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.

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.

 
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.