I have seen a tweet that extended jobless benefits are about to end for about 2 million out of work Americans. I feel for these people, having been there myself. The problem is that Congress will now debate on extending these benefits again. What these people really need is a job.
As a reminder, the government can only employ people. It can not create private-sector jobs. Governments at all levels can, and should, foster an environment where jobs can emerge. And there are steps to do this. I may not list them all, if you have additions, please comment. And no, lowering taxes in and of itself does not create jobs because you have little control over what people do with the extra money. But it can lead to job creation depending on how that extra money is used.
Some things that can more effectively foster an environment where more jobs are availible.
1. Do not make business the enemy of government. Government and business should be partners. I know that this ruffles certain feathers, but that is how it works. When business succeed, there are more people employed and less demand for government services. Then government can cut spending and raise taxes. This is how Reaganomics works. It is not just about arbitrary tax cuts, it is about incentivizing people who have money to invest it well.
2. Provide a clear direction. Show commerce that you care about business and about watching them grow. You can't talk about supporting business one day, and then putting onerous and confusing regulation on them the next. Words are supported by actions.
3. Foster demand. This is where tax cuts can play a role. There are three things that people can do with those tax refund checks. Spend them, pay debts with them or invest them. Is either bad? Spending leads to more jobs. Payment of debt and investment lead to more money in the bank for business to borrow from and lower interest rates.
4. Encourage entrepreneurs. All large businesses had a start somewhere. One person with an idea. Governments should help these ideas take root. We forgot that recently. Make 2011 the year of the small business. Any company that registers in 2011 should get a break for federal taxes for five years or when revenues reach 2,000,000 per year, whichever comes first. That would be my tax cut.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Back to The Blog--Congressional Boundaries in Utah
I took some time off from this blog as my life has been a little unsettled for the past couple of months. But now that the dust from the election is clearing, it is time to get back to this. I was not out to influence voting in the General Election this time. I learned quite a bit in the last few months.
There is time for election rhetoric and a time to get things done. People need to understand that if anything is to be done in politics, a dose of compromise is needed. If a politician says one thing to get elected, and then compromises once in office, he becomes a liar in the eyes of those who supported him in the election. This is going to happen to Mike Lee. If those elected for the first time this year are unwilling to compromise, they will go down as the biggest do nothing Congress is history and we are bound to see the same type of uprising against them that we saw for them this year either way. It is almost a no-win scenario. And people wonder why good people do not run for office.
Even though I have not been blogging, I have been busy. Here is my simple proposal for the congressional district boundaries in Utah after the results of the 2010 census are released. It is as simple as I think it can be. You can not divide Utah in four without splitting Salt Lake County. And this may look gerrymandered, it is not. Other than Salt Lake County, no other county in the state is split. No cities will be split either. For clarification, the first district is Green, and it includes the home of current first district congressman, Rob Bishop who lives in Box Elder County. The second district is blue and includes the home of current second district congressman Jim Matheson who lives in the East Side of Salt Lake County. The third district is violet, and it includes the home of current congressman Jason Chaffetz who lives in Utah County.
The split in Salt Lake County is roughly the Jordan River. Communities mostly west of the Jordan River, like West Valley would be in the new 4th district while communities mostly east of the river, like Salt Lake City would be in the 2nd district.
You may also say that there is not one of the four districts that a Democrat has a guaranteed win. However, a Democrat friend of mine told me he would rather have a chance to win all four than to have all of the party strength in one district. Otherwise, you would find a way to put Carbon County and Summit County in the second district. He gets his wish by having Summit and Carbon Counties with Utah County in the third district. You put the West Valley City with Davis County to give the dems another shot. Perhaps a slim shot at best, but a shot. And you give Matheson's district a challenge by pairing liberal-leaning Salt Lake City with the more conservative cities of Sandy and Draper. Some dems would complain, but again what would you rather have?
One weakness in this theory is that you still have one district that may be a GOP district forever, the first.
What will our legislature do? Probably something not very similar to this, but they will look like they are throwing the Democrats a bone by giving then the second district, by protecting Jim Matheson's seat. But in doing so they make it impossible for the Democrats to win in the other three districts. The democrats in the state will fall for it hook line and sinker. You will likely see Summit and Carbon counties put in the second district, and portions of southeast Salt Lake County put into the third district. You will see them put West Valley City in the second district and the Avenues and Federal Heights put into the fourth district. This would be an unfortunate turn of events because it complicates the campaigning process for both political parties and it will be more costly for candidates of all parties. This plan will make campaigning in one congressional district "on the cheap" because it is relatively small.
One more benefit to this plan. Davis and Weber Counties are in separate districts. That is for a reason. Hill Air Force Base sits on the border of Davis and Weber Counties. We would have two members of our house delegation that have a vested interest in what happens at the base. It will help keep this vital economic engine churning.
Because Utah is so heavily urbanized, especially in the Wasatch Front, the process of defining congressional boundaries is difficult. The Legislature should keep these boundaries as simple as possible. Utah is so highly republican that no matter how the boundaries are drawn, 3 of the four districts will be represented by the GOP. This plan is simple, people will know who represents them in congress and it will save money.
If you like my plan, please let your state senator and representative know. What have they come up with...check out this more recent link.
There is time for election rhetoric and a time to get things done. People need to understand that if anything is to be done in politics, a dose of compromise is needed. If a politician says one thing to get elected, and then compromises once in office, he becomes a liar in the eyes of those who supported him in the election. This is going to happen to Mike Lee. If those elected for the first time this year are unwilling to compromise, they will go down as the biggest do nothing Congress is history and we are bound to see the same type of uprising against them that we saw for them this year either way. It is almost a no-win scenario. And people wonder why good people do not run for office.
Even though I have not been blogging, I have been busy. Here is my simple proposal for the congressional district boundaries in Utah after the results of the 2010 census are released. It is as simple as I think it can be. You can not divide Utah in four without splitting Salt Lake County. And this may look gerrymandered, it is not. Other than Salt Lake County, no other county in the state is split. No cities will be split either. For clarification, the first district is Green, and it includes the home of current first district congressman, Rob Bishop who lives in Box Elder County. The second district is blue and includes the home of current second district congressman Jim Matheson who lives in the East Side of Salt Lake County. The third district is violet, and it includes the home of current congressman Jason Chaffetz who lives in Utah County.
The split in Salt Lake County is roughly the Jordan River. Communities mostly west of the Jordan River, like West Valley would be in the new 4th district while communities mostly east of the river, like Salt Lake City would be in the 2nd district.
You may also say that there is not one of the four districts that a Democrat has a guaranteed win. However, a Democrat friend of mine told me he would rather have a chance to win all four than to have all of the party strength in one district. Otherwise, you would find a way to put Carbon County and Summit County in the second district. He gets his wish by having Summit and Carbon Counties with Utah County in the third district. You put the West Valley City with Davis County to give the dems another shot. Perhaps a slim shot at best, but a shot. And you give Matheson's district a challenge by pairing liberal-leaning Salt Lake City with the more conservative cities of Sandy and Draper. Some dems would complain, but again what would you rather have?
One weakness in this theory is that you still have one district that may be a GOP district forever, the first.
What will our legislature do? Probably something not very similar to this, but they will look like they are throwing the Democrats a bone by giving then the second district, by protecting Jim Matheson's seat. But in doing so they make it impossible for the Democrats to win in the other three districts. The democrats in the state will fall for it hook line and sinker. You will likely see Summit and Carbon counties put in the second district, and portions of southeast Salt Lake County put into the third district. You will see them put West Valley City in the second district and the Avenues and Federal Heights put into the fourth district. This would be an unfortunate turn of events because it complicates the campaigning process for both political parties and it will be more costly for candidates of all parties. This plan will make campaigning in one congressional district "on the cheap" because it is relatively small.
One more benefit to this plan. Davis and Weber Counties are in separate districts. That is for a reason. Hill Air Force Base sits on the border of Davis and Weber Counties. We would have two members of our house delegation that have a vested interest in what happens at the base. It will help keep this vital economic engine churning.
Because Utah is so heavily urbanized, especially in the Wasatch Front, the process of defining congressional boundaries is difficult. The Legislature should keep these boundaries as simple as possible. Utah is so highly republican that no matter how the boundaries are drawn, 3 of the four districts will be represented by the GOP. This plan is simple, people will know who represents them in congress and it will save money.
If you like my plan, please let your state senator and representative know. What have they come up with...check out this more recent link.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Return to Active Blogging...the Mosque Controversy.
I am not formally opposed to the "ground zero" mosque in New York City. As long as there are no zoning laws to prevent it, there is nothing that should be done to oppose it. That does not mean, however, that this mosque should be built. Just because I can jump into Bear Lake in January, does not mean that it is a good idea.
Let's say, for argument sake, that the LDS church decides to build a new temple just a few miles from the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In fact, the temple is built in such a conspicuous place that everyone who visits the site of the massacre has to pass by it. In addition to the construction of the temple, the first baptisms performed in the temple are proxy baptisms for those who died in the massacre. Would that be a welcome gesture? Of course, it would not. Even if there are no laws against it. It would be insensitive.
Even if it is insensitive, it should not be opposed. But we should all understand why people are upset about it. It would be a nice gentleman's gesture to not go forward with this construction.
Just as insensitive is the burning of the Koran as a protest. It ranks right up there with the Pi## Christ. Let's learn to leave what is sacred alone and find other ways to protest our frustrations.
Let's say, for argument sake, that the LDS church decides to build a new temple just a few miles from the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In fact, the temple is built in such a conspicuous place that everyone who visits the site of the massacre has to pass by it. In addition to the construction of the temple, the first baptisms performed in the temple are proxy baptisms for those who died in the massacre. Would that be a welcome gesture? Of course, it would not. Even if there are no laws against it. It would be insensitive.
Even if it is insensitive, it should not be opposed. But we should all understand why people are upset about it. It would be a nice gentleman's gesture to not go forward with this construction.
Just as insensitive is the burning of the Koran as a protest. It ranks right up there with the Pi## Christ. Let's learn to leave what is sacred alone and find other ways to protest our frustrations.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Random Musing for May 31, 2010
Anyone else notice this trend, behind every man-made disaster in the last ten years, whether Bush or Obama was in charge, there has been some long-time government employee asleep on the job?
I do not know how, but we need to find a way to make sure that it is a challenging to keep a public sector job as it is a private sector job.
Does this SNL skit ring a bell?
***
I want to urge 2nd district republicans not to cross-over in the primary to ensure an easier road for Morgan Philpot. There is a difference between the two senate candidates, and I think most cross-overs will regret the decision to do so, no matter who wins.
***
Happy Memorial Day. My heart goes out to all those who have lost a child, parent or sibling in the recent wars. Our prayers are with you.
I do not know how, but we need to find a way to make sure that it is a challenging to keep a public sector job as it is a private sector job.
Does this SNL skit ring a bell?
***
I want to urge 2nd district republicans not to cross-over in the primary to ensure an easier road for Morgan Philpot. There is a difference between the two senate candidates, and I think most cross-overs will regret the decision to do so, no matter who wins.
***
Happy Memorial Day. My heart goes out to all those who have lost a child, parent or sibling in the recent wars. Our prayers are with you.
Monday, May 17, 2010
In Defense of Utah's Caucus and Convention System.
Myths about what a direct primary will do for Utah. This is based upon my experience in being involved in Nebraska, Washington and Texas which all have direct primaries.
1. It will save money. No, it is the opposite. The political parties still need to have a caucus and convention to elect party officers and to direct policies and platforms. The direct primary simply means that the party convention will not take on the business of choosing candidates. One thing that the convention system does for the system is filter out candidates that are not too appealing or are not really serious about running. Most of the time, our convention system prevents the waste of time and money on a primary by making it not needed. If you have not been involved in a convention before, you may be surprised at how really poor some of the candidates are.
2. A direct primary will prevent extremist from controlling the party. This is also not true. In fact, without elected positions in the balance, only those who are really motivated get involved. Guess who those people are?
3. A direct primary is better because more people can be involved in the election of officials. While I agree, in part with this, there is a difference between can and will. More people can be involved because of early voting and the fact that the polls will be open all day. But WILL they? Often, the turnout in a direct primary is very low. One of the reasons, here in Clearfield, to justify an ousted mayor's write-in campaign was the low turnout at the primary. Let's say Senator Bennett had been ousted in a primary and the turnout had been around 10 to 15 percent, there would still be people upset at his defeat. There would be excuses, like the time of year of the primary. The lack of publicity. There would be all sorts of people making excuses for those who do not show up.
Let me also say, that the Tea Party was not the only group against Bob Bennett in the convention. There were at least four others. There was the 9/12 project, the Club for Growth, the Patrick Henry Caucus and two others that made such an impression on me, that I can not remember their names. In Davis County, they united. They chose precinct captains and trained participants to ensure that delegates were elected that would dump Bob Bennett. But even in these meetings, at least in the two that I attended, there were people that attended that were in support of Bob Bennett. These people were not chased away. Most people who fit in these groups want to end excessive government spending and the takeover of private industry. They are not looking at cutting school spending, except for some administrator pay.
I spoke briefly with a very high official in the Republican Party, I will not say who, but a top-3 official. That person hopes that the type of energy that we experienced in 2010 will continue. There was a record turnout at this year's caucuses...and estimated 75,000 on the republican side. That would also be a good turnout for a primary.
1. It will save money. No, it is the opposite. The political parties still need to have a caucus and convention to elect party officers and to direct policies and platforms. The direct primary simply means that the party convention will not take on the business of choosing candidates. One thing that the convention system does for the system is filter out candidates that are not too appealing or are not really serious about running. Most of the time, our convention system prevents the waste of time and money on a primary by making it not needed. If you have not been involved in a convention before, you may be surprised at how really poor some of the candidates are.
2. A direct primary will prevent extremist from controlling the party. This is also not true. In fact, without elected positions in the balance, only those who are really motivated get involved. Guess who those people are?
3. A direct primary is better because more people can be involved in the election of officials. While I agree, in part with this, there is a difference between can and will. More people can be involved because of early voting and the fact that the polls will be open all day. But WILL they? Often, the turnout in a direct primary is very low. One of the reasons, here in Clearfield, to justify an ousted mayor's write-in campaign was the low turnout at the primary. Let's say Senator Bennett had been ousted in a primary and the turnout had been around 10 to 15 percent, there would still be people upset at his defeat. There would be excuses, like the time of year of the primary. The lack of publicity. There would be all sorts of people making excuses for those who do not show up.
Let me also say, that the Tea Party was not the only group against Bob Bennett in the convention. There were at least four others. There was the 9/12 project, the Club for Growth, the Patrick Henry Caucus and two others that made such an impression on me, that I can not remember their names. In Davis County, they united. They chose precinct captains and trained participants to ensure that delegates were elected that would dump Bob Bennett. But even in these meetings, at least in the two that I attended, there were people that attended that were in support of Bob Bennett. These people were not chased away. Most people who fit in these groups want to end excessive government spending and the takeover of private industry. They are not looking at cutting school spending, except for some administrator pay.
I spoke briefly with a very high official in the Republican Party, I will not say who, but a top-3 official. That person hopes that the type of energy that we experienced in 2010 will continue. There was a record turnout at this year's caucuses...and estimated 75,000 on the republican side. That would also be a good turnout for a primary.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Alternative to a term limits ammendment
So I changed my mind about term limits. I finally thought of a good alternative. What do you think?
Congressional Salary Cap, Recall of Members of Congress and Filling Vacancies in Congress.
Article 1.
The compensation for a member of the Senate of the United States or a member of the House of Representatives will not increase once that person's total time of service in congress has reached 18 years; except if a period of hyper-inflation has occurred.
Article 2.
A member of either house of Congress may be removed from office by a 2/3 majority vote of the state legislature of the member's home state for treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors as defined by the laws of the state or federal government.
Article 3.
Should there be a vacancy in the house of representatives or the senate, that vacancy will be filled by special election or general election within 45 days. If the vacancy occurs after the general election and if that member of congress was replaced as a result of the said election, the person elected to replace that member of congress shall immediately fill the vacant seat.
Congressional Salary Cap, Recall of Members of Congress and Filling Vacancies in Congress.
Article 1.
The compensation for a member of the Senate of the United States or a member of the House of Representatives will not increase once that person's total time of service in congress has reached 18 years; except if a period of hyper-inflation has occurred.
Article 2.
A member of either house of Congress may be removed from office by a 2/3 majority vote of the state legislature of the member's home state for treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors as defined by the laws of the state or federal government.
Article 3.
Should there be a vacancy in the house of representatives or the senate, that vacancy will be filled by special election or general election within 45 days. If the vacancy occurs after the general election and if that member of congress was replaced as a result of the said election, the person elected to replace that member of congress shall immediately fill the vacant seat.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
My thoughts on the State GOP Convention
First of all, let me tell everyone that I personally thanked State GOP vice-chair Kitty Dunn for putting on such a well organized convention. The entire agenda was completed before 5:00. This is my third term as a state delegate and this was the first time we made it through the entire agenda. Of course some of the more uncomfortable items such as automatic delegates were tabled until the organizing convention next year.
Getting There
I knew that both conventions were in the same location and that the Race for the Cure was also in the same general area, so I took UTA. Front running was not running early enough. I did not wake up early enough to get the bus I had planned, so I woke up my 16-year old son and met the bus in Centerville.
I met as many candidates people as I could before finding a seat for the convention. I did have a run in some one of Mike Lee's supporters before the convention. I told him that I was voting for Cherilyn and then he asked me who my second choice is. I told him I was leaning toward Bridgewater. We then got into a debate about corporate business incentives. The person cut of the conversation when I told him that Ogden may have to pony up to keep my job in the city. The best way to cut off a libertarian is to explain the long-term consequences of their views.
Beginning of the Convetnion
Kudos to the VFW for the flag ceremony. It was well done. They should have Veterans groups perform more public flag ceremonies. I believe that there are few that understand the sacrifice that people make for our freedoms like war veterans. They are our ultimate survivors.
The Senate Race...
The senate race was very interesting. Tim Bridgewater was the first candidate to speak. He brought energy into the room that none of the other candidates were able to match. As articulate as Bennett, Lee and Eagar were, they just could not come close. That is why he nearly came out of the convention as the party's nominee. He was able to win over the majority of delegates who earlier voted for Eagar and Bennett in the earlier rounds...which included me. He won my support for the primary.
Back to Bridgewater and Lee, here are the results from round 2:
Mike Lee is the other finalist. Has anyone else noticed that Mike Lee talks about how much he loves the constitution, but has at least four amendments in his platform? He supports the Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, the repeal of the 17th amendment (Direct Election of Senators) and an amendment ending birthright citizenship. Only Mike Lee's supporters, the ones that were trained by Club For Growth at their thinly vieled meetings were enthused by Lee's speech. He does not quite have the right demeanor. I predict that Bridgewater will be the one to replace Bennett in DC.
The Other Races.
I voted for Van Oaks for governor, because he spoke about going beyond being the best managed state in the US. Herbert seems to be content with the status quo. Van Oaks got 25% of the vote.
My congressman, Rob Bishop was being challenged by GOP malcontent Mike Ridgeway, who most delegates are not taking seriously any longer.
The second district race was fun. Morgan Philpot avoided a primary against Neil Walter. But the young Mr Walter impressed me. You are going to see him again in Utah Politics. His people impressed me, too. He is well spoken and optimistic.
Resolutions
I will only comment about the immigration plank in the platform. I simply do not like the term "amnesty." It means different things to different people. I like the idea of requiring the federal government to protect our borders and I like the support of the rule of law. Let's say that you find an undocumented immigrant who is is law abiding, and offer a path to citizenship which requires the person to pay a large fine, back income taxes with interest, report to his nearest consulate, pay all of his back taxes to his home country, learn English and then wait ten years to become a citizen some would call that amnesty. Others would call this justice. And someone else may call it harsh. Amnesty is a word designed to invoke an anger emotion in some people. It should be taken out of the plank.
The platform plank as adopted...
We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, to illegal immigrants. Etc.
It is strong enough just to say...
We oppose illegal immigration and any law seeking to provide legal status to those who entered our country illegally or who have abused their visa privileges.
I would also remove the opposition to a guest worker program because people usually stop reading at that point.
Getting There
I knew that both conventions were in the same location and that the Race for the Cure was also in the same general area, so I took UTA. Front running was not running early enough. I did not wake up early enough to get the bus I had planned, so I woke up my 16-year old son and met the bus in Centerville.
I met as many candidates people as I could before finding a seat for the convention. I did have a run in some one of Mike Lee's supporters before the convention. I told him that I was voting for Cherilyn and then he asked me who my second choice is. I told him I was leaning toward Bridgewater. We then got into a debate about corporate business incentives. The person cut of the conversation when I told him that Ogden may have to pony up to keep my job in the city. The best way to cut off a libertarian is to explain the long-term consequences of their views.
Beginning of the Convetnion
Kudos to the VFW for the flag ceremony. It was well done. They should have Veterans groups perform more public flag ceremonies. I believe that there are few that understand the sacrifice that people make for our freedoms like war veterans. They are our ultimate survivors.
The Senate Race...
The senate race was very interesting. Tim Bridgewater was the first candidate to speak. He brought energy into the room that none of the other candidates were able to match. As articulate as Bennett, Lee and Eagar were, they just could not come close. That is why he nearly came out of the convention as the party's nominee. He was able to win over the majority of delegates who earlier voted for Eagar and Bennett in the earlier rounds...which included me. He won my support for the primary.
Back to Bridgewater and Lee, here are the results from round 2:
- Businessman Tim Bridgewater -- 37%
- Attorney Mike Lee -- 36%
- Sen. Robert Bennett -- 27%
Mike Lee is the other finalist. Has anyone else noticed that Mike Lee talks about how much he loves the constitution, but has at least four amendments in his platform? He supports the Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, the repeal of the 17th amendment (Direct Election of Senators) and an amendment ending birthright citizenship. Only Mike Lee's supporters, the ones that were trained by Club For Growth at their thinly vieled meetings were enthused by Lee's speech. He does not quite have the right demeanor. I predict that Bridgewater will be the one to replace Bennett in DC.
The Other Races.
I voted for Van Oaks for governor, because he spoke about going beyond being the best managed state in the US. Herbert seems to be content with the status quo. Van Oaks got 25% of the vote.
My congressman, Rob Bishop was being challenged by GOP malcontent Mike Ridgeway, who most delegates are not taking seriously any longer.
The second district race was fun. Morgan Philpot avoided a primary against Neil Walter. But the young Mr Walter impressed me. You are going to see him again in Utah Politics. His people impressed me, too. He is well spoken and optimistic.
Resolutions
I will only comment about the immigration plank in the platform. I simply do not like the term "amnesty." It means different things to different people. I like the idea of requiring the federal government to protect our borders and I like the support of the rule of law. Let's say that you find an undocumented immigrant who is is law abiding, and offer a path to citizenship which requires the person to pay a large fine, back income taxes with interest, report to his nearest consulate, pay all of his back taxes to his home country, learn English and then wait ten years to become a citizen some would call that amnesty. Others would call this justice. And someone else may call it harsh. Amnesty is a word designed to invoke an anger emotion in some people. It should be taken out of the plank.
The platform plank as adopted...
We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, to illegal immigrants. Etc.
It is strong enough just to say...
We oppose illegal immigration and any law seeking to provide legal status to those who entered our country illegally or who have abused their visa privileges.
I would also remove the opposition to a guest worker program because people usually stop reading at that point.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
As the convention looms.
Once again I approach the convention sure that there will be some surprises, as usual. The convention next Saturday will have the eyes of the nation upon it, as one of the more interesting inter-party battles looms. Bob Bennett is in the political battle of his life. I It is a battle that I believe he will loose. I intend to hold him accountable, not for TARP, but for the inaction that made it necessary. We must remember that it was the GOP that help both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006 and the white house from 2001 to 2009. It may be true that the table was set for TARP long before this, but the GOP controlled congress neglected to act when storm clouds were on the horizon.
I will also not be voting for Mike Lee. I find his philosophy too close to Ron Paul. These two men belong on the Libertarian Party, not the GOP. Ditto for Merrill Cook.
Cherilyn Eagar will be my first choice and Tim Bridgewater will be my second. Eagar talks a lot like a talk-show conservative, but will gain a lot of attention the first time she walks on the Senate floor. She is like Palin with a brain.
Tim Bridgewater is more of a good 'ol Utah County GOP guy. Which means that some of his attitudes and policies won't fly north of Sandy. That is why his is my second choice and not my first. Which brings me to my next topic, and the main thing that I disagree with Bridgewater about...
When it comes to immigration, let me put it like this. When Jennifer and I moved to Alaska, we did not yet have any children. So we drove. As I-15 became Canada-2, something happened when I crossed the border. In Sweetgrass, Montana we were Citizens with all of the rights and protections that the US Government could grant us. I was also, at the time, a US Air Force Enlistee, and had to be on extra good behavior over the next three days because something happened when I crossed the border. I was not longer a Citizen, I became a guest of the Dominion of Canada and the British Crown. I surrendered the protection of the US government, as was at the Mercy of the Canadian Government as long as I was on Canada's soil. If I broke the law while in Canada, I was subject to Canadian laws. I had to behave like a good guest, because that is what I was, a guest. When I crossed the border into Alaska, all of the protections of being a US Citizen were returned to me.
People who are not citizens, whether or not they have the proper documentation, are guests of the US Government. If they behave like good guests, we will not ask for papers. That is the way that it should be. Until Congress, and it is the responsibility of Congress to secure our borders, undocumented aliens will be among us. I think that we should be good neighbors to them.
I will also not be voting for Mike Lee. I find his philosophy too close to Ron Paul. These two men belong on the Libertarian Party, not the GOP. Ditto for Merrill Cook.
Cherilyn Eagar will be my first choice and Tim Bridgewater will be my second. Eagar talks a lot like a talk-show conservative, but will gain a lot of attention the first time she walks on the Senate floor. She is like Palin with a brain.
Tim Bridgewater is more of a good 'ol Utah County GOP guy. Which means that some of his attitudes and policies won't fly north of Sandy. That is why his is my second choice and not my first. Which brings me to my next topic, and the main thing that I disagree with Bridgewater about...
When it comes to immigration, let me put it like this. When Jennifer and I moved to Alaska, we did not yet have any children. So we drove. As I-15 became Canada-2, something happened when I crossed the border. In Sweetgrass, Montana we were Citizens with all of the rights and protections that the US Government could grant us. I was also, at the time, a US Air Force Enlistee, and had to be on extra good behavior over the next three days because something happened when I crossed the border. I was not longer a Citizen, I became a guest of the Dominion of Canada and the British Crown. I surrendered the protection of the US government, as was at the Mercy of the Canadian Government as long as I was on Canada's soil. If I broke the law while in Canada, I was subject to Canadian laws. I had to behave like a good guest, because that is what I was, a guest. When I crossed the border into Alaska, all of the protections of being a US Citizen were returned to me.
People who are not citizens, whether or not they have the proper documentation, are guests of the US Government. If they behave like good guests, we will not ask for papers. That is the way that it should be. Until Congress, and it is the responsibility of Congress to secure our borders, undocumented aliens will be among us. I think that we should be good neighbors to them.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
2012 Presidentail Candidates Power Rankings -- April
This works for sports, let's see how this works in politics.
GOP.
1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Bobby Jindahl
4. Sarah Palin
5. Newt Gengrich
6. Mike Huckabee
7. Rick Perry
8. John Boehner
9. Jon Huntsman
10. David Patreus
GOP.
1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Bobby Jindahl
4. Sarah Palin
5. Newt Gengrich
6. Mike Huckabee
7. Rick Perry
8. John Boehner
9. Jon Huntsman
10. David Patreus
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
More Obamacare Consequences.
This Pennsylvania hospital may have been considering this step before Obamacare became the law of the land. If you smoke, here is another reason to quit now.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Will my company drop my health insurance thanks to Obamacare?
Let's answer this question by asking another: Why does my company offer health insurance benefits in the first place?
-To compete for quality employees.
-To reduce costs:
-Reduced Absenteeism
-Reduced Turnover
-To build community goodwill
-To network with potential customers, suppliers, new business partners and even future employees
-To improve morale and productivity
Like with other business activities, it has to be a money maker. A company does not offer a health plan just to be nice. It makes cents, and dollars to have a health plan. Until now.
Therefore, if companies determine that the cost of Obamacare outweighs the benefits and if companies also determine that there are narrower holes in the safety net, that employees will have a place to land, they will drop drop this benefit. If companies like AT&T, Caterpillar and other American business giants drop their health plan due to the new expense, others will follow. Your company-offered benefits may quickly become a thing of the past.
How do we cope? One of the results is that some people, such as computer people, that have not traditionally been part of a union, may unionize to keep their benefits. The young and healthy may find that a private plan will be cheaper and have a broader benefit than their company plan. These will be the least affected. Many will not be so fortunate. Those that will likely suffer the most are those that are not insurable today.
Obamacare says that you can not be denied coverage, but some people will have to pay through the nose to get health insurance without their company plan. If you have a cancer survivor, or a diabetic or a schizophrenic in your household, you will be able to find a private plan, but you will have to pay a ton of money to get it. Insurance companies are not going to give this away, no matter what Aunt Nancy has said. They will be able to justify a higher price for taking on a higher risk. The courts will be on their side. Think SR-22 style insurance. (That is the auto insurance plan for people who have had a DUI on their record.) People like this will have little choice but to buy from a government co-op. Then you have to hope to find a doctor in your community that will accept your co-op.
-To compete for quality employees.
-To reduce costs:
-Reduced Absenteeism
-Reduced Turnover
-To build community goodwill
-To network with potential customers, suppliers, new business partners and even future employees
-To improve morale and productivity
Like with other business activities, it has to be a money maker. A company does not offer a health plan just to be nice. It makes cents, and dollars to have a health plan. Until now.
Therefore, if companies determine that the cost of Obamacare outweighs the benefits and if companies also determine that there are narrower holes in the safety net, that employees will have a place to land, they will drop drop this benefit. If companies like AT&T, Caterpillar and other American business giants drop their health plan due to the new expense, others will follow. Your company-offered benefits may quickly become a thing of the past.
How do we cope? One of the results is that some people, such as computer people, that have not traditionally been part of a union, may unionize to keep their benefits. The young and healthy may find that a private plan will be cheaper and have a broader benefit than their company plan. These will be the least affected. Many will not be so fortunate. Those that will likely suffer the most are those that are not insurable today.
Obamacare says that you can not be denied coverage, but some people will have to pay through the nose to get health insurance without their company plan. If you have a cancer survivor, or a diabetic or a schizophrenic in your household, you will be able to find a private plan, but you will have to pay a ton of money to get it. Insurance companies are not going to give this away, no matter what Aunt Nancy has said. They will be able to justify a higher price for taking on a higher risk. The courts will be on their side. Think SR-22 style insurance. (That is the auto insurance plan for people who have had a DUI on their record.) People like this will have little choice but to buy from a government co-op. Then you have to hope to find a doctor in your community that will accept your co-op.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
What happens when business expenses increase--Updated.
The cost of doing business is increasing, and a mandate from the Federal Government will not help. When some costs rise, a business has to find a way to make up the money somewhere else. There are only five choices:
1. Increase revenue through improved sales.
2. Increase revenue through price increases.
3. Increase revenue through improved marketing practices.
4. Cutting costs through improved efficiency.
5. Cutting costs by reducing obligations. This includes a reduction the work-force.
6. Improved services or taking other steps to justify a higher price.
7. Stop offering the costly service.
There is only so much that can be gained through either of these options. It makes for some tough choices.
Finally, when a company can not gain any additional revenue or balance their costs, they are left with choices.
1. Pass the expense on to the customers in the form of higher prices? Doesn't everyone do it? Truth is, no. The amount that you can charge for a good or service is really governed by the laws of supply and demand. Businesses that always respond to higher costs with increased prices often find themselves in chapter 11. You have to play a game of "chicken" with your competition and customers. Gasoline, it seems, almost seems very resistant to sharp price increases. But if I ran a grocery store, while not selling at a loss, I would be very careful about passing prices on to customers. Who knows if you will see them back.
2. Absorb the cost. This will reduce profits or increase the red ink. But if an expense in temporary, this may be a better option. It will help ensure loyalty from customers and employees. In the long term, this is not really an option. Operating at a loss is a recipe for failure.
3. Terminate obligations. This could include lay offs. At first, a company will get rid of the least productive employees. Later, however, good employees will have to be let go. Companies are hesitant to lay off employees. They will do things like scale back on extras first.
4. If the loss becomes too much to absorb, one option for a business is to discontinue offering the product. For example, there is a grocery chain here in Utah that no longer offers beer and other alcoholic beverages because it was too expensive. More product was going out the back door than out the front and many of their most loyal customers were never purchased beer, wine or other beverages anyhow.
1. Increase revenue through improved sales.
2. Increase revenue through price increases.
3. Increase revenue through improved marketing practices.
4. Cutting costs through improved efficiency.
5. Cutting costs by reducing obligations. This includes a reduction the work-force.
6. Improved services or taking other steps to justify a higher price.
7. Stop offering the costly service.
There is only so much that can be gained through either of these options. It makes for some tough choices.
Finally, when a company can not gain any additional revenue or balance their costs, they are left with choices.
1. Pass the expense on to the customers in the form of higher prices? Doesn't everyone do it? Truth is, no. The amount that you can charge for a good or service is really governed by the laws of supply and demand. Businesses that always respond to higher costs with increased prices often find themselves in chapter 11. You have to play a game of "chicken" with your competition and customers. Gasoline, it seems, almost seems very resistant to sharp price increases. But if I ran a grocery store, while not selling at a loss, I would be very careful about passing prices on to customers. Who knows if you will see them back.
2. Absorb the cost. This will reduce profits or increase the red ink. But if an expense in temporary, this may be a better option. It will help ensure loyalty from customers and employees. In the long term, this is not really an option. Operating at a loss is a recipe for failure.
3. Terminate obligations. This could include lay offs. At first, a company will get rid of the least productive employees. Later, however, good employees will have to be let go. Companies are hesitant to lay off employees. They will do things like scale back on extras first.
4. If the loss becomes too much to absorb, one option for a business is to discontinue offering the product. For example, there is a grocery chain here in Utah that no longer offers beer and other alcoholic beverages because it was too expensive. More product was going out the back door than out the front and many of their most loyal customers were never purchased beer, wine or other beverages anyhow.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
What would really happen if the US declared bankruptcy
Like the rest of us, the US Government is not immune from bankruptcy. The Federal Government could avoid bankruptcy through inflation, even though bankruptcy would be more costly at the polls than inflation, it would resolve little. Many in Congress prefer hyper inflation to bankruptcy. Hyper inflation is 100% inflation or higher. That means that the price level doubles annually. And it is not a real solution if the level of spending in Congress continues. Not to mention how the electorate would feel about it.
Eventually, however, even members of Congress will realize that we can not go on and on with a deficit forever. And there may be a point where it will become obvious that it is at the breaking point and can not continue. The troubling fact is, Congress can avoid bankruptcy at any time. They have the power of the purse, and can cut spending to the bone any time they can all agree to do so. Budgetary items are the only items that can avoid the cloture vote in the senate, meaning no filibusterer...a simple majority vote in both houses will take care of it.
But if the congress can't do that, there is chapter 11 or something similar to it. This is not chapter 7, where debts are forgiven. It is not chapter 13, where a time table is agreed upon. It has to be like a business reorganization, because this is the closest legal precedent we have. We do not have a provision in the constitution for the bankruptcy of the US Government. I suspect that if it is bad enough for bankruptcy, that the President can make the formal declaration without a vote from Congress. The Supreme Court would need to back him or her up. This is basically taking the power of the purse away from the Congress and putting it in the hands of the courts until the books are brought back in line and Americas creditors are satisfied. This would be a constitutional crisis, expect the legality of it all to be contested in courts. If these proceedings are tied up in courts long enough, the plan will fail and the Federal Government with it.
If it succeeds, the government continues. The government as we know it today may be unrecognizable afterwords. If it fails, the government fails. But only the Federal Government. The governments of the 50 states would individually continue. Here is how that process is likely to take place:
How it works:
1. A trustee would need to be appointed. The judge over the case would be the chief justice of the United States. The trustee would likely be either a former president or a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court. If this were to happen today, it would likely be Sandra Day O'Connor.
2. Constitutionally, Congress has the power of the purse and should make any financial decisions. Because Congress would be afraid of the political consequences of the tough choices made, they would facilitate a committee to take care of the bankruptcy and vote on their findings. The Congress would have to agree on their findings. The committee would make some choices that would be hard on the Democrats, and some choices that would be hard for the Republicans. The committee would have to be made up of people that could set aside their partisanship and get something accomplished quickly--within 120 days by law. Therefore, it could not include any who are currently sittings in elected positions. I would appoint retired federal and state judges with experience in bankruptcy cases.
3. They work it out in four phases. First, you have to list the assets and liabilities. Then you have to list income and expenditures. Third you list contracts and leases. Fourth, you create a statement of financial affairs.
4. In short writing, a plan will be developed to bring the Federal Government's financial affairs in order. This is where a lot of lobbying will take place and why the members of the trustee's committee will need to be untouchable. Obviously some contracts and obligations will be canceled, some assets sold, and some commitments curtailed. (This is over-simplified.)
5. There needs to be a time table to emerge from bankruptcy and milestones to track progress.
6. The bankruptcy would fail if the Congress votes against it, the trustee rejects it, the president vetoes it or any milestones are missed or the government debt continues to grow afterwords.
Likely Outcome of the Proceedings:
Now for the consequences for the government, some things that may have to happen to bring our federal house in order. Many of these steps can be taken now to avoid bankruptcy.
1. Many government bureaucracies would need to be eliminated or downsized. There are a lot of functions that are duplicated within the Federal Government by multiple agencies. These can be combined or consolidated. There are also functions that are duplicated by various state agencies. Due to the 10th amendment, these functions can be eliminated completely at the federal level. Only those given to the government explicit by the Constitution would be eliminated at the state level. The departments of Education, of Health and Human Services and others could disband. Many federal employees will be laid off. Federal employee retirement programs would be restructured.
2. Many federal court cases would be dismissed or referred back to state courts. This could include criminal cases where state laws were also violated. All civil lawsuits could be referred back to the states. The scope of a "Federal Question" would be reduced.
3. At best, the retirement age would be raised to 75 effective for all people under the age of 75. At worst, all able bodied people would be asked to return to the work force and social security payments would be eliminated for every person who can not prove that they are not able to work. The population dependent on the government dole would need to be reduced significantly.
4. Taxes would increase. Most likely to happen: many tax loopholes could be closed. The EITC would likely disappear as well. But the top marginal rate could increase, or another top bracket would be added. But taxes would need to remain at a realistic level.
5. Closed military bases would be sold. Many stationed overseas would return home. Commitments to foreign bases and governments could be curtailed. There would have to be some consolidation of the military, but it would have to be done in a way that would not compromise our defenses. There may even be layoffs of active duty soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines...meaning people being moved from active duty to what is called the "ready" reserve before their commitments are complete. Many military vehicles, ships and planes would either be scrapped and salvaged or "civilianized" and sold.
6. Some national monuments and recreation areas and even some national parks would be privatized. Indian reservations would be decommissioned. Much land now owned by the Federal Government would be sold. This would likely be the most controversial part of the plan as environmentalism has become so powerful in the US.
7. Some federal debts, where the government is the creditor, could be accelerated.
8. The size of the House of Representatives could be reduced. The pay of many elected officials would be reduced. This would include the pay of the President, the Vice President, the federal courts and Congress. Congressional sessions would be reduced. Congressional travel would be reduced.
9. Many farm subsidies would be canceled.
10. Medicare goes away. Doctors would have to find a way to work with patients that have been covered by Medicare, refuse to accept these patients or go out of business. Same with Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal health care programs.
Negative consequences on society as a whole:
1. High unemployment with the limitation of unemployment benefits.
2. Deflation, including real estate prices. This is not usually a good thing. It usually accelerates the pace of lay offs in business as companies will take advantage of the opportunity to replace higher paid people with those who can provide the same quality of work for a lower wage. No one is happy about having to work for less money, even if it means your pay check will go farther. The Federal Minimum wage may even need to be decreased.
3. Higher crime due to reduced law enforcement activities and more idleness among the population.
4. Increased terrorism both from foreign enemies and domestic.
5. Higher turnover in elected offices. Currently there is about a 10% turnover rate in Congress in each election. (3 new senators and 50 new congressmen/congresswomen each election.) This could increase significantly.
6. Lower quality of infrastructure, including the collapse of many bridges, dams and other capitol projects managed by the Federal Government. Highway projects would be delayed or canceled.
7. Lower environmental quality.
8. Many more people falling through societal safety nets. This means more deaths due to lack of access to health care facilities, more accidents in the workplace, more suicides, more starvation, more homelessness etc. These problems would be especially severe among the elderly. There will be more strain on faith based charities and other private charities.
9. Imported items will be more expensive as the US dollar will be weak. Energy prices would increase.
10. Recovery from natural disasters will be slow. What now takes days now will take months. Some communities heavily damaged by natural disasters would become ghost towns.
11. Many pubic schools will close. This will include universities.
12. Many businesses will close.
13. Many homes will fall into foreclosure. So will many commercial properties.
14. The "entitled" could become frustrated, disenfranchised and disaffected.
15. Some state governments would be overwhelmed with the loss of federal funds.
16. If the US were involved in a war, the draft would return.
17. More corporate control of American Farmland. Many farms will fail. Many farmers will have to find lower-cost methods of farming to survive.
What would happen if the bankruptcy of the United States fails and the government of the United States were to fall? Each of the 50 states would become 50 independent countries. Some have the resources to survive very well as independent republics, like Texas. Others will quickly become failed states. If the US survives and emerges from bankruptcy, the country could be better off. The eventual positive consequences will include:
1. Reduced federal spending that could eventually lead to lower taxes. But not until the National Debt is completely retired.
2. A reduced "entitled" population.
3. The balance of power would be shifted to state governments and courts.
4. The end of congressional earmarks.
5. A smaller federal government. Larger state governments.
6. Less land owned by the federal government means a higher tax base for local governments.
7. People would find a way to survive without big brother helping them every step of the way.
8. The American manufacturing base would be rebuilt.
9. Lower interest rates as the largest borrower in the United States pays off her debt.
10. Facilitating the creation of a federal rainy day fund to take care of the cleanup from natural disasters.
11. Energy independence.
12. More entrepreneurship among the populace.
Now you decide, is this worth the panic that Glen Beck and others are preaching? Yes, it is time to take prudent steps to prepare, but not time to panic. It's not going to be easy to take these steps, especially if you have parents in their 70s or older, but it will not be complete anarchy either. Remember, if the Federal Government fails, many of us have a strong state government as a backup. Many businesses survive bankruptcy and the US Government can as well. Bankruptcy would not mean the end of, or the collapse of, the Federal Government, but a way to avoid it.
How can we prepare?
1. Get out of debt.
2. Store food.
3. Be a good employee.
4. Be active in politics and choose good, prudent representatives even if it means crossing party lines. Be involved in state and local politics as well. Strong state governments will save us from anarchy if the Federal Government fails.
5. Hug your kids daily.
6. Save money.
7. Plant a garden.
8. Take care of your health.
9. Watch over aging parents.
Eventually, however, even members of Congress will realize that we can not go on and on with a deficit forever. And there may be a point where it will become obvious that it is at the breaking point and can not continue. The troubling fact is, Congress can avoid bankruptcy at any time. They have the power of the purse, and can cut spending to the bone any time they can all agree to do so. Budgetary items are the only items that can avoid the cloture vote in the senate, meaning no filibusterer...a simple majority vote in both houses will take care of it.
But if the congress can't do that, there is chapter 11 or something similar to it. This is not chapter 7, where debts are forgiven. It is not chapter 13, where a time table is agreed upon. It has to be like a business reorganization, because this is the closest legal precedent we have. We do not have a provision in the constitution for the bankruptcy of the US Government. I suspect that if it is bad enough for bankruptcy, that the President can make the formal declaration without a vote from Congress. The Supreme Court would need to back him or her up. This is basically taking the power of the purse away from the Congress and putting it in the hands of the courts until the books are brought back in line and Americas creditors are satisfied. This would be a constitutional crisis, expect the legality of it all to be contested in courts. If these proceedings are tied up in courts long enough, the plan will fail and the Federal Government with it.
If it succeeds, the government continues. The government as we know it today may be unrecognizable afterwords. If it fails, the government fails. But only the Federal Government. The governments of the 50 states would individually continue. Here is how that process is likely to take place:
How it works:
1. A trustee would need to be appointed. The judge over the case would be the chief justice of the United States. The trustee would likely be either a former president or a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court. If this were to happen today, it would likely be Sandra Day O'Connor.
2. Constitutionally, Congress has the power of the purse and should make any financial decisions. Because Congress would be afraid of the political consequences of the tough choices made, they would facilitate a committee to take care of the bankruptcy and vote on their findings. The Congress would have to agree on their findings. The committee would make some choices that would be hard on the Democrats, and some choices that would be hard for the Republicans. The committee would have to be made up of people that could set aside their partisanship and get something accomplished quickly--within 120 days by law. Therefore, it could not include any who are currently sittings in elected positions. I would appoint retired federal and state judges with experience in bankruptcy cases.
3. They work it out in four phases. First, you have to list the assets and liabilities. Then you have to list income and expenditures. Third you list contracts and leases. Fourth, you create a statement of financial affairs.
4. In short writing, a plan will be developed to bring the Federal Government's financial affairs in order. This is where a lot of lobbying will take place and why the members of the trustee's committee will need to be untouchable. Obviously some contracts and obligations will be canceled, some assets sold, and some commitments curtailed. (This is over-simplified.)
5. There needs to be a time table to emerge from bankruptcy and milestones to track progress.
6. The bankruptcy would fail if the Congress votes against it, the trustee rejects it, the president vetoes it or any milestones are missed or the government debt continues to grow afterwords.
Likely Outcome of the Proceedings:
Now for the consequences for the government, some things that may have to happen to bring our federal house in order. Many of these steps can be taken now to avoid bankruptcy.
1. Many government bureaucracies would need to be eliminated or downsized. There are a lot of functions that are duplicated within the Federal Government by multiple agencies. These can be combined or consolidated. There are also functions that are duplicated by various state agencies. Due to the 10th amendment, these functions can be eliminated completely at the federal level. Only those given to the government explicit by the Constitution would be eliminated at the state level. The departments of Education, of Health and Human Services and others could disband. Many federal employees will be laid off. Federal employee retirement programs would be restructured.
2. Many federal court cases would be dismissed or referred back to state courts. This could include criminal cases where state laws were also violated. All civil lawsuits could be referred back to the states. The scope of a "Federal Question" would be reduced.
3. At best, the retirement age would be raised to 75 effective for all people under the age of 75. At worst, all able bodied people would be asked to return to the work force and social security payments would be eliminated for every person who can not prove that they are not able to work. The population dependent on the government dole would need to be reduced significantly.
4. Taxes would increase. Most likely to happen: many tax loopholes could be closed. The EITC would likely disappear as well. But the top marginal rate could increase, or another top bracket would be added. But taxes would need to remain at a realistic level.
5. Closed military bases would be sold. Many stationed overseas would return home. Commitments to foreign bases and governments could be curtailed. There would have to be some consolidation of the military, but it would have to be done in a way that would not compromise our defenses. There may even be layoffs of active duty soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines...meaning people being moved from active duty to what is called the "ready" reserve before their commitments are complete. Many military vehicles, ships and planes would either be scrapped and salvaged or "civilianized" and sold.
6. Some national monuments and recreation areas and even some national parks would be privatized. Indian reservations would be decommissioned. Much land now owned by the Federal Government would be sold. This would likely be the most controversial part of the plan as environmentalism has become so powerful in the US.
7. Some federal debts, where the government is the creditor, could be accelerated.
8. The size of the House of Representatives could be reduced. The pay of many elected officials would be reduced. This would include the pay of the President, the Vice President, the federal courts and Congress. Congressional sessions would be reduced. Congressional travel would be reduced.
9. Many farm subsidies would be canceled.
10. Medicare goes away. Doctors would have to find a way to work with patients that have been covered by Medicare, refuse to accept these patients or go out of business. Same with Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal health care programs.
Negative consequences on society as a whole:
1. High unemployment with the limitation of unemployment benefits.
2. Deflation, including real estate prices. This is not usually a good thing. It usually accelerates the pace of lay offs in business as companies will take advantage of the opportunity to replace higher paid people with those who can provide the same quality of work for a lower wage. No one is happy about having to work for less money, even if it means your pay check will go farther. The Federal Minimum wage may even need to be decreased.
3. Higher crime due to reduced law enforcement activities and more idleness among the population.
4. Increased terrorism both from foreign enemies and domestic.
5. Higher turnover in elected offices. Currently there is about a 10% turnover rate in Congress in each election. (3 new senators and 50 new congressmen/congresswomen each election.) This could increase significantly.
6. Lower quality of infrastructure, including the collapse of many bridges, dams and other capitol projects managed by the Federal Government. Highway projects would be delayed or canceled.
7. Lower environmental quality.
8. Many more people falling through societal safety nets. This means more deaths due to lack of access to health care facilities, more accidents in the workplace, more suicides, more starvation, more homelessness etc. These problems would be especially severe among the elderly. There will be more strain on faith based charities and other private charities.
9. Imported items will be more expensive as the US dollar will be weak. Energy prices would increase.
10. Recovery from natural disasters will be slow. What now takes days now will take months. Some communities heavily damaged by natural disasters would become ghost towns.
11. Many pubic schools will close. This will include universities.
12. Many businesses will close.
13. Many homes will fall into foreclosure. So will many commercial properties.
14. The "entitled" could become frustrated, disenfranchised and disaffected.
15. Some state governments would be overwhelmed with the loss of federal funds.
16. If the US were involved in a war, the draft would return.
17. More corporate control of American Farmland. Many farms will fail. Many farmers will have to find lower-cost methods of farming to survive.
What would happen if the bankruptcy of the United States fails and the government of the United States were to fall? Each of the 50 states would become 50 independent countries. Some have the resources to survive very well as independent republics, like Texas. Others will quickly become failed states. If the US survives and emerges from bankruptcy, the country could be better off. The eventual positive consequences will include:
1. Reduced federal spending that could eventually lead to lower taxes. But not until the National Debt is completely retired.
2. A reduced "entitled" population.
3. The balance of power would be shifted to state governments and courts.
4. The end of congressional earmarks.
5. A smaller federal government. Larger state governments.
6. Less land owned by the federal government means a higher tax base for local governments.
7. People would find a way to survive without big brother helping them every step of the way.
8. The American manufacturing base would be rebuilt.
9. Lower interest rates as the largest borrower in the United States pays off her debt.
10. Facilitating the creation of a federal rainy day fund to take care of the cleanup from natural disasters.
11. Energy independence.
12. More entrepreneurship among the populace.
Now you decide, is this worth the panic that Glen Beck and others are preaching? Yes, it is time to take prudent steps to prepare, but not time to panic. It's not going to be easy to take these steps, especially if you have parents in their 70s or older, but it will not be complete anarchy either. Remember, if the Federal Government fails, many of us have a strong state government as a backup. Many businesses survive bankruptcy and the US Government can as well. Bankruptcy would not mean the end of, or the collapse of, the Federal Government, but a way to avoid it.
How can we prepare?
1. Get out of debt.
2. Store food.
3. Be a good employee.
4. Be active in politics and choose good, prudent representatives even if it means crossing party lines. Be involved in state and local politics as well. Strong state governments will save us from anarchy if the Federal Government fails.
5. Hug your kids daily.
6. Save money.
7. Plant a garden.
8. Take care of your health.
9. Watch over aging parents.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Letter to Nancy Pelosi
I know what you meant when you said, "vote for the bill and then you will be able to see what is in it away from the fog of Washington." Even if the pundits have been all over this statement. But let's be honest, it is much different than a car dealer saying, "take this car home, believe me it will look much better in your driveway than it does in this lot." Would you buy the car?
Let's be honest about one aspect of this health care bill. It is really nothing more than a new entitlement. It will become another third rail of politics. An entitlement program that can not be repealed. Even if the means to pay for it are unsustainable. If this bill survives to where people experience the benefits, then it will be political suicide for anyone who attempts to repeal it.
Just like buying a used car, it is buyer beware. It could be a cherry, or it could be a lemon. We know when we are getting a snow job, and taxpayers and voters are smarter than that.
Let's be honest about one aspect of this health care bill. It is really nothing more than a new entitlement. It will become another third rail of politics. An entitlement program that can not be repealed. Even if the means to pay for it are unsustainable. If this bill survives to where people experience the benefits, then it will be political suicide for anyone who attempts to repeal it.
Just like buying a used car, it is buyer beware. It could be a cherry, or it could be a lemon. We know when we are getting a snow job, and taxpayers and voters are smarter than that.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Astroturf Reboot.
First of all, I want to reiterate my support for a Tobacco Tax increase in Utah. I support the moderate increase that has passed the legislature. I know that a lot of people that I pal around with, politically would disagree. They see the tax as a tax on the minority to serve the majority. But I do not see it that way. People do not have to use tobacco. Ideally, we should not collect one thin dime from tobacco taxes. We can make the tobacco tax go away tomorrow, if we wish. This is a voluntary tax. So if you choose to smoke, the taxpayers of Utah thank you. Please quit now.
Now, if you see a Bob Bennett add on this blog, please understand that this is a Google Ads mistake. I do not make enough money from ads on this blog to care either way. And I am embarrassed to admit that I do not know how to remove it. I have chosen who I support for the Senate Campaign. Keep reading.
Otherwise, I have been to a couple of 9/12 meetings. I wish that I could join, but beginning a doctorate later this spring will limit the time that I can physically contribute to political causes. I will continue to serve, if elected, as a precinct chair. This means that I will be stumping for GOP candidates this fall as my schedule permits. I want to see this through until Orrin Hatch either retires or is defeated. I will blog when I can.
In the past few months, however, I have changed my mind on a few issues. I am going to hold off on calling for constitutional amendments, for now. I have been talking and reading a lot about topics for a long time, and I think that I like the constitution the way that it is now. I only have one amendment in mind that I think is still needed.
I no longer think that we need a balanced budget amendment. We need a disciplined Congress. We need to elect representatives that will work to balance the budget, even in hard times. We all need to avoid debt, but just like there are times for you and me when debt is necessary, there are also times when public debt in necessary. But those times are rare.
I will currently back off on the Marriage Amendment. We have a 120+ year precedent in this country that says that one man and one woman make a marriage, and we do not need to amend the constitution to protect marriage. That was decided by the Supreme Court in 1888. We do not need a constitutional amendment when we have Stare Decisis. We need to respect and abide by all of our case law. We can not pick and choose. The decision to support Edmunds/Tucker is as valid as Roe v. Wade.
Right now, I am backing off of a term limits amendment. We should not need it. It seems like it takes less than one term for certain people to become corrupted in Washington. If they are touchable, then it will happen quickly. If there is no other way to ensure an honest congress, then let's have term limits. I think that we need to better use the party systems, especially here in Utah, to hold our representatives accountable. We have given our congress a pass, especially here in Utah, based upon their party.
The amendment that I am still stumping for is the Line-Item Veto Amendment. This seems to be the only way to target earmarks. However, the President will likely allow certain earmarks to pass, the ones that benefit certain allies, while embarrassing enemies. Therefore, for earmarks it would have to be an all-or-nothing proposition to keep the proper balance between the executive and legislative branches.
My solution for the abortion problem: Require any woman who wants an abortion to notify the father. Require the father to pay for at least half of the procedure. Hold the father partially liable for any complications. The negative effects of pregnancy fall far to much upon the mother. If men share more of the consequences, the need for abortion would decline.
Now, I do not agree with everything Glen Beck says, he is a little too alarmist. Rush Limbaugh is not right as much as he says he is. I do not like it when Sean Hannity talks or shouts over someone he disagrees with. But it is entertaining.
There are going to be negative consequences for the actions of Congress and the President in the last four years, but we still have time to avoid them. This election is critical. Here in Utah, we have a chance to send a message that will reverberate to the entire nation by sending Bob Bennett home.
I support groups that want to return our government closer to the constitutional republic that we are. The word Republican means that we are in support of our republic. In support of Freedom. We are moving far too close to total government and need to step back. People are the solution to our problems, not government. I will take anyone I agree with 80% of the time. Therefore, I announce my support of Cherilyn Eager for Senate in Utah. She's not perfect, but as good as we are going to get.
Now, if you see a Bob Bennett add on this blog, please understand that this is a Google Ads mistake. I do not make enough money from ads on this blog to care either way. And I am embarrassed to admit that I do not know how to remove it. I have chosen who I support for the Senate Campaign. Keep reading.
Otherwise, I have been to a couple of 9/12 meetings. I wish that I could join, but beginning a doctorate later this spring will limit the time that I can physically contribute to political causes. I will continue to serve, if elected, as a precinct chair. This means that I will be stumping for GOP candidates this fall as my schedule permits. I want to see this through until Orrin Hatch either retires or is defeated. I will blog when I can.
In the past few months, however, I have changed my mind on a few issues. I am going to hold off on calling for constitutional amendments, for now. I have been talking and reading a lot about topics for a long time, and I think that I like the constitution the way that it is now. I only have one amendment in mind that I think is still needed.
I no longer think that we need a balanced budget amendment. We need a disciplined Congress. We need to elect representatives that will work to balance the budget, even in hard times. We all need to avoid debt, but just like there are times for you and me when debt is necessary, there are also times when public debt in necessary. But those times are rare.
I will currently back off on the Marriage Amendment. We have a 120+ year precedent in this country that says that one man and one woman make a marriage, and we do not need to amend the constitution to protect marriage. That was decided by the Supreme Court in 1888. We do not need a constitutional amendment when we have Stare Decisis. We need to respect and abide by all of our case law. We can not pick and choose. The decision to support Edmunds/Tucker is as valid as Roe v. Wade.
Right now, I am backing off of a term limits amendment. We should not need it. It seems like it takes less than one term for certain people to become corrupted in Washington. If they are touchable, then it will happen quickly. If there is no other way to ensure an honest congress, then let's have term limits. I think that we need to better use the party systems, especially here in Utah, to hold our representatives accountable. We have given our congress a pass, especially here in Utah, based upon their party.
The amendment that I am still stumping for is the Line-Item Veto Amendment. This seems to be the only way to target earmarks. However, the President will likely allow certain earmarks to pass, the ones that benefit certain allies, while embarrassing enemies. Therefore, for earmarks it would have to be an all-or-nothing proposition to keep the proper balance between the executive and legislative branches.
My solution for the abortion problem: Require any woman who wants an abortion to notify the father. Require the father to pay for at least half of the procedure. Hold the father partially liable for any complications. The negative effects of pregnancy fall far to much upon the mother. If men share more of the consequences, the need for abortion would decline.
Now, I do not agree with everything Glen Beck says, he is a little too alarmist. Rush Limbaugh is not right as much as he says he is. I do not like it when Sean Hannity talks or shouts over someone he disagrees with. But it is entertaining.
There are going to be negative consequences for the actions of Congress and the President in the last four years, but we still have time to avoid them. This election is critical. Here in Utah, we have a chance to send a message that will reverberate to the entire nation by sending Bob Bennett home.
I support groups that want to return our government closer to the constitutional republic that we are. The word Republican means that we are in support of our republic. In support of Freedom. We are moving far too close to total government and need to step back. People are the solution to our problems, not government. I will take anyone I agree with 80% of the time. Therefore, I announce my support of Cherilyn Eager for Senate in Utah. She's not perfect, but as good as we are going to get.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Matheson Court Appointment
I have not blogged on this site for a while, and I thought I would check in tonight about the appointment of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the appeals court.
Scott Matheson, Jr. is the son of former governor Scott Matheson. And he is the brother of Congressman Jim Matheson. Jim is one of the so called "Blue Dog" Democrats that President Obama needs to win over to get health care reforms passed.
Scott Matheson is probably well qualified and would likely make a good appeals court judge. He may even make the Supreme Court. He is the dean of one of the better law schools in the country. You do not arise to that position without being good at both the law and politics.
The trouble is the timing. In politics, it is almost all perception. Weather or not the political payoff is real, it still looks and smells like a skunk. In this case, it may simply be that she-cat that is being chased by Pepe LePew just because of a stray paint brush. But notice how the Parisians in these cartoons react.
Sometimes in politics, the reality does not matter, it is the perception of that reality that is the problem. It might be a good idea to set the nomination aside for a while. That is until the whole health care deal dies down, one way or another.
For reference, here is a link to a Pepe LePew cartoon.
Scott Matheson, Jr. is the son of former governor Scott Matheson. And he is the brother of Congressman Jim Matheson. Jim is one of the so called "Blue Dog" Democrats that President Obama needs to win over to get health care reforms passed.
Scott Matheson is probably well qualified and would likely make a good appeals court judge. He may even make the Supreme Court. He is the dean of one of the better law schools in the country. You do not arise to that position without being good at both the law and politics.
The trouble is the timing. In politics, it is almost all perception. Weather or not the political payoff is real, it still looks and smells like a skunk. In this case, it may simply be that she-cat that is being chased by Pepe LePew just because of a stray paint brush. But notice how the Parisians in these cartoons react.
Sometimes in politics, the reality does not matter, it is the perception of that reality that is the problem. It might be a good idea to set the nomination aside for a while. That is until the whole health care deal dies down, one way or another.
For reference, here is a link to a Pepe LePew cartoon.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Sheldon Kilpack and Other Thoughts
I found Sheldon Kilpack to be one of the better representatives that I have worked with. He would usually respond to my correspondences. He accomplished much in his time in the Senate. Being that he pushed a lot of drunk driving and alcohol bills, he had no choice but to resign. He lost his credibility to govern after this incident. Hopefully he will own up to the problems that led to this incident, resolve them and have a fulfilling life. I wish him well.
Obviously, the person that succeeds Sheldon in the Senate will not have a lot of impact in this session. But will have the inside track in replacing him in this fall's election. Curt Oda, Paul Ray and Jerry Stevenson have declared and interest in replacing him. I think that either would do well enough and have already proven themselves as leaders.
The jockying will be for those who wish to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader. The chance to drive legislation will have for or five power-hungry republicans in a feeding frenzy for the next three days.
The Tobacco Tax issue will come up again this year. I repeat what I said last year. It is OK in my mind to raise the Utah State tax on tobacco as long is it is not raised high enough to encourage bootlegging. We already see many Utah residents crossing to border for lottery tickets and other types of gambling, alcohol and fireworks. It could become a money making venture. The border is 70-100 miles in each direction from Salt Lake, which means that the average car would burn at least six gallons of gas to get to the nearest border town...whether it is Wendover, Evanston or Franklin. This means that a two dollar increase in the tobacco tax would likely be a money looser for the average Salt Laker unless you buy tobacco by the case.
I do not think that raising the tax would stop people from smoking. It would encourage some to quit, but most people begin to use tobacco when they are young. How many of those kids actually get a job and pay for their habit themselves? It is usually after one moves away from home and begins a family that costs such as this become a burden. For many, that is after 15 to 20 years of use. Much of the damage to their bodies has already began at this point and some of it may be irreversable at this point.
For a national issue, I agree with those who think that a insurance mandate for health insurance is unconstitutional. I have mentioned this before. I think that is is fair that there be a consequence for those who are uninsured by choice and for those companies that refuse to provide insurance to their employees. I have previously mentioned that one thing that can be done is a change to the bankruptcy laws that would make it more difficult for those who have refused insurance to include medical bills in a bankruptcy filing. In addition, companies that do not offer group coverage to their employees could find themselves liable for expenses that would have been covered if they had.
Requiring companies to cover employees is a different matter. It is not as simple as passing a law wishing it. There are employers like Lagoon who hire mostly teenagers who have coverage with their parents. There are the college-aged kids and those a little older who do not purchase insurance because they rarely use it. It is only when children come into the picture that the value of medical insurance is realized. There are jobs that pay only comission and it would be difficult for the employer to provide anything but access to a group discount. Then there is self-employment and contracting. And there are those employers that feel that it is not their obligation to provide insurance at all. There is also not one single category of insurance, there are many. For review, here is how health insurance breaks down.
Preventative: This is for routine medical procedure that are desinged to detect conditions early or prevent disease or injury. This includes immunizations, colonoscopies and mammograms. This also includes drug and alcohol treatment and tobacco ceasation. Most plans that can be purchased at work do not provide this type of care. Employers that do find that they have lower premiums and lower costs due to absenteeism. They also loose fewer employees to long-term illness and injury because conditions are caught early when they are relatively simple to treat. What Benjamin Franklin said many years ago is still true today, and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. More attention to preventative measures could be enough to save our medical system.
Minor Medical: This includes anything that is resolved with a few trips to the doctor. Most insurance covers this.
Major Medical: These are conditions that are resolved within thirty days and cost less than 100K to treat. Most of this is covered as well.
Long-term Medical: This covers treatment for on-going conditions. Some plans cover it, but those that do cover only a token amount of the long-term costs. This is why I have purchased long-term disability. I figure the 15 dollars per month that I pay will be worth it if I need this type of coverage.
Catastrophic Medical: Most insurance plans do not cover catastrophic losses, such as cancer or a major heart attack or major accident. They only cover up to a certain dollar amount. This is the leading cause of bankruptcy by those who have insurance. Part of the problem is that when someone has a catastrophic illness or accident, the victim usually has at best, lost wages and sometimes looses their employment completely. Often, a catastrophic illness is fatal.
In order for insurance to be completely effective, a policy has to cover all five points. Most plans do not, they only cover minor and major.
Obviously, the person that succeeds Sheldon in the Senate will not have a lot of impact in this session. But will have the inside track in replacing him in this fall's election. Curt Oda, Paul Ray and Jerry Stevenson have declared and interest in replacing him. I think that either would do well enough and have already proven themselves as leaders.
The jockying will be for those who wish to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader. The chance to drive legislation will have for or five power-hungry republicans in a feeding frenzy for the next three days.
The Tobacco Tax issue will come up again this year. I repeat what I said last year. It is OK in my mind to raise the Utah State tax on tobacco as long is it is not raised high enough to encourage bootlegging. We already see many Utah residents crossing to border for lottery tickets and other types of gambling, alcohol and fireworks. It could become a money making venture. The border is 70-100 miles in each direction from Salt Lake, which means that the average car would burn at least six gallons of gas to get to the nearest border town...whether it is Wendover, Evanston or Franklin. This means that a two dollar increase in the tobacco tax would likely be a money looser for the average Salt Laker unless you buy tobacco by the case.
I do not think that raising the tax would stop people from smoking. It would encourage some to quit, but most people begin to use tobacco when they are young. How many of those kids actually get a job and pay for their habit themselves? It is usually after one moves away from home and begins a family that costs such as this become a burden. For many, that is after 15 to 20 years of use. Much of the damage to their bodies has already began at this point and some of it may be irreversable at this point.
For a national issue, I agree with those who think that a insurance mandate for health insurance is unconstitutional. I have mentioned this before. I think that is is fair that there be a consequence for those who are uninsured by choice and for those companies that refuse to provide insurance to their employees. I have previously mentioned that one thing that can be done is a change to the bankruptcy laws that would make it more difficult for those who have refused insurance to include medical bills in a bankruptcy filing. In addition, companies that do not offer group coverage to their employees could find themselves liable for expenses that would have been covered if they had.
Requiring companies to cover employees is a different matter. It is not as simple as passing a law wishing it. There are employers like Lagoon who hire mostly teenagers who have coverage with their parents. There are the college-aged kids and those a little older who do not purchase insurance because they rarely use it. It is only when children come into the picture that the value of medical insurance is realized. There are jobs that pay only comission and it would be difficult for the employer to provide anything but access to a group discount. Then there is self-employment and contracting. And there are those employers that feel that it is not their obligation to provide insurance at all. There is also not one single category of insurance, there are many. For review, here is how health insurance breaks down.
Preventative: This is for routine medical procedure that are desinged to detect conditions early or prevent disease or injury. This includes immunizations, colonoscopies and mammograms. This also includes drug and alcohol treatment and tobacco ceasation. Most plans that can be purchased at work do not provide this type of care. Employers that do find that they have lower premiums and lower costs due to absenteeism. They also loose fewer employees to long-term illness and injury because conditions are caught early when they are relatively simple to treat. What Benjamin Franklin said many years ago is still true today, and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. More attention to preventative measures could be enough to save our medical system.
Minor Medical: This includes anything that is resolved with a few trips to the doctor. Most insurance covers this.
Major Medical: These are conditions that are resolved within thirty days and cost less than 100K to treat. Most of this is covered as well.
Long-term Medical: This covers treatment for on-going conditions. Some plans cover it, but those that do cover only a token amount of the long-term costs. This is why I have purchased long-term disability. I figure the 15 dollars per month that I pay will be worth it if I need this type of coverage.
Catastrophic Medical: Most insurance plans do not cover catastrophic losses, such as cancer or a major heart attack or major accident. They only cover up to a certain dollar amount. This is the leading cause of bankruptcy by those who have insurance. Part of the problem is that when someone has a catastrophic illness or accident, the victim usually has at best, lost wages and sometimes looses their employment completely. Often, a catastrophic illness is fatal.
In order for insurance to be completely effective, a policy has to cover all five points. Most plans do not, they only cover minor and major.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Harry Reid vs Trent Lott
Just a few words to those of you who think that the press is being unfair to Harry Reid. Let me remind you what happened to Trent Lott. Double standard? You decide.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Mandatory Health Insurance is Unconstitutional
Is mandatory health insurance unconstitutional? The answer is, yes. Many have pointed out that all state governments require auto insurance. What is the difference?
When the government requires auto insurance, they are providing something to the citizen in exchange. In exchange for the privilege to operate an automobile, which is a very dangerous machine, the citizen is required to perform specifics. One of those specifics is insurance. So you might think of a drivers license as a contract. If you do not have insurance, you are in violation of that contract. As such, the state has the right to revoke or suspend the privilege to operate that machinery.
Now, what privelege can the Federal Government grant in exchange for forcing people to purchase health insurance? The only thing that I can think of that is fair is the privelege of writing off catastrophic medical bills in a bankruptcy filing. The right to be treated? What about EMTALA? (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) The right to live? Remember, that the government can not give or take away rights. Therefore Congress has nothing to exchange for the healthcare mandate. That is why it is unconstitutional.
When the government requires auto insurance, they are providing something to the citizen in exchange. In exchange for the privilege to operate an automobile, which is a very dangerous machine, the citizen is required to perform specifics. One of those specifics is insurance. So you might think of a drivers license as a contract. If you do not have insurance, you are in violation of that contract. As such, the state has the right to revoke or suspend the privilege to operate that machinery.
Now, what privelege can the Federal Government grant in exchange for forcing people to purchase health insurance? The only thing that I can think of that is fair is the privelege of writing off catastrophic medical bills in a bankruptcy filing. The right to be treated? What about EMTALA? (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) The right to live? Remember, that the government can not give or take away rights. Therefore Congress has nothing to exchange for the healthcare mandate. That is why it is unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
