too many surmise the Capitol is a lobbyist jungle gym, with spirited hijinks and backslapping. (Lawmakers, lobbyists and staff describe their experience as chained to oars, pulling to a never-ending voyage on a giant slave ship.)

Because the media, movies and blog sites molds citizens’ perceptions, their opinions of the Legislature can be blemished. With 30 years of experience as a lawmaker and lobbyist, I assure readers every legislator — regardless of party — is a decent hard-working soul who believes his/her agenda is in the best interest of the state. But because the House and Senate must be filled with human beings, they are bodies brimming with emotion, ego, compassion, ambition, intelligence, silliness, self-righteousness and sincere dedication. So my prescription of engaging the process with humor has served me and others well.

But I remain grateful our wise drafters of the Constitution set mandatory time limits on all this fun.

Webb: Here’s a great thing about the Legislature: When it’s over, spring is here!

The truth is, Utahns like their Legislature, and particularly their own lawmaker, just fine. And with good reason. Utah’s 104 lawmakers quickly and efficiently handle the state’s business. Gridlock and dysfunction are seldom seen. They balance the budget, take care of the state’s greatest needs, and do it year after year.

Utah’s lawmakers are like everyone else, working regular jobs, living in our neighborhoods, interacting with constituents. They are approachable. They are in tune with state needs and, for the most part, they look out for the state’s best interests.

Certainly, the Legislature has its right-wing and left-wing, its stars and duds. Silly legislation is introduced and eyebrow-raising speeches are given. But the laws that survive the gauntlet of committee hearings, floor action and gubernatorial signing or vetoing are usually (although not always) good for the state.

Will election-year politics influence legislative actions?

Pignanelli: Many politicians boast their votes and actions are boldly made despite an upcoming re-election. Numerous special-interest organizations scream officials should enact policies without deference to campaign strategies. This is all malarkey. We want all office-holders worried about re-election (most of them are, despite the bravado). The 2016 legislative session will prompt grandstanding, emotional speeches, press conferences and message bills to solidify support for incumbents. For some this is annoying. For others, it's great entertainment (see above). But, it is a vestige of democracy.

Webb: Every politician has one eye on the next election. When this keeps legislators responsive to citizens and voters, such accountability is good. But it’s bad if election concerns paralyze legislators and prevent them from making difficult votes. In the past, legislators have sometimes been overly concerned about a narrow group of constituents — the party delegates that could decide their fates. Now, with the option of gathering signatures to get on the primary ballot, they need not be so concerned about a relatively few delegates and can be more representative of all their constituents.

Can Democrats have any influence on the legislative process or outcome?

Pignanelli: Shrewd messaging to the media and clever backroom tactics are the best tools for a minority party to achieve some objectives. Current Democrats have impacted clean-air and other state policies. If they are willing to increase cunning in political maneuvering, they could mold other key objectives in education, environment and economic development.

Webb: It’s true that Republicans can (and do) roll over Democrats any time they wish. Elections have consequences. Republicans dominate because voters elected them. Republicans and Democrats have different ideologies and different world views. Republicans enjoy an overwhelming majority, so their priorities should prevail.

But in Utah (unlike Congress and many other states), Republican leadership is actually magnanimous toward Democratic lawmakers. Democrats regularly sponsor and pass important bills. Most legislation is not partisan in nature and votes often don’t follow party lines. Democratic influence is also magnified through the news media. If you are silly enough to be a Democrat, Utah isn’t a bad place to be.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: State of the Union sets the stage for presidential campaign ahead

The nation is in for interesting times over the next 10 months as we select the next leader of the free world. President Barack Obama attempted to set the stage for the campaign ahead in his State of the Union speech. We look at the hits and misses.

As we look forward to the campaign, did Obama successfully frame the issues? 

Pignanelli: “The president has a great perk. He can deliver a State of the Union address, to encouraging applauses, rather than endure an annual performance review like the rest of us.” — Phil Rosenthal, Chicago Tribune

The State of the Union speech is similar to the Academy Awards. There is tremendous media attention, filled with predictions and analysis, surrounding both events. But afterwards no one recalls — or cares about — what was said.

Mostly, the president did what he needed to do. He reminded critics the poor hand dealt him in 2009 and that the economy has recovered under his watch. Obama excelled in underscoring the unique characteristics of Americans — acceptance of other cultures, entrepreneurial skills, dedication to quality and hard work. He nailed a tough stance against the Islamic terrorists (too bad he didn't exude the same emotion in his post-San Bernardino speech).

Obama provided the right demeanor … until he lectured, and blamed, all Americans for fostering the nastiness in Washington. Every politico was aghast at this indictment. The Obama administration and Democratic Senate and House leadership — during their tenure of absolute government control — built a massive glass house of hostile partisanship, which prevents the president from throwing stones.

While some Utahns might disagree with the president’s initiatives, we all share his deep abiding belief in this country and people. But please don't ask us to recall anything he, or another president, has said during this annual exhibition.

Webb: I liked Obama’s calls for unity, the eloquent picture he painted of the goodness of America and its resourceful people, and his assertion that America remains the world’s greatest country and its best days are ahead. I believe all of that. I liked his stirring call for innovation and a new “moon shot” to cure cancer.

I believe Obama is sincere and really wants what’s best for America. I don’t think he’s an ogre or charlatan. He’s just wrong. Exceedingly wrong. His worldview and underlying political ideology are dramatically different from mine. He believes that a new or bigger government program is the solution to every problem facing America. He believes the federal government should take care of everyone from cradle to grave.

It is notable that nowhere in his articulate speech did he address the supreme menace hanging over this country — a $17 trillion debt that is actually several times worse when various unfunded liabilities are counted. He didn’t address entitlement programs that are headed for bankruptcy. He didn’t suggest pro-growth policies to bolster a lethargic economy, just more spending on government programs.

Obama is a sincere leader, but his eight years will end with America in a precarious state.

While acknowledging problems, Obama painted a rosy state of the union. Are average Utahns as hopeful as he is?

Pignanelli: Obama pleaded for Americans to reject nativist, outrageous assertions made by some in the campaign arena (implying Donald Trump and Ted Cruz). He declared the national debate is how much government intervention is needed to provide fairness in the economy and respect in foreign affairs. Statements made by candidates in both parties confirm Obama’s assertion that this is the essential argument in the 2016 elections. Yet, Americans are hungry for a more sophisticated discussion, and vision, to make government smarter when needed, and absent when not.

Webb: Cloistered in the White House and recently back from a Hawaiian vacation, Obama can’t quite grasp the malaise and exasperation that exists in the country — and that is giving rise to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Certainly, by some measures the economy is better. But so many American families aren’t feeling it. The country is working fine for the favored few. But not for a vast swath of average citizens. Obama’s answer is more government and more entitlements. The real answer is less government, including less corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

Obama called for unity and compromise. Any chance Congress and the country will come together in the year ahead?

Pignanelli: Republicans must have substantial legislative accomplishments to secure election victories in the House and Senate. The president wants a legacy for his final year. So both sides possess deep incentives for compromise. Fortunately for Obama, two masters of bipartisan consensus lead Congress — House Speaker Paul Ryan and U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. Thus, I optimistically predict some major accomplishments.

Webb: It’s going to be a really divisive political year, highlighted by a very ugly presidential election. National politics will be a toxic sewer pit. Thankfully, we will do much better in Utah.