Much has been made of what same-sex marriage means for the LDS church. There is a lot of fear being spread around many circles. Can the government force the LDS church to recognize same-sex couples? Can the government force the LDS church to perform temple sealings for same-sex couples?
The short answer is no. Your question is, hasn't this been done before? And the answer is no.
In the late 1800s, the Federal Government pressured the LDS church to drop the practice of polygamy. Andy many of you will tell me that the Federal Government succeeded. That is not exactly the truth. The LDS church, in 1890 agreed to stop plural marriage in the United States. However, in Mexico and Canada, plural marriage continued for another 14 years. Plural marriage ended when it was time.
You might say that the LDS church also caved to political pressure in 1978 when they decided to give the priesthood to all male members. The church simply was not under the same kind of political pressures in 1978 at all. There were no government threats at all.
As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, what will happen. Initially, nothing. SSM has been legal in a number of states for many years. In spite of rumors of lawsuits, there has been little pressure from on the church to recognize it. In the United States religion is a choice. So someone sues the church to force a Bishop to perform their ceremony, how far does that lawsuit go? It's not like there are not hundreds of other churches to choose from.
But if it does get that far, you probably won't see the federal government attempt to seize property or dis-incorporate the church as you did in the late 1800s. First of all, it's not like the LDS church doesn't exist in other countries around the world. If the US church organization is broken up in the United States, it's not like the church can't reorganize in Brazil or Mexico or in a country more favorable to church doctrines. It could happen in the blink of an eye in this day and age.
The likely worst that the government can do to the LDS faith or to any faith in this day and age is to remove their tax-exempt status. This would provide a little bit of a windfall, initially, along the Wasatch front, particularly in Utah County where there are 4 temples, BYU, the Provo MTC and around 150 LDS stakes. So in my ill-faded attempt to 'steady the ark' here is how the LDS church could deal with this new expense.
First, the church could double up on their chapels. Turn the part of each church that is now called the cultural hall into a second chapel. In meeting houses that now hold 2 or 3 wards, you could house as many a 8 with minimal remodeling. All that would needed to be added to the chapels that would continue to be used is an extra wing for new office space and an extra wing for new classroom space. The other half of the chapels in the church could be razed, and the land sold. Areas that now hold bowries and softball fields could be turned into parking lots. Members could also be encouraged to walk, carpool and take public transportation to their weekly meetings.
This type of construction has already happened in big cities such as New York, Denver and San Francisco where land is expensive and difficult to come by. The church could save significant amounts of coin, if they were taxed, by trying this type of construction along the Wasatch Front.
Let's say that in the future the government says that they can no longer recognize marriages that are performed in temples as binding. How does the church react. Couple will simply be married civilly before having their marriages later sealed in the temple. If this were to happen, the best case scenario is that the couple is married at the county courthouse in the morning, officiated by a justice of the peace or a notary public. Then the couple could have their temple ceremony in the afternoon.
At worst, that sealing would take place years later, when the Stake President determines that the marriage has been sufficiently tried and the couple has earned the right and the likelihood of divorce is minimal. Averages tells us that this time is 7 years, but perhaps this will be later. Perhaps enough time will pass that the children will remember and appreciate the experience. There are some countries, such as Brazil, that do not recognize religious marriages, and couples are required to be married civilly before going to the temple.
The bottom line is that if you are LDS and worried about the church being forced to recognize something that you don't believe. Don't. Remember who is in charge and trust in a positive outcome.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Saturday, October 19, 2013
In the aftermath, what did the shut-down strategy accomplish?
1. It was masturbatory. I know that this is an offensive word to some, but it fits. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this word, let me define it as self-gratifying and one-sided. In the long run, who really benefited from the stand that Ted Cruz made against the implementation of Obamacare other than Ted Cruz and a few of his allies? Mike Lee, for example, won $700,000 in campaign donations. But otherwise, Lee lost support at home and he will need every penny he raised to defend his seat from an in-party challenge in 2016.
2. It was myopic. What are the goals of the Republican Party right now? They really should be three fold. First, to successfully defend their majority in the House of Representatives in 2014. Second, to gain the majority of seats in the senate in 2014. And third, build momentum for the eventual Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2016.
How did the stand against Obamacare work toward those goals? First of all, it created an anti-incumbent furor in the electorate. Sure, that helps in gaining a majority in the Senate, but it makes defending the majority in the house much more difficult. It also gives the eventual democratic nominee in 2016 a wedge to use against his or her opponent.
3. It was meager. In the long run, what was accomplished? The concessions that were won were meager and not worth shutting down the government for 16 days. When taking a stand like this, the gains have to be worth shuttering the government for two weeks. Obviously, they were not going to delay Obamacare implementation, and in that sense, there was little to gain from the onset. All that happened was the can was kicked 4 months down the road, and we potentially go through this all again in January, long before the unpleasant memories have faded.
A better strategy for the Republicans would have been to allow Obamacare to go into effect and let people judge the program for what it is. It's problems have been apparent and well-documented. If the Republicans would have simply let it be implemented, allowed the problems to come to the forefront, they could have joined in a united chorus of "I told you so." If you elect Republicans, we can do better.
You have to pick your battles carefully, or you lose. In this case, not enough was accomplished for the GOP to declare victory.
2. It was myopic. What are the goals of the Republican Party right now? They really should be three fold. First, to successfully defend their majority in the House of Representatives in 2014. Second, to gain the majority of seats in the senate in 2014. And third, build momentum for the eventual Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2016.
How did the stand against Obamacare work toward those goals? First of all, it created an anti-incumbent furor in the electorate. Sure, that helps in gaining a majority in the Senate, but it makes defending the majority in the house much more difficult. It also gives the eventual democratic nominee in 2016 a wedge to use against his or her opponent.
3. It was meager. In the long run, what was accomplished? The concessions that were won were meager and not worth shutting down the government for 16 days. When taking a stand like this, the gains have to be worth shuttering the government for two weeks. Obviously, they were not going to delay Obamacare implementation, and in that sense, there was little to gain from the onset. All that happened was the can was kicked 4 months down the road, and we potentially go through this all again in January, long before the unpleasant memories have faded.
A better strategy for the Republicans would have been to allow Obamacare to go into effect and let people judge the program for what it is. It's problems have been apparent and well-documented. If the Republicans would have simply let it be implemented, allowed the problems to come to the forefront, they could have joined in a united chorus of "I told you so." If you elect Republicans, we can do better.
You have to pick your battles carefully, or you lose. In this case, not enough was accomplished for the GOP to declare victory.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The Right and Wrong to Push the Conservative Agenda
By this title, you may have guessed that I believe that the GOP is pushing their agenda the wrong way. The government has shut down, federal employees are out of work, government services have been curtailed. People are upset. I'm going to let you in on a secret. Many in the GOP don't care. This includes Senator Mike Lee. They want to push the country into another recession. They believe that President Obama and the Democrats will be blamed and the GOP, and that super conservatives will reap the benefit at the ballot box in the coming years.
This, by the way, is the strategy the Democrats employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Make the president look bad, then the sitting President and his party usually garner blame when the country goes into economic chaos. Your party gets to benefit.
This is a bad strategy is so many ways. First and foremost, according to election exit polls, most people still blamed the current economic mess on President George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the last election. There is little evidence that people have forgotten that. If the economy teeters into recession again, do people see it as an extension of the Bush recession? Are you sure?
Second, the ACA, which people refer to as Obamacare, is the law of the land. It has already passed through Supreme Court muster. But perhaps an analogy to help people understand this better.
When I was in college at Weber State, our football team traveled to Reno to take on the Wolfpack when they were still members of the Big Sky Conference. The Wolfpack, at that time, recently won a national championship and was ranked in the top 5. They were heavy favorites. Weber State went into Reno and took a 49-7 lead late into the third quarter. They lost the game 56-52. In the press conference after the game, Coach Dave Arslenian blamed the loss on a missed call on an onside kick when Weber was ahead 52-49. When you blow a 6 touchdown lead, do you really want to go in public blaming the loss on the officials?
That is what the GOP is doing right now. They are blaming this lost game on the officials. Sure, the house can vote to repeal or replace the ACA. But they don't have the votes in the Senate, and even if they did, it would surely be voted by the President, who will not let his prized legacy go away. What is the right way to go?
If you want the ACA to go away, you need to keep the majority in house, gain a majority in the senate and then win the White House. The ACA will be the law of the land until 2017, like it or not. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way the GOP in the house is trying to block funding of the act. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are acting in the Senate. However, it is a risky political strategy. There is no guarantee that the voting American is going to send Republicans to Congress in 2014 as a result of these actions.
Rather than a strategy that could sour the voting public on the GOP, actions taken by the Republicans right now have to be geared toward improving the Republican brand. They need to make people feel better about voting Republican in 2014 and 2016.
The strategy right now is to make Democrats look bad so that people won't feel good voting for Democrats in the next election cycle. There is a lot of risk in making people feel like the government doesn't represent you, that going to the polls on election day accomplishes nothing. It makes more people think in their minds, "what is the point of voting in the first place?" What does that really accomplish?
The right way to do it is the way the Ronald Reagan showed us in the 1980s. The first step is to work to build and strengthen the economy. If you can't do this at the national level, do it at the state level. Show people that they can get jobs in red states. Let people vote with their feet at first. The people in blue states will begin to notice what is happening in red states and demand similar changes in their states. Can this work? Compare Detroit to Salt Lake City and decide for yourself.
As was said so often in the 1992 election, "It's the economy." It still is. Now why in your right mind would you do anything to undermine this fragile economy? Let's say that the ACA drags down the already fragile economy without a government shutdown, who gets the blame? Perhaps, it's best that America learn this lesson the hard way. Let's hope that there is enough of a GOP party left to fix the country when it does.
Let me write one more thing about the TEA party movement. It stands for Taxed Enough Already. Nothing that the Republicans have done to shut down the government will lead to lower taxes. One thing that can lead to lower taxes is reducing the percentage of the populace on the public dole. What happens during the shutdown is that Americans who have bet their ability to be self-reliant have to apply for unemployment, housing assistance and food stamps. That doesn't sound like it will do anything to reduce taxes in the long run to me. TEA party people must work harder to understand the unintended consequences of their actions.
This, by the way, is the strategy the Democrats employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Make the president look bad, then the sitting President and his party usually garner blame when the country goes into economic chaos. Your party gets to benefit.
This is a bad strategy is so many ways. First and foremost, according to election exit polls, most people still blamed the current economic mess on President George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the last election. There is little evidence that people have forgotten that. If the economy teeters into recession again, do people see it as an extension of the Bush recession? Are you sure?
Second, the ACA, which people refer to as Obamacare, is the law of the land. It has already passed through Supreme Court muster. But perhaps an analogy to help people understand this better.
When I was in college at Weber State, our football team traveled to Reno to take on the Wolfpack when they were still members of the Big Sky Conference. The Wolfpack, at that time, recently won a national championship and was ranked in the top 5. They were heavy favorites. Weber State went into Reno and took a 49-7 lead late into the third quarter. They lost the game 56-52. In the press conference after the game, Coach Dave Arslenian blamed the loss on a missed call on an onside kick when Weber was ahead 52-49. When you blow a 6 touchdown lead, do you really want to go in public blaming the loss on the officials?
That is what the GOP is doing right now. They are blaming this lost game on the officials. Sure, the house can vote to repeal or replace the ACA. But they don't have the votes in the Senate, and even if they did, it would surely be voted by the President, who will not let his prized legacy go away. What is the right way to go?
If you want the ACA to go away, you need to keep the majority in house, gain a majority in the senate and then win the White House. The ACA will be the law of the land until 2017, like it or not. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way the GOP in the house is trying to block funding of the act. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are acting in the Senate. However, it is a risky political strategy. There is no guarantee that the voting American is going to send Republicans to Congress in 2014 as a result of these actions.
Rather than a strategy that could sour the voting public on the GOP, actions taken by the Republicans right now have to be geared toward improving the Republican brand. They need to make people feel better about voting Republican in 2014 and 2016.
The strategy right now is to make Democrats look bad so that people won't feel good voting for Democrats in the next election cycle. There is a lot of risk in making people feel like the government doesn't represent you, that going to the polls on election day accomplishes nothing. It makes more people think in their minds, "what is the point of voting in the first place?" What does that really accomplish?
The right way to do it is the way the Ronald Reagan showed us in the 1980s. The first step is to work to build and strengthen the economy. If you can't do this at the national level, do it at the state level. Show people that they can get jobs in red states. Let people vote with their feet at first. The people in blue states will begin to notice what is happening in red states and demand similar changes in their states. Can this work? Compare Detroit to Salt Lake City and decide for yourself.
As was said so often in the 1992 election, "It's the economy." It still is. Now why in your right mind would you do anything to undermine this fragile economy? Let's say that the ACA drags down the already fragile economy without a government shutdown, who gets the blame? Perhaps, it's best that America learn this lesson the hard way. Let's hope that there is enough of a GOP party left to fix the country when it does.
Let me write one more thing about the TEA party movement. It stands for Taxed Enough Already. Nothing that the Republicans have done to shut down the government will lead to lower taxes. One thing that can lead to lower taxes is reducing the percentage of the populace on the public dole. What happens during the shutdown is that Americans who have bet their ability to be self-reliant have to apply for unemployment, housing assistance and food stamps. That doesn't sound like it will do anything to reduce taxes in the long run to me. TEA party people must work harder to understand the unintended consequences of their actions.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Proposal to Mordernize Utah's Higher Education System
1. Toughen entrance standards for the University of Utah and Utah State University. There is no reason why these two schools should accept students who are not ready for college. If kids are not prepared based upon three factors; ACT Scores, Grade Point Average, and classes taken they should not be admitted. It is a waste of money by both the schools and the students themselves to attend these schools when they are not academically prepared.
2. Create more two-year community colleges. I am not going to propose that these schools get built from the ground up, but that existing institutions become converted into community colleges. Salt Lake Community College is huge, and I do not suggest any more in Salt Lake County as a result. Here is my list.
Northern Wasatch Front:
A. Convert Utah State's Brigham City Campus into the new Brigham City Community College.
Davis/Weber County
B. Convert WSU-Davis into the new Layton Community College. This will require an expansion at the main Weber State Campus, but there is land at the old site of McKay-Dee Hospital which has been unused for nearly a decade. This would be a good use of eminent domain. There are also many abandoned buildings in downtown Ogden that WSU could convert and use as classroom space.
C. Convert Wood Cross High School into the new Bountiful Community College. The loss of a high school in Davis County can be compensated for by building a new high school in Farmington. If you look at the Davis County School District boundaries, you can see that this could be a welcome change for that district.
Utah Valley
D. There are a scattering of empty stores on University Parkway/State Street area. Use eminent domain to convert one of the older, more-abandoned strip malls; such as the Family Center in Orem, into a new community college. The retail vacancy rate in Utah Valley is around 8%. This is not good for any community. Obviously the demand for all of this retail space is not there. Loss of one major shopping center will probably be good for the community as a whole.
3. There are new 4-year colleges, similar in mission to Weber State and Utah Valley that are needed, especially if admission to the USU and the U of U become tougher. Otherwise, these two colleges will become overwhelmed and will not be able to assist their students. Here are my proposals to assist.
A. Convert the South City campus of Salt Lake Community College into Salt Lake State College. Give the new college right of first refusal to all commercial land between the former South High School and Spring Mobile Ballpark. This will give the new college a place to grow, but to grow at a comfortable place. Salt Lake Community college could then take over the former Granite High School as the main north-county campus. Eventually, the campus will surround that area of State Street, which is blighted by many abandoned stores. The example for this kind of campus is Portland State University.
B. So you want to relocate the state prison? Why not convert part of it into a new four-year college? My proposal is the what is now the women's section of the prison be converted into a new 4-year state college. There are several names this new campus could take, but I suggest Lone Peak State College.
2. Create more two-year community colleges. I am not going to propose that these schools get built from the ground up, but that existing institutions become converted into community colleges. Salt Lake Community College is huge, and I do not suggest any more in Salt Lake County as a result. Here is my list.
Northern Wasatch Front:
A. Convert Utah State's Brigham City Campus into the new Brigham City Community College.
Davis/Weber County
B. Convert WSU-Davis into the new Layton Community College. This will require an expansion at the main Weber State Campus, but there is land at the old site of McKay-Dee Hospital which has been unused for nearly a decade. This would be a good use of eminent domain. There are also many abandoned buildings in downtown Ogden that WSU could convert and use as classroom space.
C. Convert Wood Cross High School into the new Bountiful Community College. The loss of a high school in Davis County can be compensated for by building a new high school in Farmington. If you look at the Davis County School District boundaries, you can see that this could be a welcome change for that district.
Utah Valley
D. There are a scattering of empty stores on University Parkway/State Street area. Use eminent domain to convert one of the older, more-abandoned strip malls; such as the Family Center in Orem, into a new community college. The retail vacancy rate in Utah Valley is around 8%. This is not good for any community. Obviously the demand for all of this retail space is not there. Loss of one major shopping center will probably be good for the community as a whole.
3. There are new 4-year colleges, similar in mission to Weber State and Utah Valley that are needed, especially if admission to the USU and the U of U become tougher. Otherwise, these two colleges will become overwhelmed and will not be able to assist their students. Here are my proposals to assist.
A. Convert the South City campus of Salt Lake Community College into Salt Lake State College. Give the new college right of first refusal to all commercial land between the former South High School and Spring Mobile Ballpark. This will give the new college a place to grow, but to grow at a comfortable place. Salt Lake Community college could then take over the former Granite High School as the main north-county campus. Eventually, the campus will surround that area of State Street, which is blighted by many abandoned stores. The example for this kind of campus is Portland State University.
B. So you want to relocate the state prison? Why not convert part of it into a new four-year college? My proposal is the what is now the women's section of the prison be converted into a new 4-year state college. There are several names this new campus could take, but I suggest Lone Peak State College.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Just Punishment for the IRS.
Tea Party groups are preparing to sue the IRS for targeting their groups during the last election cycle. One has to ask the question, aren't Tea Party groups trying to take advantage of their fellow tax-payers?
This is not necessarily so. 40 years ago, there was a scandal brewing in Washington that eventually went all the way to the President. Perhaps you read about it in your history class, if they made it all the way to the 1970s. It was called Watergate. It brought down President Richard Nixon, who resigned as the US House was drafting articles of impeachment. Several reforms came out of wake of this scandal. But none of them involved the use of the Internal Revenue Service as a tool to punish the enemies of the President. Because Congress has failed to act on this, something has to be done.
There are 3 ways to make laws in the US. If legislation fails, the President or the administration can act by fiat. This is where much regulatory law comes from. We will likely have an opportunity on this blog to speak about regulatory fiat at a later time. Laws can also come about by legal precedent.
Tea Party groups may not win a lot of money by suing the IRS. That should not be the point. If courts side with them, which they probably will, it will set a new legal precedent. It will ensure that the tax collection arm of the Federal Government can't be used as a political battering ram. Meaning that this president, and any future president, will be unable to use the IRS to punish political enemies.
This seems necessary. In everything that has happened since it was revealed that the IRS was being used to punish enemies of the White House, no one, from either party, has seemed willing to draft legislation to make this behavior illegal. It shouldn't be, and Speak Boehner seemed to think based on his, "who is going to jail" comment, that it is already against the law. No one seems to have said that we should draft laws to ensure that this behavior is swiftly and clearly punished in the future.
In the law, you do not have to sue for money. You can sue for performance. You can sue to ensure your neighbor picks up after his dog. You can sue the city to put up more street lights in a high crime area. And you can sue to government to ensure that the IRS asks only financial questions in a audit. You can also sue to ensure that the IRS only audits when they find financial irregularities. And you can sue to ensure that no elected official, nor appointed official has the power to order an IRS audit unless irregularities are discovered in tax statements.
This all should have been on the books 40 years ago. Seems we haven't learned for history. Let's make sure that this lesson is learned now, even if we must use the courts.
This is not necessarily so. 40 years ago, there was a scandal brewing in Washington that eventually went all the way to the President. Perhaps you read about it in your history class, if they made it all the way to the 1970s. It was called Watergate. It brought down President Richard Nixon, who resigned as the US House was drafting articles of impeachment. Several reforms came out of wake of this scandal. But none of them involved the use of the Internal Revenue Service as a tool to punish the enemies of the President. Because Congress has failed to act on this, something has to be done.
There are 3 ways to make laws in the US. If legislation fails, the President or the administration can act by fiat. This is where much regulatory law comes from. We will likely have an opportunity on this blog to speak about regulatory fiat at a later time. Laws can also come about by legal precedent.
Tea Party groups may not win a lot of money by suing the IRS. That should not be the point. If courts side with them, which they probably will, it will set a new legal precedent. It will ensure that the tax collection arm of the Federal Government can't be used as a political battering ram. Meaning that this president, and any future president, will be unable to use the IRS to punish political enemies.
This seems necessary. In everything that has happened since it was revealed that the IRS was being used to punish enemies of the White House, no one, from either party, has seemed willing to draft legislation to make this behavior illegal. It shouldn't be, and Speak Boehner seemed to think based on his, "who is going to jail" comment, that it is already against the law. No one seems to have said that we should draft laws to ensure that this behavior is swiftly and clearly punished in the future.
In the law, you do not have to sue for money. You can sue for performance. You can sue to ensure your neighbor picks up after his dog. You can sue the city to put up more street lights in a high crime area. And you can sue to government to ensure that the IRS asks only financial questions in a audit. You can also sue to ensure that the IRS only audits when they find financial irregularities. And you can sue to ensure that no elected official, nor appointed official has the power to order an IRS audit unless irregularities are discovered in tax statements.
This all should have been on the books 40 years ago. Seems we haven't learned for history. Let's make sure that this lesson is learned now, even if we must use the courts.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
This Type of Rhetoric Must Stop.
Let's take a look at this picture that someone posted on Facebook.for a moment...
What strikes you about this add? It's the language. It breaks a lot of rules about how a civil person would act. It's once thing, as I do, to disagree with Obama's policies. It's one thing to voice your opposition to the policies of the President. It's quite another to call not so nice names to his supporters.
Is it any wonder the Congress is deadlocked? People of both sides of any political discussion have very strong feelings about what causes they support. The first way to avoid finding middle ground is to make fun of, or even bully the people who feel the opposite.
There are good, conservative reason to stand in opposition to Obama's policies. If you doubt that, read this blog. Resorting to name calling is not the way to get our point across.
Now, as far as...
Obama's work experience. He was a US Senator when he was elected. If Obama is unqualified to be president, so were Andrew Jackson, Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding, and John F. Kennedy.
Conservative reason to oppose:
John McCain was also a US Senator. However, McCain had a longer history in the Senate and was present for most of his votes. It was easy to find his record on many issues. Obama was still a first term senator, and some people have said that it takes 6 years just to learn where all of the bathrooms are.
I do not agree with Obama's economic plan, but please remember who was president when the economy crashed in 2008 and what party he was from. That is the reason why most people who like Obamanomics choose as their reasoning.
Conservative reason to oppose:
The Economic plan first implemented under Reagan is a plan for growth, but also a plan for risk. The economy crashed in 2008 because companies were not prepared for the risk that comes with high growth, particularly in the real estate market. The plan can work again, especially if more people can prepare themselves for the risks.
There are people who voted for McCain or Romney because he was white. They were just as wrong.
Conservative rebuttal:
Race is never a reason to vote for or against someone. Period.
Again, this is said as if Republicans did not give away free stuff. The Republicans, even Ronald Reagan, gave away freebees to the public. Newt Gingrich, in the late 1990s, even though he helped balance the budget, was more concerned about tax cuts than actually paying the federal debt.
Conservative rebuttal:
The only reason for government give-aways is if the government is going to get more tax revenue than is spent. Very few give-aways meet this acid test.
Many people find security in labor unions. They see maintenance of the Union as a key to preserving their way of life. They might be misinformed, but tool in this context is very ugly word.
Conservative rebuttal:
Labor unions offer a false sense of job security. As was learned with the Hostess bankruptcy, if the company can't stay in business, there is little any labor union can do about it. The best job security comes from developing skills that are in demand.
It is true that nothing is free, and this is especially true of healthcare. But too many people are brought up with the idea that they do not have to pay for these things, and that someone else should pick up the bill. It will take decades to reprogram people otherwise.
Conservative rebuttal:
We do need to get out of the trap that someone else is going to pay for our health care. We need savings plans that roll over from year to year and we need to allow people to save their own money, tax free, to pay for health care needs on their own. As far as the escalating expense, however, the medical industry also needs to understand what their customer base is capable of paying. If cars, for example, saw the same kinds of escalating expenses that the health care industry has seen, we'd all be walking. Reliance on a 3rd party to pay 70-90% of someones medical bills is not a good business model. We need to ask people to pay more and we need to get the health care industry to give people a break on prices. We need to pay for the little things ourselves so that there is insurance money to cover the big things.
To the last point, I doubt anyone truly knows, republican or democrat, what President Obama really stands for. There is not such thing as a transparent politician. Transparent people don't get elected.
Conservative rebuttal:
It would be nice if politicians were more transparent. Who knows when that will happen. I suggest that if you ever run for office, that you bring transparency to politics. Maybe the trend will catch on.
What strikes you about this add? It's the language. It breaks a lot of rules about how a civil person would act. It's once thing, as I do, to disagree with Obama's policies. It's one thing to voice your opposition to the policies of the President. It's quite another to call not so nice names to his supporters.
Is it any wonder the Congress is deadlocked? People of both sides of any political discussion have very strong feelings about what causes they support. The first way to avoid finding middle ground is to make fun of, or even bully the people who feel the opposite.
There are good, conservative reason to stand in opposition to Obama's policies. If you doubt that, read this blog. Resorting to name calling is not the way to get our point across.
Now, as far as...
Obama's work experience. He was a US Senator when he was elected. If Obama is unqualified to be president, so were Andrew Jackson, Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding, and John F. Kennedy.
Conservative reason to oppose:
John McCain was also a US Senator. However, McCain had a longer history in the Senate and was present for most of his votes. It was easy to find his record on many issues. Obama was still a first term senator, and some people have said that it takes 6 years just to learn where all of the bathrooms are.
I do not agree with Obama's economic plan, but please remember who was president when the economy crashed in 2008 and what party he was from. That is the reason why most people who like Obamanomics choose as their reasoning.
Conservative reason to oppose:
The Economic plan first implemented under Reagan is a plan for growth, but also a plan for risk. The economy crashed in 2008 because companies were not prepared for the risk that comes with high growth, particularly in the real estate market. The plan can work again, especially if more people can prepare themselves for the risks.
There are people who voted for McCain or Romney because he was white. They were just as wrong.
Conservative rebuttal:
Race is never a reason to vote for or against someone. Period.
Again, this is said as if Republicans did not give away free stuff. The Republicans, even Ronald Reagan, gave away freebees to the public. Newt Gingrich, in the late 1990s, even though he helped balance the budget, was more concerned about tax cuts than actually paying the federal debt.
Conservative rebuttal:
The only reason for government give-aways is if the government is going to get more tax revenue than is spent. Very few give-aways meet this acid test.
Many people find security in labor unions. They see maintenance of the Union as a key to preserving their way of life. They might be misinformed, but tool in this context is very ugly word.
Conservative rebuttal:
Labor unions offer a false sense of job security. As was learned with the Hostess bankruptcy, if the company can't stay in business, there is little any labor union can do about it. The best job security comes from developing skills that are in demand.
It is true that nothing is free, and this is especially true of healthcare. But too many people are brought up with the idea that they do not have to pay for these things, and that someone else should pick up the bill. It will take decades to reprogram people otherwise.
Conservative rebuttal:
We do need to get out of the trap that someone else is going to pay for our health care. We need savings plans that roll over from year to year and we need to allow people to save their own money, tax free, to pay for health care needs on their own. As far as the escalating expense, however, the medical industry also needs to understand what their customer base is capable of paying. If cars, for example, saw the same kinds of escalating expenses that the health care industry has seen, we'd all be walking. Reliance on a 3rd party to pay 70-90% of someones medical bills is not a good business model. We need to ask people to pay more and we need to get the health care industry to give people a break on prices. We need to pay for the little things ourselves so that there is insurance money to cover the big things.
To the last point, I doubt anyone truly knows, republican or democrat, what President Obama really stands for. There is not such thing as a transparent politician. Transparent people don't get elected.
Conservative rebuttal:
It would be nice if politicians were more transparent. Who knows when that will happen. I suggest that if you ever run for office, that you bring transparency to politics. Maybe the trend will catch on.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Term Limits...Not the Answer for Better Government
Many people believe that term limits are the answer to better government. But this is not the case. Most people arguing for or against term limits do not present cold hard facts. But what facts can you site? Well, there are 15 US States that have legislative term limits. If term limits were such a great thing for the states, then states with term limits would be some of the best-managed states with some of the best results for their citizens. The data says otherwise.
Of the states which have term limits, the credit ratings are all over the board. 3 states which have term limits, Florida, Missouri and Nebraska, have a AAA credit rating. Three states, Arizona, California and Michigan, which have term limits have an AA- credit rating or worse. Among those without term limits, only New Jersey and Illinois have poor credit ratings
Wall Street 24/7 has listed the best managed states, based up results like unemployment and cost of living. And they also use debt per-capita as a measure. None of the states in the top 20%, or top 10 states, have term limits. Only Maine and Nebraska are in the 2nd 20% and have term limits. Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Nevada, who have term limits, are in the bottom 20%.
No states that have term limits have both a good credit rating and are considered well-managed. Of states without term limits, only Illinois has a poor credit rating and is considered one of the worst-managed states.
Can we make any conclusions based upon this data? The main conclusion is that term limits, at best, have no effect on the quality of government. Based on the data, we can conclude that term limits would also be ineffective at the federal level as most states, except for Nebraska, have the same division of powers that the Federal Government has. (Nebraska has a uni-cameral legislature or no House of Representatives.) At the same time, this could also be an argument for the states that have term limits to repeal them.
But I am not the only one who feels that term limits are not so great.
Why would this be the case. Isn't a good thing to get rid of career politicians? Look at this from the point of view of someone wanting to contribute to the election after a representative has reach the limit of his term. If you are benefiting from the direction of government, do you want to see a change? Do you want to risk electing a reformer? Probably not. You want a clone. And if you can't find a clone, you find a twin. And if you can't find a twin, you find a sibling. If you benefit from the current direction of politics, you will do everything in your power to ensure that nothing changes.
The second problem is experience. We value experience when filling just about any job, why is experience a bad thing when it comes to politicians? If you want change and reform, you need someone new. But that does not mean you will get a reformer who can be effective. One thing that a manager must consider before terminating an employee for cause is who can he hire to replace him. That replacement will have to learn the job and will, perhaps, at least at first, be worse than the person that was fired. This is why marginal performers at your work site are usually never fired. When your legislature has term limits, it's almost all learning curve. And lack of experience in the legislature may even tip the balance of power toward unelected bureaucrats.
California is the prime example of term limits not working. It is considered one of the worst-managed states in the US, and it has the lowest credit rating. Sometime well-meaning but inexperienced legislators just don't know where or how to pull the right strings. They don't know how to say no, or when to say yes. They don't know when voting against the party line is a good thing, and almost always vote with it instead. I must emphasize this one point...term limits in California have done nothing to improve the quality of their state government, and have probably made it worse. Experienced legislators have moved on, and back to their old day jobs. When someone returns, it is as lobbyist...and when a lobbyist knows more about how the government works than the legislators, the lobbyist will usually have their way. Is that really a good thing?
Perhaps, instead of term limits, what is needed is another check on the system. Here in Utah, one of those checks is the caucus system. There are problems with the caucus system, and there was a ballot initiative to do away with it that never came to the voters. The caucus system was instead weakened by a compromise. For all it's faults, it did get 3-term Republican Robert Bennett out of office, which is something that proponents of term limits want. Many conservatives in the state liked him. Many wealthy people liked him, and that is what spurred the ballot initiative.
As a nation, we need systems that better hold incumbents feet to the fire. A system that keeps them honest and effective stewards. Often at the party level, incumbents are given a free pass, even if they have not been very effective. And in some cases, they get a free pass even if they have been corrupt and abusive of their power. Congressional districts are more often drawn to keep the same party in power than to be neutral. At least the Utah caucus system, for all of it's problems, creates an easier road for challengers, and a more challenging road for incumbents even if that power is now somewhat weakened. And look at where Utah is on this list. AAA credit rating and one of the best managed states. I think part of the reason for that has been the caucus system.
You might also argue that having a presidential term limit has been a good thing. But out of all of the two-term presidents after Harry Truman, only one has publicly said he would like a third term. That man's name is Barrack Obama. And look at what Obama has done with his second term. Many of his most controversial actions, that became law without the consent of Congress have happened in his second term. An example of this is the tightening EPA regulations on coal plants, which have shuttered coal mines in union country. If Obama was still worried about the Labor Union vote, would he have taken the same actions? It's debatable and something to think about.
Many of our two term presidents since the 22nd Amendment was ratified have shown at least some contempt for the voice of the people? Does the Iran/Contra Affair ring a bell? Watergate coverup? Hurricane Katrina? The 22nd Amendment didn't curb the President's power. If anything, it gives him more power, because in his second term, he can run unchecked by not having to run again.
What about the President's Party? Wouldn't the president be checked in power because he wants to be succeeded by someone in his own party? How many times has a two-term president been succeeded by someone from his own party? Since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, that has only happened once, when George HW Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan.
Doesn't history and the president's legacy curb his power? Has that stopped anyone in their second term? As for Richard Nixon, it only emboldened him.
It's plain that state without term limits are much better off than states with term limits. Term limits may sound like a good thing, but there is really no evidence to show that they will be effective at a national level. In the long run, it's just another feel-good idea, that won't do much. And if anything, may make problems worse.
Credit Rating Source.
Best Managed States.
Of the states which have term limits, the credit ratings are all over the board. 3 states which have term limits, Florida, Missouri and Nebraska, have a AAA credit rating. Three states, Arizona, California and Michigan, which have term limits have an AA- credit rating or worse. Among those without term limits, only New Jersey and Illinois have poor credit ratings
Wall Street 24/7 has listed the best managed states, based up results like unemployment and cost of living. And they also use debt per-capita as a measure. None of the states in the top 20%, or top 10 states, have term limits. Only Maine and Nebraska are in the 2nd 20% and have term limits. Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Nevada, who have term limits, are in the bottom 20%.
No states that have term limits have both a good credit rating and are considered well-managed. Of states without term limits, only Illinois has a poor credit rating and is considered one of the worst-managed states.
Can we make any conclusions based upon this data? The main conclusion is that term limits, at best, have no effect on the quality of government. Based on the data, we can conclude that term limits would also be ineffective at the federal level as most states, except for Nebraska, have the same division of powers that the Federal Government has. (Nebraska has a uni-cameral legislature or no House of Representatives.) At the same time, this could also be an argument for the states that have term limits to repeal them.
But I am not the only one who feels that term limits are not so great.
Why would this be the case. Isn't a good thing to get rid of career politicians? Look at this from the point of view of someone wanting to contribute to the election after a representative has reach the limit of his term. If you are benefiting from the direction of government, do you want to see a change? Do you want to risk electing a reformer? Probably not. You want a clone. And if you can't find a clone, you find a twin. And if you can't find a twin, you find a sibling. If you benefit from the current direction of politics, you will do everything in your power to ensure that nothing changes.
The second problem is experience. We value experience when filling just about any job, why is experience a bad thing when it comes to politicians? If you want change and reform, you need someone new. But that does not mean you will get a reformer who can be effective. One thing that a manager must consider before terminating an employee for cause is who can he hire to replace him. That replacement will have to learn the job and will, perhaps, at least at first, be worse than the person that was fired. This is why marginal performers at your work site are usually never fired. When your legislature has term limits, it's almost all learning curve. And lack of experience in the legislature may even tip the balance of power toward unelected bureaucrats.
California is the prime example of term limits not working. It is considered one of the worst-managed states in the US, and it has the lowest credit rating. Sometime well-meaning but inexperienced legislators just don't know where or how to pull the right strings. They don't know how to say no, or when to say yes. They don't know when voting against the party line is a good thing, and almost always vote with it instead. I must emphasize this one point...term limits in California have done nothing to improve the quality of their state government, and have probably made it worse. Experienced legislators have moved on, and back to their old day jobs. When someone returns, it is as lobbyist...and when a lobbyist knows more about how the government works than the legislators, the lobbyist will usually have their way. Is that really a good thing?
Perhaps, instead of term limits, what is needed is another check on the system. Here in Utah, one of those checks is the caucus system. There are problems with the caucus system, and there was a ballot initiative to do away with it that never came to the voters. The caucus system was instead weakened by a compromise. For all it's faults, it did get 3-term Republican Robert Bennett out of office, which is something that proponents of term limits want. Many conservatives in the state liked him. Many wealthy people liked him, and that is what spurred the ballot initiative.
As a nation, we need systems that better hold incumbents feet to the fire. A system that keeps them honest and effective stewards. Often at the party level, incumbents are given a free pass, even if they have not been very effective. And in some cases, they get a free pass even if they have been corrupt and abusive of their power. Congressional districts are more often drawn to keep the same party in power than to be neutral. At least the Utah caucus system, for all of it's problems, creates an easier road for challengers, and a more challenging road for incumbents even if that power is now somewhat weakened. And look at where Utah is on this list. AAA credit rating and one of the best managed states. I think part of the reason for that has been the caucus system.
You might also argue that having a presidential term limit has been a good thing. But out of all of the two-term presidents after Harry Truman, only one has publicly said he would like a third term. That man's name is Barrack Obama. And look at what Obama has done with his second term. Many of his most controversial actions, that became law without the consent of Congress have happened in his second term. An example of this is the tightening EPA regulations on coal plants, which have shuttered coal mines in union country. If Obama was still worried about the Labor Union vote, would he have taken the same actions? It's debatable and something to think about.
Many of our two term presidents since the 22nd Amendment was ratified have shown at least some contempt for the voice of the people? Does the Iran/Contra Affair ring a bell? Watergate coverup? Hurricane Katrina? The 22nd Amendment didn't curb the President's power. If anything, it gives him more power, because in his second term, he can run unchecked by not having to run again.
What about the President's Party? Wouldn't the president be checked in power because he wants to be succeeded by someone in his own party? How many times has a two-term president been succeeded by someone from his own party? Since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, that has only happened once, when George HW Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan.
Doesn't history and the president's legacy curb his power? Has that stopped anyone in their second term? As for Richard Nixon, it only emboldened him.
It's plain that state without term limits are much better off than states with term limits. Term limits may sound like a good thing, but there is really no evidence to show that they will be effective at a national level. In the long run, it's just another feel-good idea, that won't do much. And if anything, may make problems worse.
Credit Rating Source.
Best Managed States.
| State | Term Limits | Credit Rating | Best Managed* |
| Arizona | y | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Arkansas | y | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| California | y | A- | Bottom 20% |
| Colorado | y | AA | Middle 20% |
| Florida | y | AAA | Bottom 20% |
| Louisiana | y | AA | Bottom 20% |
| Maine | y | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Michigan | y | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Missouri | y | AAA | Middle 20% |
| Montana | y | AA | Middle 20% |
| Nebraska | y | AAA | 2nd 20% |
| Nevada | y | AA | Bottom 20% |
| Ohio | y | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Oklahoma | y | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| South Dakota | y | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Alabama | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Alaska | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Connecticut | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Delaware | n | AAA | 2nd 20% |
| Georgia | n | AAA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Hawaii | n | AA | Top 20% |
| Idaho | n | AA+ | Middle 20% |
| Illinois | n | A+ | Bottom 20% |
| Indiana | n | AAA | Middle 20% |
| Iowa | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Kansas | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Kentucky | n | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Maryland | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Massachusetts | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Minnesota | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Mississippi | n | AA | Bottom 20% |
| New Hampshire | n | AA | Top 20% |
| New Jersey | n | AA- | Middle 20% |
| New Mexico | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| New York | n | AA | Middle 20% |
| North Carolina | n | AAA | Middle 20% |
| North Dakota | n | AA+ | Top 20% |
| Oregon | n | AA+ | Middle 20% |
| Pennsylvania | n | AA | Middle 20% |
| Rhode Island | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| South Carolina | n | AA+ | Bottom 20% |
| Tennessee | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Texas | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Utah | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Vermont | n | AA+ | Top 20% |
| Virginia | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Washington | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| West Virginia | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Wisconsin | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Wyoming | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| *Based on Debt per-capita, Unemployment, Cost of Living and Median Household Income | |||
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Are there legitimate non-religious reasons to support traditional marriage?
From the Ruth Institute, you can download a free pamphlet entitled 77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Traditional Marriage. I have commented a little about same-sex marriage on this board, but not a lot. One of the reasons is that there is not a lot of hard-concrete evidence either for or against same-sex marriage.
SSM is a recent invention. The Netherlands allowed SSM in 2001. We simply have not had enough time to evaluate what impact SSM will have on our children. Depending on what sources your believe, gays are about 10% of the human population. Not all gays choose to enter into an exclusive relationship. Since same sex couples are so few, and not all same-sex couples choose to have children, it will still be many years, probably not until the late 2020's when children of same-sex couple are fully-grown and mature adults; before there will be enough children from same-sex marriages to evaluate their effect on society as a whole.
As time goes on, many of these 77 Reasons will be discredited, while others will be affirmed. There may be items added to this list. One criticism that I have of this pamphlet is comparing same-sex couples to step families. With many step families, those that were created by divorce and remarriage of one or both of the biological parents, one biological parent is outside the home, but still involved in the lives of the children. That creates a dynamic that many same-sex families will not have.
I can also state that the 77 Reasons pamphlet, in linking biological and legal parentage, discredits families where parents are not able to have children of their own and have to resort to artificial means of conception or adoption. For research I did about 10 years ago, about 10 percent of young, heterosexual couples will not be able to conceive without some sort of medical intervention. We should not take a stance on traditional marriage that diminishes couples like this.
The author of this pamphlet is a PhD in family psychology. However, this particular piece has not been peer reviewed nor sanctioned by a 3rd party. She makes some good points. Based upon this, here are some arguments that are legitimate, with my own numbering system.
1. Same-Sex Marriage looks at marriage from an adult point of view. The ability to conceive children is not considered by many and a reason to keep traditional marriage.
Let's take a moment to consider how same-sex couples would bring children into the world.
A. Adopt.
B1. Two gay men: Simply, a male gay couple has to 1. Determine whose sperm to use. 2. Find an egg donor. 3. Find a woman willing to carry the child through pregnancy. There may be legal complications if #2 and #3 are the same person.
B2. Two gay women: It's a little bit less complicated. They simply need to find a sperm donor and determine who will carry the child during pregnancy.
Adoption and artificial insemination should be available as options for heterosexual couples to have children, but should be used in extreme circumstances when couple can't otherwise have children. The normal biological method to create children should continue to be the norm. Again, one should not make children conceived of artificial means less a lesser person. And adoption is a beautiful option for those not able to conceive, or for children who can't otherwise get parents who want them. Now, back to legitimate non-religious arguments for traditional marriage.
2. The gender of the marriage partner matters just as much to the gay person as it does to the straight person. Gay men who choose to marry will prefer a man. Gay women who choose to marry will prefer a woman. One can't really take gender out of the marriage relationship.
3. Same Sex Marriage assumes that in the marriage relationship, and in the parent-child relationship, that men and women are interchangeable. We do not have inform information to know if this is the case, but we do know what happens to children who are born and raised in single-parent families. We do not yet know if same-sex parents will have the same challenges that single parents have.
4. Same Sex Marriage marginalizes the role of the missing gender parent. Where two men are allowed to marry, the emotional role of the mother is marginalized. Where two women are allowed to marry, the emotional role of the father is marginalized. It is assumed that two parents, even though they are of the same gender, are enough.
5. No one has the right to a child. Children are people and have rights that can't be marginalized nor ignored. Family law had traditionally acted in the best interest of children. From the experience we have with single parents, children are best served in homes where there are both genders.
6. Same Sex Marriage opens the door for children to have more than 2 legal parents...much like divorce does.
7. The state will have to write news laws, and with the assistance of the courts, the state will have to legally protect same-sex marriage. Courts will have to enforce the belief that fathers and mothers are interchangeable. Traditional marriage is self-supporting.
8. Traditional marriage is based upon biology. Humans reproduce sexually. This means it takes both male and female gametes to create a zygote. This does not change with sexual orientation.
9. Support of Same Sex Marriage reduces marriage to little more than the official public sanction of a sexual relationship. It passes public benefits that were meant mainly to assist parents with children to any couple. The original purpose of "Married filing join return" was to help a traditional couple where the mother stays home and takes care of the household while the father goes to the office to earn a paycheck. It does not really assist couples where both work, especially in cases where both spouses earn close to the same amount of money (Marriage Penalty).
Let me also state here that children of gay couples are the same as children of straight couples. Parentage should not be a reason to give children lesser status.
Marriage based upon love is a very new concept in and of itself. In the 1800s, people rarely married out of love. They looked for someone with a pleasant disposition because they knew that they would be in it for the long hall. In spite of all of this, here is what we can do for those with same-gender attraction.
1. Support laws that ban discrimination of homosexual, bi-sexual and trans-gender persons in housing and in the work-place.
2. Support laws that ban discrimination based upon marital status.
3. Support laws that ban discrimination based upon parental status.
4. No matter what happens in the Same-Sex Marriage debate, gay couples will have children. Treat all children the same no matter who their parents are.
Since homosexuality is based upon feelings that we do not completely understand, it is no reason to condemn nor ostracize anyone who feels this way.
SSM is a recent invention. The Netherlands allowed SSM in 2001. We simply have not had enough time to evaluate what impact SSM will have on our children. Depending on what sources your believe, gays are about 10% of the human population. Not all gays choose to enter into an exclusive relationship. Since same sex couples are so few, and not all same-sex couples choose to have children, it will still be many years, probably not until the late 2020's when children of same-sex couple are fully-grown and mature adults; before there will be enough children from same-sex marriages to evaluate their effect on society as a whole.
As time goes on, many of these 77 Reasons will be discredited, while others will be affirmed. There may be items added to this list. One criticism that I have of this pamphlet is comparing same-sex couples to step families. With many step families, those that were created by divorce and remarriage of one or both of the biological parents, one biological parent is outside the home, but still involved in the lives of the children. That creates a dynamic that many same-sex families will not have.
I can also state that the 77 Reasons pamphlet, in linking biological and legal parentage, discredits families where parents are not able to have children of their own and have to resort to artificial means of conception or adoption. For research I did about 10 years ago, about 10 percent of young, heterosexual couples will not be able to conceive without some sort of medical intervention. We should not take a stance on traditional marriage that diminishes couples like this.
The author of this pamphlet is a PhD in family psychology. However, this particular piece has not been peer reviewed nor sanctioned by a 3rd party. She makes some good points. Based upon this, here are some arguments that are legitimate, with my own numbering system.
1. Same-Sex Marriage looks at marriage from an adult point of view. The ability to conceive children is not considered by many and a reason to keep traditional marriage.
Let's take a moment to consider how same-sex couples would bring children into the world.
A. Adopt.
B1. Two gay men: Simply, a male gay couple has to 1. Determine whose sperm to use. 2. Find an egg donor. 3. Find a woman willing to carry the child through pregnancy. There may be legal complications if #2 and #3 are the same person.
B2. Two gay women: It's a little bit less complicated. They simply need to find a sperm donor and determine who will carry the child during pregnancy.
Adoption and artificial insemination should be available as options for heterosexual couples to have children, but should be used in extreme circumstances when couple can't otherwise have children. The normal biological method to create children should continue to be the norm. Again, one should not make children conceived of artificial means less a lesser person. And adoption is a beautiful option for those not able to conceive, or for children who can't otherwise get parents who want them. Now, back to legitimate non-religious arguments for traditional marriage.
2. The gender of the marriage partner matters just as much to the gay person as it does to the straight person. Gay men who choose to marry will prefer a man. Gay women who choose to marry will prefer a woman. One can't really take gender out of the marriage relationship.
3. Same Sex Marriage assumes that in the marriage relationship, and in the parent-child relationship, that men and women are interchangeable. We do not have inform information to know if this is the case, but we do know what happens to children who are born and raised in single-parent families. We do not yet know if same-sex parents will have the same challenges that single parents have.
4. Same Sex Marriage marginalizes the role of the missing gender parent. Where two men are allowed to marry, the emotional role of the mother is marginalized. Where two women are allowed to marry, the emotional role of the father is marginalized. It is assumed that two parents, even though they are of the same gender, are enough.
5. No one has the right to a child. Children are people and have rights that can't be marginalized nor ignored. Family law had traditionally acted in the best interest of children. From the experience we have with single parents, children are best served in homes where there are both genders.
6. Same Sex Marriage opens the door for children to have more than 2 legal parents...much like divorce does.
7. The state will have to write news laws, and with the assistance of the courts, the state will have to legally protect same-sex marriage. Courts will have to enforce the belief that fathers and mothers are interchangeable. Traditional marriage is self-supporting.
8. Traditional marriage is based upon biology. Humans reproduce sexually. This means it takes both male and female gametes to create a zygote. This does not change with sexual orientation.
9. Support of Same Sex Marriage reduces marriage to little more than the official public sanction of a sexual relationship. It passes public benefits that were meant mainly to assist parents with children to any couple. The original purpose of "Married filing join return" was to help a traditional couple where the mother stays home and takes care of the household while the father goes to the office to earn a paycheck. It does not really assist couples where both work, especially in cases where both spouses earn close to the same amount of money (Marriage Penalty).
Let me also state here that children of gay couples are the same as children of straight couples. Parentage should not be a reason to give children lesser status.
Marriage based upon love is a very new concept in and of itself. In the 1800s, people rarely married out of love. They looked for someone with a pleasant disposition because they knew that they would be in it for the long hall. In spite of all of this, here is what we can do for those with same-gender attraction.
1. Support laws that ban discrimination of homosexual, bi-sexual and trans-gender persons in housing and in the work-place.
2. Support laws that ban discrimination based upon marital status.
3. Support laws that ban discrimination based upon parental status.
4. No matter what happens in the Same-Sex Marriage debate, gay couples will have children. Treat all children the same no matter who their parents are.
Since homosexuality is based upon feelings that we do not completely understand, it is no reason to condemn nor ostracize anyone who feels this way.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Can it happen here?
Can a Cypriot-like seizure happen here in the United States? Could Congress seize half of my savings and call it a tax? Let's see if there are any constitutional protections against it.
Perhaps the most likely constitutional protection that would be used against something like this is the 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. However, the term is excessive and it does not prevent the government from seizing a minor or small amount of your savings account, perhaps 10 to 15 percent would not be considered excessive. If it came down to it, it would be whatever Congress felt they could get away with.
A move toward a less excessive and more responsible government is probably the best defense against a bail-out seizure like the one recently witnessed in Cyprus. Let's first work on making certain this type confiscation of can't be deemed as necessary.
But safeguards need to be in place, because of on a voluntary basis, it has happened here in the United States before.
It was the panic of 1907 that led to many big, rich dudes using their own money to bail out banks. That led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. But what would happen if the Federal Reserve ran out of bail-out cash?
If ever there was a crisis that would cause the US Government to seize the savings of it's citizens, you can bet there would be a run on the banks first. There were be a massive effort to hide assets away into tax shelters and overseas accounts. Now that we have Cypress as an example, people will recognize the signs and prepare. If there is ever a chance that this would happen elsewhere or the US, chances are, there would not be a lot of money to confiscate. This, perhaps, is the best defense against something like this happening in the United States. No matter what a government does, the truly wealthy know how to protect their wealth.
It may be better for Congress to take action now to make such action unlawful. I am not speaking about another 13-hour Rand Paul-type filibuster. We need an actual law that would cause a super-majority of both houses of Congress to repeal. This would be a better option than trying to get a guarantee from a Administration that may be out of power before the crisis arrives. The crisis may be around the corner, and that makes failure to act immediately would be risky.
Perhaps the most likely constitutional protection that would be used against something like this is the 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. However, the term is excessive and it does not prevent the government from seizing a minor or small amount of your savings account, perhaps 10 to 15 percent would not be considered excessive. If it came down to it, it would be whatever Congress felt they could get away with.
A move toward a less excessive and more responsible government is probably the best defense against a bail-out seizure like the one recently witnessed in Cyprus. Let's first work on making certain this type confiscation of can't be deemed as necessary.
But safeguards need to be in place, because of on a voluntary basis, it has happened here in the United States before.
It was the panic of 1907 that led to many big, rich dudes using their own money to bail out banks. That led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. But what would happen if the Federal Reserve ran out of bail-out cash?
If ever there was a crisis that would cause the US Government to seize the savings of it's citizens, you can bet there would be a run on the banks first. There were be a massive effort to hide assets away into tax shelters and overseas accounts. Now that we have Cypress as an example, people will recognize the signs and prepare. If there is ever a chance that this would happen elsewhere or the US, chances are, there would not be a lot of money to confiscate. This, perhaps, is the best defense against something like this happening in the United States. No matter what a government does, the truly wealthy know how to protect their wealth.
It may be better for Congress to take action now to make such action unlawful. I am not speaking about another 13-hour Rand Paul-type filibuster. We need an actual law that would cause a super-majority of both houses of Congress to repeal. This would be a better option than trying to get a guarantee from a Administration that may be out of power before the crisis arrives. The crisis may be around the corner, and that makes failure to act immediately would be risky.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Over the Top Criticism, the Possible GOP Downfall
Pick your battles, it has been uttered many times in many places. There is a reason for that, it's good advice. But the Tea Party and some members of the GOP don't seem to care. Before we go on, please view the following "Talking Points Memo" for Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2207801376001/
Did you hear what he said near the end? "Criticism of the President has been so over the top that independent Americans are beginning to tune out."
In other words, there has been so much criticism of the president that it just doesn't stick any longer. Perhaps this, more than anything else, is the reason that Mitt Romney is not sitting in the Oval Office today.
Let's take a look at one of the most recent stands against The President, the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. Most of you think that this was over the President's controversial decision to allow drones to kill American citizens. However, that was missed by many. The filibuster was over the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director. Brennan is nominated to take the place of David Petreaus who resigned just after Election Day after he revealed that he had an extra-marital affair with his biographer.
Here is why Paul's filibuster was over the top. First, he was not debating a law that would allow the use of drones in law enforcement. He was blocking the nomination of a director of a government agency. Something that the US Senate has only advise and consent authority to approve. Normally, even when the President is of the opposite party of the majority of the Senate, such nominations are a rubber stamp process. There is normally, even under the most controversial of nominees, such nominations are just "rubber stamped" by the Senate.
The reason for the filibuster? Brennan states that he agreed that drones can be used to kill US Citizens without due process. Is this stand constitutional?
Let's look at the text of the Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Italics added)
There are clear exceptions to the due process clause.
1. In a military action. The US Armed forces are allowed to defend themselves without due process, even if there is no declared war. The Constitution does not say that it MUST be the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. It could also be the National Guard in any state, the Border Patrol, the ATF or any armed government agency. If they are clearly in danger, they are allowed to act accordingly.
2. Wartime. See 1861 to 1865.
3. When the public is in danger. Let's say there are some drug smugglers working their way through the Abajo Mountains in Southeastern Utah that are being followed by drones. They are clearly going to run into a Boy Scout troop also hiking through the mountains. There is a clear danger to the scouts. There is no way to get a warning to the troop to change their course or to stay where they are. The troop is clearly in danger. The only way to deal with the drug smugglers is with a drone. Do you think the public would be in an outrage if nothing is done and the scouts pay for the unfortunate encounter with their lives? Clearly, there would be. If this public is in danger, there is no need to wait for a warrant.
I was also upset that Brennan and some others who have spoken on the matter were so casual in speaking about the use of drones. However, there are clear exceptions to the due process clause. The comments by Brennan and the White House should have been clear about that. They should have also emphasized that such exceptions are rare and that they are definitely not declaring war on ordinary Americans and that they are not seeking to circumvent the constitution in any way.
But here is the problem. President Obama was reelected by a clear margin. That does not mean that we should cowtow to everything he proposes. It is clear that there are sharks in the water and they smell blood. The GOP needs to be careful. Fighting the president and his party on everything is clearly not working, and could be fatal to the party.
I know that some people in the Tea Party think that now is the time to end the Republican Party as we know it. However, if you think it is hard to fight progressives now, just wait until we have no party to unite under. Then you will see how difficult things really are. And if you study history, you will know that the collapse of one of the two major parties (the Whig party) was one of the per-cursors to the Civil War.
One thing that should be done, let's also give credit and compliments where it is due. Not everything that the President has proposed is bad or harmful. Some of it has been good. Some of his reforms were necessary. And yes, the economy was in pretty bad shape when he took over.
It is true that when GW Bush was in office, the Democrats seemed to want to fight everything. However, the GOP does not have the press nor Hollywood on their side right now. That puts the GOP at a clear disadvantage.
The Republicans should wake up and realize that sometimes, they are the own worst enemy. It's hard to attract the people to your camp that you need to win elections when you act like spoiled children every single time something is not going to go your way. The nomination of John Brennan is one of those times. Let him use his drones and he will turn one of his own key constituencies against him, the ALCU. Rocky Anderson and his allies will be all over that like flies on a cow dropping. Hopefully, someone will not have to due for this to happen. Sooner or later, even with Obama in the White House, it will.
The GOP should do this; determine what the biggest two are three threats to America is and fight that. Whether it is the expanding debt, or same-sex marriage or whatever it is, and just fight that. Let the Dems and the President have some victories. The drone issue, for example, is one of those victories to let them have. The Constitution is already pretty clear on what can and can't be done without due process. Let the constitution, which you claim to believe in and support work for you. The GOP should make a stand, but this was not the time, and Rand Paul only looks foolish for doing so.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2207801376001/
Did you hear what he said near the end? "Criticism of the President has been so over the top that independent Americans are beginning to tune out."
In other words, there has been so much criticism of the president that it just doesn't stick any longer. Perhaps this, more than anything else, is the reason that Mitt Romney is not sitting in the Oval Office today.
Let's take a look at one of the most recent stands against The President, the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. Most of you think that this was over the President's controversial decision to allow drones to kill American citizens. However, that was missed by many. The filibuster was over the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director. Brennan is nominated to take the place of David Petreaus who resigned just after Election Day after he revealed that he had an extra-marital affair with his biographer.
Here is why Paul's filibuster was over the top. First, he was not debating a law that would allow the use of drones in law enforcement. He was blocking the nomination of a director of a government agency. Something that the US Senate has only advise and consent authority to approve. Normally, even when the President is of the opposite party of the majority of the Senate, such nominations are a rubber stamp process. There is normally, even under the most controversial of nominees, such nominations are just "rubber stamped" by the Senate.
The reason for the filibuster? Brennan states that he agreed that drones can be used to kill US Citizens without due process. Is this stand constitutional?
Let's look at the text of the Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Italics added)
There are clear exceptions to the due process clause.
1. In a military action. The US Armed forces are allowed to defend themselves without due process, even if there is no declared war. The Constitution does not say that it MUST be the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. It could also be the National Guard in any state, the Border Patrol, the ATF or any armed government agency. If they are clearly in danger, they are allowed to act accordingly.
2. Wartime. See 1861 to 1865.
3. When the public is in danger. Let's say there are some drug smugglers working their way through the Abajo Mountains in Southeastern Utah that are being followed by drones. They are clearly going to run into a Boy Scout troop also hiking through the mountains. There is a clear danger to the scouts. There is no way to get a warning to the troop to change their course or to stay where they are. The troop is clearly in danger. The only way to deal with the drug smugglers is with a drone. Do you think the public would be in an outrage if nothing is done and the scouts pay for the unfortunate encounter with their lives? Clearly, there would be. If this public is in danger, there is no need to wait for a warrant.
I was also upset that Brennan and some others who have spoken on the matter were so casual in speaking about the use of drones. However, there are clear exceptions to the due process clause. The comments by Brennan and the White House should have been clear about that. They should have also emphasized that such exceptions are rare and that they are definitely not declaring war on ordinary Americans and that they are not seeking to circumvent the constitution in any way.
But here is the problem. President Obama was reelected by a clear margin. That does not mean that we should cowtow to everything he proposes. It is clear that there are sharks in the water and they smell blood. The GOP needs to be careful. Fighting the president and his party on everything is clearly not working, and could be fatal to the party.
I know that some people in the Tea Party think that now is the time to end the Republican Party as we know it. However, if you think it is hard to fight progressives now, just wait until we have no party to unite under. Then you will see how difficult things really are. And if you study history, you will know that the collapse of one of the two major parties (the Whig party) was one of the per-cursors to the Civil War.
One thing that should be done, let's also give credit and compliments where it is due. Not everything that the President has proposed is bad or harmful. Some of it has been good. Some of his reforms were necessary. And yes, the economy was in pretty bad shape when he took over.
It is true that when GW Bush was in office, the Democrats seemed to want to fight everything. However, the GOP does not have the press nor Hollywood on their side right now. That puts the GOP at a clear disadvantage.
The Republicans should wake up and realize that sometimes, they are the own worst enemy. It's hard to attract the people to your camp that you need to win elections when you act like spoiled children every single time something is not going to go your way. The nomination of John Brennan is one of those times. Let him use his drones and he will turn one of his own key constituencies against him, the ALCU. Rocky Anderson and his allies will be all over that like flies on a cow dropping. Hopefully, someone will not have to due for this to happen. Sooner or later, even with Obama in the White House, it will.
The GOP should do this; determine what the biggest two are three threats to America is and fight that. Whether it is the expanding debt, or same-sex marriage or whatever it is, and just fight that. Let the Dems and the President have some victories. The drone issue, for example, is one of those victories to let them have. The Constitution is already pretty clear on what can and can't be done without due process. Let the constitution, which you claim to believe in and support work for you. The GOP should make a stand, but this was not the time, and Rand Paul only looks foolish for doing so.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Support an Anti-gerrymandering Amendment
One of the reasons for the gridlock in Congress is that we allow states to draw congressional district boundaries. When this happens, the state will draw those boundaries to benefit the political party in charge in the state. This, in a way, disenfranchises the minority party in the congressional district. Congressmen, like Utah's Jason Chaffetz, go to Washington believing that their views represent the majority of the people in their district. What really happens is that those who believe as Chaffetz does are united, and those who do not are divided, or the boundaries are draw to minimize those voices.A highly republican state like Utah does it, and so does a highly democratic state like Massachusetts and California. Gerrymandering gives rise to the extremes in both parties, while those who are moderate are silenced.
Seating a congress should be like seating a jury. You do not want people who are completely impartial, you will never get anything done. When half the jury is strongly for the defense and half the jury is strongly for the prosecution, the jury will be hung, and justice will not be served. You want people who, even though they have their biases, can weigh the issues before them and make solid, informed decisions. If Congress today were a jury, it would be dismissed for being a hung jury.
How about this amendment:
Congressional district boundaries should not be drawn with respect to any political party nor should they be drawn to with respect to any race, religion, national origin, age, family status nor disability.
No congressional district boundary should divide any county, parish, borough, city, town or equivalent unit unless the population of that unit is greater than the proportion of the state's population for any congressional district. Congressional districts should do not have to be perfectly proportionate with the state's population.
Each state should also make similar considerations when dividing their respective state legislative district boundaries.
This article shall take effect for the first congressional election 2 years after it's ratification by the states.
Seating a congress should be like seating a jury. You do not want people who are completely impartial, you will never get anything done. When half the jury is strongly for the defense and half the jury is strongly for the prosecution, the jury will be hung, and justice will not be served. You want people who, even though they have their biases, can weigh the issues before them and make solid, informed decisions. If Congress today were a jury, it would be dismissed for being a hung jury.
How about this amendment:
Congressional district boundaries should not be drawn with respect to any political party nor should they be drawn to with respect to any race, religion, national origin, age, family status nor disability.
No congressional district boundary should divide any county, parish, borough, city, town or equivalent unit unless the population of that unit is greater than the proportion of the state's population for any congressional district. Congressional districts should do not have to be perfectly proportionate with the state's population.
Each state should also make similar considerations when dividing their respective state legislative district boundaries.
This article shall take effect for the first congressional election 2 years after it's ratification by the states.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Fixing the deadlock in Congress.
There has always been bickering in the US Congress. It is only natural. As a local radio host, here in Utah has said, if two people agree on everything all of the time, one of them is not thinking. Even if one party were to control everything, there will still be bickering in the Congress.
But the Congress seems hopelessly deadlocked. There is one solution for the problem, and that is to constitutionally ban gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is the practice that allows the party in control of the state legislature to draw congressional district and state legislative boundaries in a manner that is favorable to their party. Here in Utah, it was tried when we were awarded a 4th Congressional District.
Here is the problem that this level of gerrymandering creates. Congressmen tend to listen to their constituents. When someone on the extreme right or left is elected, you can bet that their constituents, as a majority, are happy at least with their own representative.
What is the evidence for this? Congressional approval is at an all-time low, yet over 80% of incumbents are re-elected every 2 years. People are happy with their own congressman, but not happy with Congress as a whole.
How do we fix this? We can do it several ways. First, you could eliminate congressional districts and elect all members of the House of Representatives on a state-wide basis. Or you could pass an anti-gerrymandering amendment to the Constitution. Chances are, however, it would not pass because most Congressmen are elected because of how their district boundaries are drawn. Third is to be more involved after the 2020 census and help ensure the congressional districts in your state are more sanely drawn.
There is a mathematical test for this. If a city, county or ward within a city has less than the proportioned population, it should not be divided. Here in Utah, we have 4 congressional districts. Salt Lake County is the only county in the state that has more than 25% of the state's population. Salt Lake County is the only county large enough be split into multiple congressional districts.
That will help things in the lower house, but what about the Senate? The Senate is also deadlocked, isn't it? Believe it or not, it's not as bad as it used to be in the US Senate. And the Senate is fighting the House. There are ways to hold up legislation in the Senate, but it is in Conference with the House of Representatives where the problem lies right now. The Senate is supposed to be a slower body to consider legislation. They have 6-year terms. It is harder for the body of the Senate to change as the mood of the people change. That is the way the founders wanted it. If you want the Senate to speed up a little bit, shorten the term.
This blog is not for other drastic changes such as the repeal of the 17th Amendment nor the addition of Term Limits. Here in Utah, we demonstrated how easy it is to break the power of the incumbent when we send home Robert Bennett in 2010 at the State GOP Convention. And a lot of people were upset about it. Amazingly, many I have spoken to who are unhappy about the way Bennett was ousted are for term limits and the repeal of the 17th Amendment, either of which could have ousted Bennett without a primary election as well.
Anti-gerrymandering will help with the Senate, but the effect will not be as obvious. Anti-gerrymandering should go down to state legislative districts as well. Many Senators were state legislators or some other office before becoming senators. If state houses are more even keeled, eventually the Senate will follow. Also remember that many of our presidents were Senators.
Support efforts in your state to control gerrymandering. It will lead to a better Congress and a better government.
But the Congress seems hopelessly deadlocked. There is one solution for the problem, and that is to constitutionally ban gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is the practice that allows the party in control of the state legislature to draw congressional district and state legislative boundaries in a manner that is favorable to their party. Here in Utah, it was tried when we were awarded a 4th Congressional District.
Here is the problem that this level of gerrymandering creates. Congressmen tend to listen to their constituents. When someone on the extreme right or left is elected, you can bet that their constituents, as a majority, are happy at least with their own representative.
What is the evidence for this? Congressional approval is at an all-time low, yet over 80% of incumbents are re-elected every 2 years. People are happy with their own congressman, but not happy with Congress as a whole.
How do we fix this? We can do it several ways. First, you could eliminate congressional districts and elect all members of the House of Representatives on a state-wide basis. Or you could pass an anti-gerrymandering amendment to the Constitution. Chances are, however, it would not pass because most Congressmen are elected because of how their district boundaries are drawn. Third is to be more involved after the 2020 census and help ensure the congressional districts in your state are more sanely drawn.
There is a mathematical test for this. If a city, county or ward within a city has less than the proportioned population, it should not be divided. Here in Utah, we have 4 congressional districts. Salt Lake County is the only county in the state that has more than 25% of the state's population. Salt Lake County is the only county large enough be split into multiple congressional districts.
That will help things in the lower house, but what about the Senate? The Senate is also deadlocked, isn't it? Believe it or not, it's not as bad as it used to be in the US Senate. And the Senate is fighting the House. There are ways to hold up legislation in the Senate, but it is in Conference with the House of Representatives where the problem lies right now. The Senate is supposed to be a slower body to consider legislation. They have 6-year terms. It is harder for the body of the Senate to change as the mood of the people change. That is the way the founders wanted it. If you want the Senate to speed up a little bit, shorten the term.
This blog is not for other drastic changes such as the repeal of the 17th Amendment nor the addition of Term Limits. Here in Utah, we demonstrated how easy it is to break the power of the incumbent when we send home Robert Bennett in 2010 at the State GOP Convention. And a lot of people were upset about it. Amazingly, many I have spoken to who are unhappy about the way Bennett was ousted are for term limits and the repeal of the 17th Amendment, either of which could have ousted Bennett without a primary election as well.
Anti-gerrymandering will help with the Senate, but the effect will not be as obvious. Anti-gerrymandering should go down to state legislative districts as well. Many Senators were state legislators or some other office before becoming senators. If state houses are more even keeled, eventually the Senate will follow. Also remember that many of our presidents were Senators.
Support efforts in your state to control gerrymandering. It will lead to a better Congress and a better government.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Raising the Minimum Wage...Not a Fix for Unemployment.
One of the proposals on the table from the State of the Union Address earlier this week is to raise the minimum wage to 9.00 per hour. This sounds like a great thing to do, it will give unskilled laborers a little more purchasing power. But, generally, this is not a fix to unemployment.
From an economic standpoint, the minimum wage is a price floor. In other words, prices can't fall below this point. And when you have a price floor, that generally means that the price can't fall to the equilibrium price. And when the price, legally, is artificically above the equilibrium price, then the quantity supplied will be greater than the quantity demanded. That translates to a surplus. Therefore, a raise in the minimum wage will lead to greater unemployment.
Very few adult workers earn minimum wage, however. But in this economy, some people need all the help they can get. Some adults are too young to retire, but can't find work doing what earned their bread and butter for so many years and have to start over. Others need to start somewhere. Students going to college should not pay for all of their expenses with student loan debt. Student's going to school from Mom and Dad's money should work to get some spending money. Minimum wage is for these people. For most of these people, the minimum wage is not a lifetime sentence.
Each job has it's own economic system; or it's own supply and demand curve. That is why some jobs pay more than others. Most employers are keen to this. If you advertise a job, and you get hundreds of applicants, then you are probably paying too much. On the other hand, if you advertise a job and have difficulty finding someone who fits, then you probably need to pay better. If you have high turnover in your position, you are not paying enough. If people are staying on forever, then you are probably paying too much. A good HR manager is keen to these cycles.
It is different for minimum wage jobs. My wife has recently attempted to return to the workforce after 16 years. Found herself in a group interview as one of 50 applicants for a minimum wage position. This probably indicates that for now, the minimum wage is too high. There are responses like this all over the country for minimum wage work. If anything, Congress should lower the minimum wage, at least temporarily, until the unemployment rate is back below 6% for a full quarter.
I am also an advocate for a lower minimum wage for workers age 19 and younger and still in high school, as long as the job does not require that kids work more than 25 hours per week when school is in session. Even in poverty, most kids who are still in high school are not working to help support the family. Most of these kids should be working to learn how to please an employer, get along with co-workers and develop good habits of managing money. They do not need to have a minimum wage as high as people starting out. Their wage could be set at 75% of the Federal wage for those over the age of 19 and who have completed high school. Right now, that rate would be 5.65. This would also help small employers who rely on this level of labor to remain in business. It helps those who run businesses that provide summer employment to reduce their operating expenses, helping them stay in business. I think about this every time I drive by a closed and boarded up store. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to hurt retail giants like Wal-Mart.
In fact, a raise in the minimum wage is a good excuse to pass expenses onto customers. We may raise the minimum wage to increase purchasing power, but in another 2 to 3 years, inflation will absorb that power and it will be time for that debate again. It was not that long ago that we raised the minimum wage to where it is today for the same reason we argue today.
Let's wait until we've seen a recovery in the job market to raise the minimum wage. And then, only raise it for those 18 and older once they have finished high school. That will help small business get a foothold in America again.
From an economic standpoint, the minimum wage is a price floor. In other words, prices can't fall below this point. And when you have a price floor, that generally means that the price can't fall to the equilibrium price. And when the price, legally, is artificically above the equilibrium price, then the quantity supplied will be greater than the quantity demanded. That translates to a surplus. Therefore, a raise in the minimum wage will lead to greater unemployment.
Very few adult workers earn minimum wage, however. But in this economy, some people need all the help they can get. Some adults are too young to retire, but can't find work doing what earned their bread and butter for so many years and have to start over. Others need to start somewhere. Students going to college should not pay for all of their expenses with student loan debt. Student's going to school from Mom and Dad's money should work to get some spending money. Minimum wage is for these people. For most of these people, the minimum wage is not a lifetime sentence.
Each job has it's own economic system; or it's own supply and demand curve. That is why some jobs pay more than others. Most employers are keen to this. If you advertise a job, and you get hundreds of applicants, then you are probably paying too much. On the other hand, if you advertise a job and have difficulty finding someone who fits, then you probably need to pay better. If you have high turnover in your position, you are not paying enough. If people are staying on forever, then you are probably paying too much. A good HR manager is keen to these cycles.
It is different for minimum wage jobs. My wife has recently attempted to return to the workforce after 16 years. Found herself in a group interview as one of 50 applicants for a minimum wage position. This probably indicates that for now, the minimum wage is too high. There are responses like this all over the country for minimum wage work. If anything, Congress should lower the minimum wage, at least temporarily, until the unemployment rate is back below 6% for a full quarter.
I am also an advocate for a lower minimum wage for workers age 19 and younger and still in high school, as long as the job does not require that kids work more than 25 hours per week when school is in session. Even in poverty, most kids who are still in high school are not working to help support the family. Most of these kids should be working to learn how to please an employer, get along with co-workers and develop good habits of managing money. They do not need to have a minimum wage as high as people starting out. Their wage could be set at 75% of the Federal wage for those over the age of 19 and who have completed high school. Right now, that rate would be 5.65. This would also help small employers who rely on this level of labor to remain in business. It helps those who run businesses that provide summer employment to reduce their operating expenses, helping them stay in business. I think about this every time I drive by a closed and boarded up store. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to hurt retail giants like Wal-Mart.
In fact, a raise in the minimum wage is a good excuse to pass expenses onto customers. We may raise the minimum wage to increase purchasing power, but in another 2 to 3 years, inflation will absorb that power and it will be time for that debate again. It was not that long ago that we raised the minimum wage to where it is today for the same reason we argue today.
Let's wait until we've seen a recovery in the job market to raise the minimum wage. And then, only raise it for those 18 and older once they have finished high school. That will help small business get a foothold in America again.
Friday, January 25, 2013
A New Amendment Proposal.
There are versions of this amendment going around facebook. Here is how I would write it. I call it the Exemption Amendment.
Article 1:
No member of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government shall be exempt from the laws, regulations and fiats they pass upon the American People. Nor shall any law be valid which gives members of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government benefits which are not available to every civilian employee of the United State Government or the the citizens of the United States, except to protect the safety of those said leaders from assassination or any other crime of which is solely the risk of their office.
Article 2:
Whenever disagreements over the Federal Budget cause the government to shut down, members of congress will not be paid until the disagreement is resolved. Members of the US Armed Forces and other Federal Employees who will not be excused from duty during the shut down will be paid.
The purpose of this amendment is to formally recognize that the President, Members of Congress and members of the Judiciary from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court down to every federal judge are not above the laws that they create. Nor does their election nor appointment, whichever the case may be, give them special privileges; except to recognize the risk they take by taking office and to protect them.
Article 1:
No member of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government shall be exempt from the laws, regulations and fiats they pass upon the American People. Nor shall any law be valid which gives members of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government benefits which are not available to every civilian employee of the United State Government or the the citizens of the United States, except to protect the safety of those said leaders from assassination or any other crime of which is solely the risk of their office.
Article 2:
Whenever disagreements over the Federal Budget cause the government to shut down, members of congress will not be paid until the disagreement is resolved. Members of the US Armed Forces and other Federal Employees who will not be excused from duty during the shut down will be paid.
The purpose of this amendment is to formally recognize that the President, Members of Congress and members of the Judiciary from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court down to every federal judge are not above the laws that they create. Nor does their election nor appointment, whichever the case may be, give them special privileges; except to recognize the risk they take by taking office and to protect them.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Gun Control, Can the President really use Executive Powers.
In a press conference on January 14, 2012, President Obama stated that he had the power to regulate firearms. The logic is found in the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment does say, "a well regulated militia..." but it does not say who has the power to regulate the militia.
The president is the commander in chief, therefore, the President can regulate the militia. But there is a catch.
The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the constitution does not give the Federal Government nor the President the power to regulate the militia, that power must belong to the states.
The 10th amendment is balanced by two other clauses in the constitution. First, Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. And there is also the Necessary and Proper Clause in the constitution which gives the federal government the power to pass all laws that are Necessary and Proper.
This is probably something that will eventually be settled in the US Supreme Court. I am not an expert on Federalism, but unless someone is planning to build guns in one state and sell them in another, I don't believe that the Federal Government has a horse to race.
I understand the problem that some people have with this. As you travel from state to state, you are subject to different laws. But this was the way that our founders intended. They wanted stronger state government, and many powers delegated to the states. They wanted each individual state to maintain a level of sovereignty separate from the federal government. That is something that has gradually been lost.
Some states have very strict gun control laws, which in the wake of recent school shootings has been made even more strict. While it may help to curb gun violence, there is little evidence that it controls overall violence. Here in Utah, the majority of gun-related murders were committed in the context of domestic violence. It would not be reasonable to believe that stricter gun control laws would curb the violence. It might save lives, but in close and intimate settings such as at home, the guns that would still be legal would still be lethal.
We need an honest discussion about what is at the root of violence. The answer may be a combination of factors, such as less violence in movies, television and video games. It could be classes in high school about building healthy relationships. It could be removing some of the stigma from mental illness so that people are not afraid to get help before they become violent. It may take a combination of all of these factors to reduce the threat to innocent victims.
As far as violence against schools. They are soft targets. I am not for arming teachers, unless they have experience in prior work that required the use of a firearm. For example, some police officers retire from the force and become teachers. They would be the ideal teachers to arm. Same with former soldiers and marines. Most teachers, however, should remain unarmed and should not be given arms training.
Schools would be a good place for aging police officers and former soldiers and marines to find work after their service has come to an end. It is possible that these men and women could bond with the students and provide positive role models. They could also watch for warning signs and help intervene before students themselves become violent. Remember, many of the most notorious school shootings were perpetrated by students, and not by complete strangers.
School campuses should be closed during school hours. There should only be one way in and out during that time. The only ones that should be admitted are student, teachers, administrators, parents and guests that are invited to speak by a teacher or an administrator. Parking lots and driveways should be a good distance away from school buildings to keep students out of the range of car bombs. Security consultants should be hired in ways to make school grounds a safe place for students to spend the day.
But when all is said and done, on average, students are much more safe in school than they are in getting to and from school. Your child is much more likely to die in transit than at the school. And someone intent on going out in a blaze of glory at a school is likely to find a way to do it. I know that is not very comforting. The bottom line is take time to express your love to those you have while you have them. But still, on average, your kids are likely to outlive you.
The 2nd amendment does say, "a well regulated militia..." but it does not say who has the power to regulate the militia.
The president is the commander in chief, therefore, the President can regulate the militia. But there is a catch.
The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the constitution does not give the Federal Government nor the President the power to regulate the militia, that power must belong to the states.
The 10th amendment is balanced by two other clauses in the constitution. First, Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. And there is also the Necessary and Proper Clause in the constitution which gives the federal government the power to pass all laws that are Necessary and Proper.
This is probably something that will eventually be settled in the US Supreme Court. I am not an expert on Federalism, but unless someone is planning to build guns in one state and sell them in another, I don't believe that the Federal Government has a horse to race.
I understand the problem that some people have with this. As you travel from state to state, you are subject to different laws. But this was the way that our founders intended. They wanted stronger state government, and many powers delegated to the states. They wanted each individual state to maintain a level of sovereignty separate from the federal government. That is something that has gradually been lost.
Some states have very strict gun control laws, which in the wake of recent school shootings has been made even more strict. While it may help to curb gun violence, there is little evidence that it controls overall violence. Here in Utah, the majority of gun-related murders were committed in the context of domestic violence. It would not be reasonable to believe that stricter gun control laws would curb the violence. It might save lives, but in close and intimate settings such as at home, the guns that would still be legal would still be lethal.
We need an honest discussion about what is at the root of violence. The answer may be a combination of factors, such as less violence in movies, television and video games. It could be classes in high school about building healthy relationships. It could be removing some of the stigma from mental illness so that people are not afraid to get help before they become violent. It may take a combination of all of these factors to reduce the threat to innocent victims.
As far as violence against schools. They are soft targets. I am not for arming teachers, unless they have experience in prior work that required the use of a firearm. For example, some police officers retire from the force and become teachers. They would be the ideal teachers to arm. Same with former soldiers and marines. Most teachers, however, should remain unarmed and should not be given arms training.
Schools would be a good place for aging police officers and former soldiers and marines to find work after their service has come to an end. It is possible that these men and women could bond with the students and provide positive role models. They could also watch for warning signs and help intervene before students themselves become violent. Remember, many of the most notorious school shootings were perpetrated by students, and not by complete strangers.
School campuses should be closed during school hours. There should only be one way in and out during that time. The only ones that should be admitted are student, teachers, administrators, parents and guests that are invited to speak by a teacher or an administrator. Parking lots and driveways should be a good distance away from school buildings to keep students out of the range of car bombs. Security consultants should be hired in ways to make school grounds a safe place for students to spend the day.
But when all is said and done, on average, students are much more safe in school than they are in getting to and from school. Your child is much more likely to die in transit than at the school. And someone intent on going out in a blaze of glory at a school is likely to find a way to do it. I know that is not very comforting. The bottom line is take time to express your love to those you have while you have them. But still, on average, your kids are likely to outlive you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
