Pignanelli and Webb: What Utahns say and what they really mean

A very grueling, contentious legislative session adjourned last week. We know it was a rough session because events on our Capitol Hill even overshadowed the circus in Washington D.C. — a rarity. We know it’s hard to follow the nuances of legislative action because of all the political mumbo-jumbo. So, to clarify what really happened, we offer our traditional annual feature: “What they say … and what they mean.”

Lawmakers pushing tax reform: “Broadening the base of the sales tax to include all professional services ensures fiscal soundness and fairness.” (Wow, we have achieved a remarkable feat: Every business association and interest group in Utah is spitting mad at us!)

Freshman legislators: “We were surprised and pleased with the diversity of legislation this session.” (Alcohol, cigarettes, stronger beer, vaping, horseracing, premarital relations. … Who knew that Utahns were having so much fun with so many vices.)

House Speaker Brad Wilson: “I look forward to extra time to visit my peers in other states and learn how other state legislatures function so we can adopt best practices.” (I am especially intrigued by Nebraska, which does not have a Senate.)

Senate Pres. Stuart Adams: “I appreciate the important dynamics and inevitable friction between the upper and lower body.” (Just a reminder: The Senate is the upper body.)

Medicaid expansion supporters: "There may be some minor issues in the language of the petition, but the Legislature should leave it alone and see if problems arise in the future." (We can never admit in public that the automatic increase for health care providers is a major problem that must be resolved.)

Most lawmakers: “We take air quality seriously, and we took meaningful action this session to clean up Utah’s air.” (Thank goodness there was no major inversion during the session, which saved us from clean air protest rallies.)

Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski: “I am outraged at the Inland Port legislation and am filing a lawsuit.” (All right, the good old boys on the Hill gave me a great campaign issue.)

Salt Lake Chamber: “We were successful in calling upon the governor and the Legislature for more time to deliberate the difficult issue of modernizing Utah’s tax code.” (Hopefully, if we say this enough our members will forget we strongly endorsed the bill.)

Sober lawmakers: “Allowing 4.0 beer in convenience stores is a generous compromise.” (We did not want to face a nasty citizen initiative battle on this.)

Beer drinkers: “Utah’s war on beer must end!” (Once I’ve had a few, it doesn’t matter if it’s 3.2, 4.0 or 4.8).

Long-time conservative activist Gayle Ruzicka: “I am grateful for the many experiences and friends gained in the legislative process over many years." (I am enjoying the last laugh at all those who think I’m past my prime. Who else got a multi-page flattering profile in a daily newspaper, won major battles this session, and is still eager for more? See you in 2020.)

All lawmakers: “We were wise to handle revising the medical marijuana initiative in a special session before the regular session.” (That was a piece of cake compared to our experience over the last 45 days.)

Perceptive legislators: “We definitely need a new state flag to represent our changing demographics and diversity.” (This is a great way to distract angry voters from tax and moral issues.)

Gov. Gary Herbert: “I endorsed the House skinny budget because it made sense.” (The Legislature disregards most of our recommendations, but I appreciated the House pushing hard on tax reform.)

Many lawmakers: “We respect ballot initiatives, but just want to ensure that they are appropriately implemented." (These dang things are a terrible nuisance.)

Nitpicking pundits: “The Legislature is just a good old boys and girls club and is clueless to needs of Utahns.” (I know lawmakers make tremendous sacrifices and study tough issues in transportation, tax reform and education. But I'm too lazy to actually research their actions and it is just more fun to attack them with unfair castigations.)

Veteran lobbyists: "We are proud to be part of the important legislative process." (We are like gut bacteria; no one wants to see us, but they know they need us.)

Frank: “This session is an absolute confirmation The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more important priorities and rarely weighs in on most legislative issues.” (The Church appropriately focused their time and effort on the recent visit with Pope Francis. I just hoped the Pontiff listened to their wisdom.)

LaVarr: “The push for comprehensive tax reform was a great effort, even if it fell short and will take a while longer.” (The great thing about the Legislature is that when it’s over, spring is here!)

Pignanelli and Webb: Keep fighting for broad-based tax reform

After pushing hard for the most significant reform to Utah taxes since the Great Depression, and being confident of passage, Gov. Gary Herbert and lawmakers scuttled the bill, opting for further study and a possible spring or summer special session. We explore some of the questions.

Why did the Legislature undertake, and then abruptly scuttle, this massive effort to expand the sales tax to a wide variety of services? Was the opposition that deep?

Pignanelli: "The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." — John Maynard Keynes

The Utah culture is well-known for passive-aggressive behavior. But aversion to confrontation disappears when dire challenges to our society and government appear (A proud pioneer legacy). Unlike federal officials whose shoes are scuffed from kicking cans down the road, Utah leaders are fearless. Modern history examples include building pumps to divert an expanding Great Salt Lake, preempting pension catastrophe, diversifying the economy to minimize recessions, etc.

Experts disagree as to timing, but all officials and economic observers concur the General Fund is facing a future disaster. The proposal expanding sales tax to professional services — while reducing the overall rate and income tax — generated tremendous controversy and emotional opposition. Hundreds of businesses (including my clients) conveyed to lawmakers their legitimate concerns with the content and process of the legislation. More importantly, legislators listened to the anxieties of thousands of Utahns (engineers, hairstylists, financial planners, caterers, lawyers, accountants, etc.).

Despite the turmoil, the political courage and vision of state leaders must be respected, especially “The Mighty Quinn” (House sponsor Rep. Tim Quinn) who genially fielded questions from many Utahns across the economic spectrum. In my first session as a rookie lawmaker, legislators raised the sales and income taxes to prevent a collapse of state government. This fostered protest rallies and extreme reactions. So, I feel the pain lawmakers experienced.

I will accept any wager state leaders find a solution in the near future. My bet on Washington, D.C. is much different.

Webb: I’m disappointed the job didn’t get done. Remember, this was a tax cut. And it was structured to be phased in so changes could be made. It would have worked just fine. In dealing with tough, complex public policy issues, it’s often better to just rip the Band-Aid off, and get the pain over with, rather than dribble out the discomfort over weeks and months.

I’m also disappointed in various industries and lobbyists that aired inaccurate, confusing and unfair information about the legislation, creating a big enough uproar that lawmakers backed off.

Yes, the legislation was complicated. But broadening the tax base, while lowering the rates, is absolutely the right thing to do. And it was a tax cut. And service providers have no right to think they should be excluded from the tax system. Why should we tax some services, but not others? Why tax food (albeit at a low rate), but not Uber rides? Why should we tax the purchase of an electric drill a carpenter needs to make a living, but not a haircut?

The “sky is falling — we’ll all go out of business” whining we heard from a lot of businesses and industries was just silly. Thousands of businesses charge sales tax. All of them pass it on to consumers. Consumers still purchase their goods and services. Compliance is not that difficult. Everyone seems to want tax reform. But they don’t want it to apply to them.

And did I mention that this was a tax cut?

The governor and the Legislature promised further study and a special session to enact tax reform. Can they deliver on this?

Pignanelli: Pushing the issue out for another six months extends pain for decision-makers. But the advantage is the opportunity to educate and recruit supporters for a resolution.

Webb: Here’s what’s worse than the pain of fair and proper tax reform: Lacking enough tax revenue in the near future to pay for the basic services of state government like education, prisons, Medicaid and law enforcement. They’d better deliver.

Will sales tax expansion be an issue in the 2020 elections?

Pignanelli: Any meritorious tax reform has consequences of implementation. Therefore, the political ramifications are directly correlated with perception and messaging.

Candidates for governor and other state offices may view this controversy as an opportunity and become voices of opposition. Gov. Norman Bangerter only survived re-election in 1988 by strong messaging explaining his tax increases. But in 1968 there was a major shift in the Legislature because such communications were absent. The delay allows current officials valuable time to strategize.

Webb: If done right and communicated effectively, reforming and cutting taxes can be a net positive for lawmakers facing re-election. Certainly, the whiners will whine. But, did I mention this is going to be a tax cut — not a tax increase? The tax burden might be distributed differently, but it will be reduced. A nice tax cut — and modernizing Utah’s tax system to make it fairer and to protect education and essential state services for the long term — isn’t a bad re-election platform.

Pignanelli and Webb: How the tug of war between branches and levels of government affects Utah

Our country’s founders provided a Constitution designed to protect against tyranny by providing checks and balances — dividing power among branches and levels of government. The rivalries among executive, legislative and judicial branches, and also between state and federal levels, continue to foster emotional debate. Utah politicos are in the middle of these ongoing disputes.

After signing legislation to prevent a government shutdown, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency diverting congressionally appropriated monies to build a border wall. His actions are challenged as unconstitutional overreach. How should Utah politicians respond?

Pignanelli: "Trump signed what Congress passed … then said he would do all this other stuff. That is monarchical and against the spirit of the Constitution." — JonahGoldberg, National Review

Presidential executive orders should be like abstinence from alcohol — rare and only for the most compelling of reasons. That so many of our current problems are a result of such decrees and other transfers of power voluntarily made by Congress demonstrates the wisdom of a Constitution suspicious of executive power.

Candidate Trump was legitimately critical of too many orders issued by his predecessors. As president, he is breaking records exercising such prerogatives. The disregard for a congressional decision on spending, along with public statements admitting the emergency was dubious, leaves no wiggle room for those who proclaim adherence to fundamental constitutional principles. Regardless of their position on constructing the wall, Utah politicians should support an aggressive full-throated bipartisan challenge to this executive action and reverse a decades long trend. Hopefully it will begin the longer process of clawing back the authority to the legislative branch.

The 1952 executive action by my hero President Harry S. Truman to nationalize the steel mills was thwarted by the U.S. Supreme Court with the rationale the president is empowered to execute laws, not to act as a lawmaker. Later at a party held by the author of this landmark opinion, Justice Hugo Black, Truman stated “Hugo, I don't much care for your law, but, by golly, this bourbon is good."

Webb: In the absence of congressional action, every president acts unilaterally — sometimes improperly. President Barack Obama was jerked back by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. His administration lost more frequently at the high court than any administration in recent history.

The real reason for presidential overreach is an ineffectual, impotent Congress. If Congress can’t solve the nation’s problems, the president, especially one as impulsive as Trump, will surely jump in.

Utah members of Congress should respond to this presidential power play by passing comprehensive immigration reform that protects the border and reduces illegal immigration, deals sensibly with those seeking asylum, and creates greater opportunity for prudent, well-managed legal immigration.

A Congress that actually functions can easily thwart presidential excess.

Utah leaders often suggest constitutional reforms to restore a proper balance in the federal system. One approach is a legislative resolution calling for a convention of the states to amend the constitution as allowed by Article V. Sen. Evan Vickers and Rep. Merrill Nelson are offering that resolution (SJR 9) this session. Former bank executive David Hemingway and Congressman Rob Bishop are proposing the “Re-empowerment of the States Amendment,” allowing two-thirds of states to repeal a presidential executive order or an administrative regulation. Do any of these proposals have a chance to succeed?

Pignanelli: Many right- and left-wing organizations despise these efforts — signaling there must be something to justify them. A national conversation to mandate a balanced federal budget is necessary and can only be productive. If we have to live with ever-increasing executive orders and administrative regulations, then the process of allowing states to push back is an imperative. This has become especially evident on recent proclamations regarding immigration.

Webb: The founders clearly intended states to have co-equal status with the federal government — and to resist federal encroachment. But over many decades states have lost most tools allowing them to push back against the national government.

Restoring some state clout, such as allowing a supermajority of states to overturn a federal law or regulation, would be a worthy purpose to hold a convention of states. Any real solution must be structural.

Legislators ought to enthusiastically support SJR 9 and not listen to the fear-mongering conspiracy theorists who damage the cause of conservatism by mistrusting state leaders.

Federalism and state powers have long been a messaging point for Republicans, but is this changing?

Pignanelli: Liberal state leaders, frustrated with Washington, D.C., antics, are learning the benefits of federalism. Transformations are underway.

Webb: Sensible Democrats ought to realize that concentrating all power at the federal level is a danger to their liberal ideals — and also results in more government gridlock and dysfunction.

Federalizing everything means that when a conservative president and conservative Congress take over, liberal states aren’t able to create the progressive utopia of their dreams. States ought to be free from much of federal control so they can be socialist or capitalist, libertine or orthodox — as they wish — and see which works out better.

Firm Associate Renae Cowley published on the Daily Caller

Please click here to see Renae’s article the Daily Caller published.

It's here... 2019 General Legislative Session

January marks the beginning of the Foxley & Pignanelli hibernation season. However, we will not be enjoying a seasonal slumber tucked away from the world but rather painting our faces blue, dressing in (professional) armor, and enclosed in the Utah State Capitol fighting the good fights on behalf of our local and national clients.

This is a friendly reminder that 2019 General Legislative Session commences on January 28th and will end March 14th. Doug is closing down his Delta account, Frank is stocking up on coffee, Renae is setting up Skype accounts for her horses, Aimee is holding down the office, Machi is searching for the best scuba locations in March, and the our session intern Romm Jackson is wondering what he got himself into.

During this period the majority of our time will be spent at the state capitol and the best way to reach us will be through our personal cell numbers which are listed below, though we will check our office voicemail as often as possible.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to any of us for any matter.


Here are several links that are great resources pertaining to the legislative session:
 

View or search bills

Who are my legislators?

Legislative calendar   

Utah House of Representatives roster

Utah Senate roster

There are also some important dates during the legislative process that we wanted to make you aware of: 

Jan 28th First day of the annual General Session

Jan 31st Last day for a legislator to designate priority bill requests

Feb 7th Last day to approve bills for numbering without floor approval

Mar 14th Last day of session

April 3rd Last day for governor to sign or veto bills

Douglas Foxley

Doug@fputah.com 801-556-1940

Frank Pignanelli

Frank@fputah.com 801-558-3826

Renae Cowley

Renae@fputah.com 801-529-3209

Machi Johnson

Machi@fputah.com 801-687-6425

Session intern: Romm Jackson

Romm@fputah.com 801-330-7358

Pignanelli and Webb: How some legislation and political races are intertwined

Two big items on the political radar are attracting a great deal of attention. One is the maneuvering for the 2020 gubernatorial election and other races. The other is SB54 and the increasing effort to repeal it. SB54 is the compromise legislation that allows candidates to gather signatures to get on the primary election ballot, instead of being forced to go through the caucus/convention system. Interestingly, the current election posturing and the fight over SB54 are closely related. We take a look.

At the same time a long list of ambitious politicos are considering running for governor and other offices, attacks on SB54 are increasing. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee wants the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional. Sen. Dan McCay, an original co-sponsor of SB54, now plans to run legislation to repeal it. What’s happening here?

Pignanelli: “It's a big challenge not to murder each other … I mean, we're family so we fight.” — Sharon Corr

As the proud son of an Italian father and an Irish mother, I possess deep expertise of dramatic family squabbles plagued with grudges, perceived offenses, petty bickering, legal actions and decades of ill will among relatives. The emotional non-ideological internal strife among Utah Republicans qualifies as a family fight.

In 2014, Sen. McCay persuaded his colleagues to support SB54 armed with the promise by Count My Vote, or CMV, proponents they would not seek another initiative. The Legislature upheld their commitment by debating, but never passing, any changes to the compromise. McCay’s labeling of the 2016 CMV ballot attempt as a betrayal is understandable and factual — providing rationale behind his repeal.

CMV struggled with both initiatives, indicating ambivalence among many Utahns. Conversely, activists are frightened of diminished relevancy in the party and view CMV as Utah's elite making a power grab at their expense. They maintain a drumbeat of opposition. Fatigue is infecting politicians and frustration is percolating.

I discovered family reunions replete with multiple toasts among warring cousins, enhanced by wine and whiskey, can soothe feelings. I am happy to bring such refreshments to the next GOP gathering.

Webb: It is a fact that Utahns of all political persuasions overwhelmingly support SB54 and Count My Vote. The actions of the politicians and party insiders who want to control the nomination process themselves, rather than allow all voters to have a say, are a precise demonstration of elitism and political snobbery.

I prefer not to ascribe self-serving motives to the politicians who are enemies of SB54, but it is clear they want to campaign among a small number of delegates to win party nominations, rather than have to face Republican voters in general.

In 2014, Count My Vote agreed to end the ballot initiative campaign in exchange for the passage of SB54, ensuring a dual-path party nomination process. There was no agreement regarding any future ballot initiative. To assert otherwise is pure fiction.

What would be the impact on upcoming political races if SB54 is repealed?

Pignanelli: A repeal definitely changes the flavor of 2020 elections — especially the governors race. There would be déjà vu of 2012 when massive resources from the Orrin Hatch campaign were targeted towards changing GOP delegates. Because so many candidates will be attempting the same objective next year, those who throw the hardest punches are likely to succeed. A rightward tilt will result. Consequently, large donors may extract uncomfortable promises from candidates to detail a public position on restoring SB54.

Webb: Without SB54 and the opportunity for all voters to be part of the nomination process, a number of mainstream GOP candidates would never make it through the convention — despite having broad voter support. It has been conclusively proven that convention delegates often do not reflect the candidate preferences of most Republican Party voters.

Congressman John Curtis, for example, would have been ousted by delegates and would not be in office today had he not been able to gather signatures to get on the ballot. I could list a half dozen excellent mainstream candidates who probably would be rejected at convention, where ideological purity is demanded and litmus tests prevail. It would be a travesty to deny these candidates a spot on the primary election ballot.

Will the Count My Vote coalition put up a fight to save SB54?

Pignanelli: Utah's business and community leaders will reach out to key lawmakers, and will be impactful. But the best champion in support of the current system is the individual Utahns overwhelmingly trust Gov. Gary Herbert. A balanced but firm statement from him could cause a ripple among traditional and social media, which lawmakers would feel.

Webb: Now that most Utahns, and certainly mainstream Republicans, have enjoyed a few election cycles in which the tyranny of the caucus/convention system has been broken, there is no going back. I detect enormous passion and commitment among mainstream business and political leaders to fight to protect SB54 and the right for all votes to be counted. What’s more, if SB54 was somehow repealed, a mass defection from the Republican Party would occur, putting in doubt the re-election of Sen. Lee. And Rep. McCay would have no chance of defeating Congressman Ben McAdams.

Pignanelli and Webb: Thanks to some politicians who have made a real difference

With the new year, Utah will see a political changing of the guard, as some longtime leaders retire. We look at who’s leaving and the impact on the state.

Orrin Hatch has been in the U.S. Senate longer than most Utahns have been alive. What has he meant to Utah for the past 42 years?

Pignanelli: “Every good fighter knows when to hang up the gloves.” — Orrin Hatch

As a short Italian Irish Catholic, I excel at harboring grudges. I nurture them like children. Twenty-eight years ago (I never forget), Hatch raised record contributions for my legislative opponent. After my re-election, I anticipated a lifelong grievance toward the senator. He made that impossible.

Fighting discrimination is core to my being, and I passed the first version of Utah's Hate Crimes law — based on federal legislation pushed by Hatch. An attorney for Blue Cross Blue Shield, I was integrally involved in the Caring Program for Children to provide insurance coverage for working families. I was engaged when the senator transformed it into a robust government benefit. I interacted regularly with his excellent excellent local office, which helped thousands navigate choppy waters of various federal issues.

Hatch’s advice was frequently solicited by the most powerful individuals on this planet — rock stars, CEOs, billionaires, high-profile figures. I witnessed at airports, on Main Street and other places people without money or influence encountering the senator, hoping for a moment of his time. He was always kind to these awestruck individuals, giving them equal attention as to any glitterati. This is the true indicator of outstanding character.

Perhaps because we share characteristics as political warriors, I respect and admire Hatch for never forgetting his origins and helping those who needed a voice. Our state was fortunate to have him represent us.

Some grudge.

Webb: The long and remarkable career of Orrin Hatch is going to be the subject of a lot of praise and celebration in the next few weeks. And all of it is deserved. Hatch really has provided exceptional service to Utah and the nation.

In his seven terms, Hatch has seen it all. He’s had momentous victories and devastating defeats. He’s been acclaimed by the world’s top leaders. He’s been severely criticized by liberals, savaged by conservatives and been called names by everyone in between.

Through it all, Hatch has remained true to himself, doing what he felt was right.

To his credit, Hatch has remained a reliable conservative, but not an ideologue. His detractors on the right would argue that he hasn’t been pure enough. He’s struck deals with a lot of liberals. He has pursued the art of the possible, being pragmatic enough to understand that winning 80 percent is better than winning nothing.

But, in general, he has been a fervent advocate of limited government and low taxes. He has championed capitalism and the free market system. He has been solid in standing up for traditional moral values.

No politician is perfect. Hatch has made plenty of mistakes. He hasn’t always practiced what he preached.

It’s time for him to retire. But he will be missed. And he deserves the praise of a grateful state.

The Utah Legislature loses its top two leaders. What have been the contributions of House Speaker Greg Hughes and Senate President Wayne Niederhauser?

Pignanelli: Hughes, an early endorser of Donald Trump, is proof a disruptive force can succeed in government. Hughes’ unorthodox style prompted a turnaround in the Rio Grande area, pushed needed compromises on medical marijuana and passed various reforms.

While Niederhauser is more reserved, his influence was dramatic. Advances in government transparency, efficient transportation and broad economic development will be felt for decades. Furthermore, reforms in higher education and taxes will be ongoing because of his original involvement.

Webb: Serving in the Legislature can be a real sacrifice, especially for the top leaders. They essentially spend full time in their legislative duties and earn much less than part-time pay.

Niederhauser will be remembered for his solid, steady leadership guiding the Senate. He has always looked to the future, emphasizing infrastructure and preparing the state for rapid growth. He has been the embodiment of the Senate as a “voice of reason.”

Hughes will be remembered for his hard-charging forays into big issues like homelessness and the inland port — accompanied by plenty of controversy. He’s stepped on quite a few toes and made some missteps but has been effective and more nuanced than his label as a far-right conservative might indicate. Hughes isn’t riding into the sunset. We’ll see more of him in the gubernatorial race.

A number of lower-profile politicians will also be retiring. Which are some who will be missed?

Pignanelli: My children attended public schools but participated in innovative programs developed as a response to charter institutions. Utah enjoys a diversified economy because of various tax incentives. Government overregulation and overreach are checked by legislative committees. Sen. Howard Stephenson played a leading role in all these efforts, benefiting millions. Thank you.

Webb: All those leaving the political arena deserve a heartfelt thank you for their service.

Pignanelli and Webb: Introspection on heroes and other current issues

The November elections, the passing of heroes and the recent special legislative session are the potpourri of holiday political discussions. We dive in with our thoughts — or actually the buzz we hear from people much smarter than we are.

Utah voter turnout was almost 75 percent in November’s nonpresidential election. Did the ballot initiatives contribute to this rush to the ballot box and will high voter interest be replicated in future elections?

Pignanelli: “Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections.” — Jacob Weisberg

Pumpkin spice is a new cultural phenomenon that entices the public's appetite around Labor Day and is consumed deep into the fall and early winter. This sweet flavoring influences a variety of foods and eating patterns. Initiatives are the pumpkin spice of Utah politics, impacting numerous electoral dynamics.

The petition process that allows candidates to be placed on a primary creates a permanent source of income for local signature gathering firms and is a solid base to expand into lucrative efforts of initiatives and referenda. The Utah-based companies are cheaper and more efficient than most out-of-state firms and will be kept busy in future election cycles.

Initiative activities attract major infusion of dollars for both proponents and opponents throughout the entire process. This dramatically alters the landscape for others sharing the ballot in terms of messaging, social media, fundraising and field operations. Further, the newest technologies are used to identify voters and provide tools to promote turnout. In addition, policy issues enthuse a sector of the electorate not excited about a candidate.

Although the degree is still in dispute, local politicos are concurring the recent initiatives directly moved the results in November, perhaps equal to the sway of responses to the president. This alternate legislative dynamic is now a regular feature.

So, expect the pumpkin spice of politics to be a regular condiment.

Webb: Lots of factors created a perfect storm for voter turnout: Hate and love of Donald Trump, a nasty, negative and hotly contested Love/McAdams congressional race, plus three high-interest ballot propositions, an opinion question on raising the fuel tax and three constitutional amendments.

Say what you want about Trump, there’s no denying he motivates voters — for him and against him. As long as he’s around, voter turnout will be high. We’ll also have a big gubernatorial election in 2020, so expect a colossal voting year.

In recent weeks, Utah lost a couple of heroes: Marine and police officer David Romrell, and North Ogden Mayor and Utah National Guard Major Brent Taylor. This was followed by the death of former Pres. George H.W. Bush. Can the loving remembrances and touching eulogies dedicated to these marvelous individuals bridge the deep political divides that separate Americans? Can we become a “kinder, gentler” state and nation?

Pignanelli: In comparison to other periods of our history, we are a “kinder, gentler” country. There is screaming among left and right extremists, with viciousness dripping from traditional and social media. Talking heads disparage those who disagree. Yet, every day at funerals, sports events, concerts, religious gatherings, disaster relief, school functions and other activities, Americans are overwhelmingly decent and bridge any divides.

Webb: I’m an old, stoic, skeptical, washed-out former journalist, but I was deeply touched by the sacrifices of Romrell and Taylor, and their families, and by the extraordinary legacy and example of our 41st president.

The words “love,” “kindness” and even “forgiveness” were used a lot in the last several days, both in Utah and in that most cynical of places — Washington, D.C. Some people probably thought they were hearing a foreign language.

I suppose the ultimate test of the great lessons taught by these wonderful individuals is whether change is wrought in the lives of those who were listening. In my case, it made me regret offending anyone, or being unfair in something I’ve written or said. It reaffirmed to me that political differences should not spark anger, unkindness or cruelty. There are vastly more important things in life than winning a political argument just for the sake of winning, or posting a snarky response on Facebook. I ended last week thinking I must do better.

Last week’s special session, in which the medical marijuana initiative was amended, was not without controversy. Any fallout?

Pignanelli: The compromise legislation crafted by proponents and opponents was a necessary exercise in realpolitik. But the implementation, and public perception, will be carefully scrutinized by politicians and activists to determine any potential strategy for changes to the other initiatives passed in 2018 and in future years.

Webb: Utah ended up with a pretty good marijuana law. It’s by no means perfect, but it makes an excellent effort to strike a balance — providing controlled access to the medicinal properties of cannabis by those who need it while protecting society from marijuana addiction and health damage among young people.