Five progressive or liberal ideas that will not fix Americas problems.
1. Taxing Churches
This is something that may raise some good money for a year or two, but churches are smarter than most people give them credit for. There will be negotiations and consolidations and the larger churches will become just like many corporations who figure out legal ways to avoid taxes. While the smaller churches will simply foldm or close shop, for lack of a better term. Often, these smaller churches do more good for the community than people realize because pastors are better connected their parishioners. You may find that schisms and other disagreements may heal as churches combine to save money. In the end, you may increase revenue from taxing churches, but not as much as seems like you would get now.
If your goal is to see religion fade away, you are not likely to see that either. Pushing hard may cause believers to unite in ways that we can't really understand today. Many sects are bound by generations of traditions. These things don't just go away overnight.
If your goal is to cause changes within the religious sect, such as forcing them to change views on homosexuality, don't expect that to happen either. Again, this has to do with generations of traditions.
Also, here in the United States, we have that pesky First Amendment which reads, "Congress shall not pass laws favoring a practice of religion or denying the free practice thereof." Of course, there are limits to this, such as with anti-polygamy laws from the late 19th century. But even those may not survive Supreme Court muster if they were ever to come up for review again. (This, by the way is why Utah is currently not allowed to prosecute religious co-habitation, although bigamy is still off-limits.) Clearly, to not favor a practice of religion, if one is to tax churches, one must tax them all equally.
However, what if the church that you want to tax is clearly discriminatory in their practices and beliefs? I would advise to rely on the law. However, it is against legal precedent to write laws that force churches to change beliefs. With a few exceptions, courts have declined to allow use of the law to influence religious practices. Generally, the question you would need to answer is, "why would you care about an organization whose tenets you don't agree with?" In other words, "find a religion that you agree with and join them."
What will work instead? Build the economy. With a strong economy, church goers will fall into higher tax brackets, and will donate more to their church which could reduce the demand on public safety nets in addition to filling tax coffers. It will reduce the public burden on two fronts. A strong economy may have a different effect. Many people turn to religion during hard times, and tend to forget about it during prosperous times. As many sociologists have said, beginning with Calvin, "nothing will kill religion faster than prosperity will." Prosperity will give people other things to do with their Sunday mornings. If you really want a religion to go away, make people wealthy.
2. Raising the Minimum Wage
Wage is something that is relative. If minimum wage is raised, eventually everyone will get a wage increase, and the low wage earners will either not as well off or at best, where they were before. The effects are only temporary realized at best. Businesses have ways of dealing with minimum wage increases that create unintended consequences. Personally, if I owned a business, I wouldn't think twice about passing on my cost increases to customers after a minimum wage increase. After all, with more money, aren't people better able to afford it? Occasionally, yes the minimum wage needs to increase to keep up with inflation. But wage increases can also be inflationary in and of themselves.
What will work instead? Training programs to help people escape minimum wage jobs. Holding the line on college tuition, especially at state-run schools. This will give people hope to escape low-wage jobs. People tend to eat a McDonalds when times are rough, and at costlier places, where employees are paid and treated better, during prosperous times.
3. Raising Taxes on Wealthy
They who are "the wealthy" know how to work the system. Sure, it will sound like politicians are doing something, but there will be some sort of loophole, tax shelter or write-off that will be found. He who has the gold makes the rules. The rich also contribute a lot of money for political campaigns, and no one gives money without it being tied to consequences. Do you really think that a new tax be passed without a way to escape it? If taxes on the wealthy increase, loop holes will be written to the laws.
What will work instead? Again a strong economy is the answer. Think of taxes as an irrigation canal that comes from a river. It is easier to divert water from a raging river than a dry one. Some loopholes, however, are just silly. A mortgage reduction for a first house...wonderful. For a second house...OK? For a third house?...that is just wrong. For a fourth house?...You got to be kidding me? But yet, it is there. If you can afford 3 houses, you don't need a mortgage deduction. The tax code is full of examples like this., it's worse than Aged Swiss. No wonder Trump does not want to release his tax statements. We could close some of those loopholes.
4. Repealing the 2nd Amendment
This will reduce gun violence, for certain. It will not, however, end murder or even mass murder. People intent on causing harm to others will find a way to harm others if there is not access to guns. The 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms are part of the Bill of Rights. To people who want to curb this liberty, I would ask, what right is sacred to you and would you be willing to give up that right for a little more security?
What will work instead? Programs that reduce violent behavior. Perhaps reducing access to violent TV programs, violent movies and violent video games. We keep saying, "violence isn't the answer." However, in movies, television and video games, and even in real life, we constantly see the message, "violence IS the answer." We need to ensure that our messages are consistent.
5. Legalizing Drugs
This is one that both leftists and extreme right wingers agree on. You may create a tax revenue source in a business that is today tax free, but it won't last. As soon as banks feel comfortable in doing business with those who are now drug dealers, either new big businesses will evolve or existing big business, like Big Tobacco, will take over. Government will not be able to put this genie back in the bottle. And society will pay the price with the consequences of higher levels of addiction. We all pay the price of alcohol abuse in higher absenteeism, unemployment, welfare, broken marriages and families and in recovery programs. We will see more of those expenses with legalized drugs.
I know that many of you will correctly point out that in some countries in Europe, drugs have been legalized...blah, blah blah. To them I say, show me the science. Just because it SOUNDS logical, doesn't mean it will work. Remember, what you read about happening in Portugal doesn't mean it will work here where the culture is so different. Addiction is a bad thing whether or not the government collects taxes on it.
Despite what you have been told about the benefits of legal pot in some states in the US, people are making big money off of it. There are also, and you are not told about this, many people suffering because of it. Legal pot has many of the same consequences for families that alcohol and other additions have. Legalizing it doesn't take away those consequences. This is why it was banned in the first place.
What should be done instead? I support efforts to reclassify marijuana and some other drugs as Schedule II drugs to allow research into their potential medical benefits. Medical opioids have provided much relief to people, but at the price of prescription drug abuse. Canniboids show promise to provide the same relief without the addiction. There are probably other Schedule I drugs with the same promise.
I am definitely not for recreational drugs.
But I am not only picking on Liberals today. Look for Five Conservative Ideas that will not Fix Americas problems that has also been published.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Why Good People Do Not Run for Political Office
One complaint I read and hear about the pool of candidates for president from everyone is about the lack of quality. Why don't good people run for office any longer? If you were asked to run for office, would you? Let's take a moment and examine what someone who runs for office goes through.
1. How politicians are labeled.
Politicians are often labeled as cheats and liars. Mostly, this happens because it is perceived that people trade their votes for favors from supporters. Let's face it, this does happen, but this is not true of 90% of people who have served politically. It's the 10% who really are that give the whole profession a black eye. Even if you are perceived in the public eye as honest, people will still call you self-serving or find some way to belittle your character. If you are a decent person, do you want your good name dragged through the mud simply because of your job?
2. Party thuggery
If political parties were eliminated, it would be very difficult for people to win. Therefore, unless your name is Ross Perot, you can't win unless you join a party. Don't stray from the boat if you really want to win. You can be a pro-choice Republican, or a pro-life Democrat, but don't let the party leadership find out. If you rock the boat too much, don't expect support from the party rank and file, you RINO or DINO-whatever.
Party leaders, like Harry Reid, for example, are, in every sense of the word, thugs. When you try to represent the best interest of your constituents, you don't want to be told by a someone who is supposed to be a peer and a equal that you have to tow the line they lay out.
3. A lack of understanding of political roles on the part of the voting public.
Most Americans are happy to blame Congress and the President for everything that goes wrong in the country. But it is much more complicated than that. Most of what effects us from day to day, actually comes from either the state legislatures or your local city council and school board. Most people don't understand why 80-90 percent of Congress win re-election even though they have a 15% approval rate. (Hint, most US House races are decided once every 10 years.) The most important race that effects your day-to-day life is your state legislator, not the President.
So you want to run for the State House? Try convincing enough people that you matter. The President in more glamorous, and gets the media coverage. But most of the laws that affect your day to day, as well as the people who draw political boundaries, your state legislator, do so in relative anonymity. The more glamorous office gets most of the credit and most of the blame. What office would you run for.
There is nothing wrong with partisanship.
4. Going under the microscope.
Nobody cares about your sex life until you run for office. Then everybody wants to know everything. Why put your family through that?
5. Combative work environment
Would you want a job where you argue with half of your co-workers every single day? How about dealing with a member of the press who disagrees with you? And then you get to go home and face your constituency. Think of your toughest day at the office. Every day is like that for a politician.
6. The Ideal Candidate
No one measures up completely to this standard. And this standard is different for different people.
7. Money
It takes a lot of money to run for office. For many, a lot of your own money, at least to begin with. You have to raise money. You have to, for most people, take a leave of absence from your regular job to get elected. Once you win, most people take a CUT in pay?
I know that I am going to get crucified for this, but yes, people in office are not getting paid enough, unless you count the notoriety that comes with political service.
Here is a good example. Let's say that you are the vice president of a medium sized corporation. This is what most Tea Party people feel would be a good qualified candidate for Congress. You would give up your pay check of 400,000 to 700,000 per year to take a job that pays 174,000 per year. Who wants to take a job that requires a 75% pay cut?
If you want better people in office, you have to be willing to pay them more, not less.
Here are my solutions for the problem.
1. We have politically correct terms for everyone else. then we should also speak in kind terms for those in office. We should encourage respectful language for everyone, including politicians.
2. While I am not for term limits for office, I am for making rules that ensure that every senator and every house member are equal,
3. School house rock did a good job of letting us know how the national government works. We need more education of how state, county and city government works. State representatives and senators should be better known than most are.
4. Media outlets that present hearsay as news should be banned from access to those running for office. You should be required to prove what you report. Media should lead the way when it comes to respectful language and speech.
5. Family members are off limits.
6. Pay for members of congress, 75% of the average of your last five reported tax returns. No more, no less. If you want a raise, leave congress for at least 5 years and earn more money than you did in your job prior to running for office. For President, 85%. Pension is 50%.
Let me finish this post with one final thought. A boxer doesn't step into the ring without expecting to get punched by his opponent. However, it's not an anything goes proposition. It shouldn't be that way for politicians either.
1. How politicians are labeled.
Politicians are often labeled as cheats and liars. Mostly, this happens because it is perceived that people trade their votes for favors from supporters. Let's face it, this does happen, but this is not true of 90% of people who have served politically. It's the 10% who really are that give the whole profession a black eye. Even if you are perceived in the public eye as honest, people will still call you self-serving or find some way to belittle your character. If you are a decent person, do you want your good name dragged through the mud simply because of your job?
2. Party thuggery
If political parties were eliminated, it would be very difficult for people to win. Therefore, unless your name is Ross Perot, you can't win unless you join a party. Don't stray from the boat if you really want to win. You can be a pro-choice Republican, or a pro-life Democrat, but don't let the party leadership find out. If you rock the boat too much, don't expect support from the party rank and file, you RINO or DINO-whatever.
Party leaders, like Harry Reid, for example, are, in every sense of the word, thugs. When you try to represent the best interest of your constituents, you don't want to be told by a someone who is supposed to be a peer and a equal that you have to tow the line they lay out.
3. A lack of understanding of political roles on the part of the voting public.
Most Americans are happy to blame Congress and the President for everything that goes wrong in the country. But it is much more complicated than that. Most of what effects us from day to day, actually comes from either the state legislatures or your local city council and school board. Most people don't understand why 80-90 percent of Congress win re-election even though they have a 15% approval rate. (Hint, most US House races are decided once every 10 years.) The most important race that effects your day-to-day life is your state legislator, not the President.
So you want to run for the State House? Try convincing enough people that you matter. The President in more glamorous, and gets the media coverage. But most of the laws that affect your day to day, as well as the people who draw political boundaries, your state legislator, do so in relative anonymity. The more glamorous office gets most of the credit and most of the blame. What office would you run for.
There is nothing wrong with partisanship.
4. Going under the microscope.
Nobody cares about your sex life until you run for office. Then everybody wants to know everything. Why put your family through that?
5. Combative work environment
Would you want a job where you argue with half of your co-workers every single day? How about dealing with a member of the press who disagrees with you? And then you get to go home and face your constituency. Think of your toughest day at the office. Every day is like that for a politician.
6. The Ideal Candidate
No one measures up completely to this standard. And this standard is different for different people.
7. Money
It takes a lot of money to run for office. For many, a lot of your own money, at least to begin with. You have to raise money. You have to, for most people, take a leave of absence from your regular job to get elected. Once you win, most people take a CUT in pay?
I know that I am going to get crucified for this, but yes, people in office are not getting paid enough, unless you count the notoriety that comes with political service.
Here is a good example. Let's say that you are the vice president of a medium sized corporation. This is what most Tea Party people feel would be a good qualified candidate for Congress. You would give up your pay check of 400,000 to 700,000 per year to take a job that pays 174,000 per year. Who wants to take a job that requires a 75% pay cut?
If you want better people in office, you have to be willing to pay them more, not less.
Here are my solutions for the problem.
1. We have politically correct terms for everyone else. then we should also speak in kind terms for those in office. We should encourage respectful language for everyone, including politicians.
2. While I am not for term limits for office, I am for making rules that ensure that every senator and every house member are equal,
3. School house rock did a good job of letting us know how the national government works. We need more education of how state, county and city government works. State representatives and senators should be better known than most are.
4. Media outlets that present hearsay as news should be banned from access to those running for office. You should be required to prove what you report. Media should lead the way when it comes to respectful language and speech.
5. Family members are off limits.
6. Pay for members of congress, 75% of the average of your last five reported tax returns. No more, no less. If you want a raise, leave congress for at least 5 years and earn more money than you did in your job prior to running for office. For President, 85%. Pension is 50%.
Let me finish this post with one final thought. A boxer doesn't step into the ring without expecting to get punched by his opponent. However, it's not an anything goes proposition. It shouldn't be that way for politicians either.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Why Compulsory Voting is Not a Good Idea.
President Obama recently told a crowd in Cleveland that he would support compulsory voting in the United States. What this means is that if this were to become law in the United States, you would cast your vote on Election Day or pay a fine...ie a tax as Chief Justice John Roberts called it.
There are many democracies around the world that already have compulsory voting. In Australia, for example, compulsory voting increased the voter turnout from 24% to 96% plus. There are some good arguments for it. But it is easy to poke holes in those arguments.
Voting is a civic duty much like paying taxes, education or jury duty. However, here in the United States, tax evasion is common. Many drop out of school and fail to finish their compulsory education. And we also have a good number of people who successfully skip out on jury duty.
People argue that compulsory voting would mean that Congress would more effectively govern as they would more closely represent the will of the people. However, congressmen and congresswomen and senators still need to raise money for their campaigns, Gerrymandering is still alive and well in the United States. And lobbyists still have unfettered access to Congress.
It is argued that governments, both state and federal, would consider the total electorate in policy formation and management. However, many, if not most, people elected in government from the President down to your city or town council claim to already be doing the same thing with our without compulsory voting. Add to that the ever-growing bureaucracy and policy makers and other who have a day-to-day impact on our lives but are not elected.
It is argued that candidates and campaigns with compulsory voting can focus on issues rather than encouraging voters to show up on election day. Actually, this is one that I can't find an argument against right now, but I suspect that front runners will still be doing this even several years after compulsory voting is passed.
It is also argued that compulsory voting isn't actually compulsory because the voter isn't compelled to vote for anyone or anything. Balloting is secret. You can show up on Election Day, sign that you voted and then leave a completely blank ballot.
Here is why I think this is a bad idea.
First of all, I would agree that voting is a civic duty but I also believe that it is an infringement of personal liberty to force people to vote under the threat of a fine. There are many good reasons not to vote. Most of those whom I have talked to who admit that they do not vote have said that they do not feel that their votes make a difference in the final outcome, that there are no real difference in the actions of the major parties once elected or they are simply too busy to vote on election day. There is nothing that compulsory voting can solve that can't be solved with candidates who have the will to do what they said they would do during their campaigns, ending gerrymandering, extending voting hours at the polls and a host of other reforms that good and encouraging.
I would argue that the ignorant and those who have little political interest would be forced to the polls and make uneducated votes and would have the unintended effect of reducing the quality of government, instead of improving it as those who are for compulsory voting would argue. You would also see an increase in what they call in Australia, donkey votes, or people who will mark their ballots at random because they are required to vote.
Because of gerrymandering, you would likely see an increase, and not a decrease, in safe seats in Congress and an increase in money spent on the few remaining battle ground districts. In the last election, Congress had an approval rate in the teens, yet over 80% of those running for reelection won. There are many reasons for this, and a low turnout was part of the problem, but compulsory balloting is not going to solve it.
Finally, as a fiscal conservative, I would argue that the money spent on tracking down those who did not vote would probably be more than the money gained from the fines charged to enforce compulsory ballots. And what are we going to do to those who don't pay the fines? I want our prisons and jails filled with those who are dangerous, not those who commit such heinous crimes like not buying insurance or not voting.
As for political leanings, in the last election it is argued that Republicans picked up seats in Congress in 2014 because many democratic leaning voters did not vote. This is probably why President Obama mentioned the idea in Cleveland. He feels that if we had compulsory voting the Democrats would still be in charge in Congress. There have been times when Republicans would feel the same way.
Yes, let's look at ways to encourage voter turnout on Election Day. Let's look for ways to get people to want to vote without taking away their freedom to stay home.
There are many democracies around the world that already have compulsory voting. In Australia, for example, compulsory voting increased the voter turnout from 24% to 96% plus. There are some good arguments for it. But it is easy to poke holes in those arguments.
Voting is a civic duty much like paying taxes, education or jury duty. However, here in the United States, tax evasion is common. Many drop out of school and fail to finish their compulsory education. And we also have a good number of people who successfully skip out on jury duty.
People argue that compulsory voting would mean that Congress would more effectively govern as they would more closely represent the will of the people. However, congressmen and congresswomen and senators still need to raise money for their campaigns, Gerrymandering is still alive and well in the United States. And lobbyists still have unfettered access to Congress.
It is argued that governments, both state and federal, would consider the total electorate in policy formation and management. However, many, if not most, people elected in government from the President down to your city or town council claim to already be doing the same thing with our without compulsory voting. Add to that the ever-growing bureaucracy and policy makers and other who have a day-to-day impact on our lives but are not elected.
It is argued that candidates and campaigns with compulsory voting can focus on issues rather than encouraging voters to show up on election day. Actually, this is one that I can't find an argument against right now, but I suspect that front runners will still be doing this even several years after compulsory voting is passed.
It is also argued that compulsory voting isn't actually compulsory because the voter isn't compelled to vote for anyone or anything. Balloting is secret. You can show up on Election Day, sign that you voted and then leave a completely blank ballot.
Here is why I think this is a bad idea.
First of all, I would agree that voting is a civic duty but I also believe that it is an infringement of personal liberty to force people to vote under the threat of a fine. There are many good reasons not to vote. Most of those whom I have talked to who admit that they do not vote have said that they do not feel that their votes make a difference in the final outcome, that there are no real difference in the actions of the major parties once elected or they are simply too busy to vote on election day. There is nothing that compulsory voting can solve that can't be solved with candidates who have the will to do what they said they would do during their campaigns, ending gerrymandering, extending voting hours at the polls and a host of other reforms that good and encouraging.
I would argue that the ignorant and those who have little political interest would be forced to the polls and make uneducated votes and would have the unintended effect of reducing the quality of government, instead of improving it as those who are for compulsory voting would argue. You would also see an increase in what they call in Australia, donkey votes, or people who will mark their ballots at random because they are required to vote.
Because of gerrymandering, you would likely see an increase, and not a decrease, in safe seats in Congress and an increase in money spent on the few remaining battle ground districts. In the last election, Congress had an approval rate in the teens, yet over 80% of those running for reelection won. There are many reasons for this, and a low turnout was part of the problem, but compulsory balloting is not going to solve it.
Finally, as a fiscal conservative, I would argue that the money spent on tracking down those who did not vote would probably be more than the money gained from the fines charged to enforce compulsory ballots. And what are we going to do to those who don't pay the fines? I want our prisons and jails filled with those who are dangerous, not those who commit such heinous crimes like not buying insurance or not voting.
As for political leanings, in the last election it is argued that Republicans picked up seats in Congress in 2014 because many democratic leaning voters did not vote. This is probably why President Obama mentioned the idea in Cleveland. He feels that if we had compulsory voting the Democrats would still be in charge in Congress. There have been times when Republicans would feel the same way.
Yes, let's look at ways to encourage voter turnout on Election Day. Let's look for ways to get people to want to vote without taking away their freedom to stay home.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
What power does the president have when Congress fails.
There are some out there who are cheering the fact that President Obama had the moxie to act when Congress didn't. For years, perhaps for two decades, the President has been wanting Congress to pass an immigration reform bill. The reason, well, immigration laws as they are currently written do not work.
The reason they are not working is a little something called The Constitution, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
This has been interpreted to mean that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. For the current immigration debate it means that if a couple from other nations comes into this country, and has a child, that child is a citizen of the US and the state they reside. If the parents are deported, the child remains here without his mother and father.
This problem is not fixable by a simple or a comprehensive bill passed through Congress, nor is it fixable by executive order of the President. The only way to fix this bill is to alter the language of the 14th amendment. This would not be unrepresented as most countries in the world do not recognize "anchor babies" as citizens.
Of course, this is out of context. The 14th Amendment was designed to give citizenship to former slaves freed as a result of the Civil War, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. But the courts have interpreted the language of the amendment as such. However, if it weren't for this, families could be deported to their home countries in total.
In the long run, that doesn't sound very appealing. And because most undocumented immigrants come from Latin America, as well as a sizable minority from Asia, any such effort would be dismissed as discriminatory against ethnic groups.
For all these reasons, efforts to reform immigration have stalled in Congress for years. The US Constitution only provides limited mechanisms for the executive or judicial branch to act when the legislative branch is hopelessly deadlocked. But President Obama doesn't agree. And when Congress failed to act on immigration, he decided to act on his own. Not only was the very action, at best, borderline constitutional, it was sneaky and it will be months before any of this could be fixed by Congress or by the Supreme Courth. Here are some of the sneaky ways in which this executive order was executed.
1. Lame Duck Congress.
Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, but the newly elected Congressmen/women/androgynous beings and Senators do not begin their term until the 3rd of January. The sixty days or so remaining in the term of the old Congress are referred to as the Lame Duck days of Congress and the constitution limits what can be done at this time. Usually, Congress does not take up new business during their Lame Duck session.
Legislation passed during this time can be quickly over-turned when the next Congress takes office in January. Let's also not forget that the party controlling the Senate changes in January. Any effort to undo what the President has done will die in the Senate before the GOP takes over. Also, the Republicans do not have an over-ride proof majority. Any action taken by Congress could be vetoed by President Obama.
2. Thanksgiving Recess
The president did not sign his executive order until after most members of Congress were on their way home for the Thanksgiving recess. Therefore, members of Congress who decided that spending a week back in their districts and with their families look week for not doing anything.
3. His term and legacy
The last two years of a president's second term are usually forgotten as the debate in the media turns to the fight over who will replace him. Too often, the last two years of the second term of many of our past presidents have been marked by scandal and controversy. Johnson had Vietnam to deal with. Reagan dealt with the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's sex life came to haunt him. And George W. Bush had a whole slew of problems.
I personally wouldn't have yelled a whole lot of Obama had been able to get congress to pass the action that he took in a bill. This bill affects a small percentage of the undocumented immigrant population. I would be frankly surprised if the Latino community doesn't act like the kid who got a $2 bill from grandma for Christmas.
I was once told by a college professor that I had that politician who actually solve problems don't get re-elected. It is absolutely true that the President can't make law on his own when Congress doesn't act. Our founding fathers would have been foolish to write the Constitution to allow it. Why even have a legislative branch if the President can act on his own? The president can write executive orders, but only within the realm that Congress has permitted him to act.
I would have rather seen the President provide a little more leadership and patience in this matter. He could meet with Latino leaders. He could put names and faces on TV. He could encourage citizens to petition their representatives. But he did not of that. Perhaps the teleprompter on the bully pulpit is broken. I think the president doesn't have the command of a crowd that his predecessors possessed. Something that Hollywood describes as "IT". I fear for what else this president is going to do on his own. I hope that someone will emerge as a leader in Congress and put the president back in his place.
I don't say that as a Republican. I say it as a Citizen of the United States. Anyone who applauds what the President has done should remember that what this president has done, the next president can undo. And what this president has done, the next president can repeat. It is scary to think about no matter which party you belong to. If Barack Obama can do this, what will Sarah Palin do if she ever gets elected? Even Democrats in congress should stand up for the sake of the country.
The reason they are not working is a little something called The Constitution, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
This has been interpreted to mean that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. For the current immigration debate it means that if a couple from other nations comes into this country, and has a child, that child is a citizen of the US and the state they reside. If the parents are deported, the child remains here without his mother and father.
This problem is not fixable by a simple or a comprehensive bill passed through Congress, nor is it fixable by executive order of the President. The only way to fix this bill is to alter the language of the 14th amendment. This would not be unrepresented as most countries in the world do not recognize "anchor babies" as citizens.
Of course, this is out of context. The 14th Amendment was designed to give citizenship to former slaves freed as a result of the Civil War, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. But the courts have interpreted the language of the amendment as such. However, if it weren't for this, families could be deported to their home countries in total.
In the long run, that doesn't sound very appealing. And because most undocumented immigrants come from Latin America, as well as a sizable minority from Asia, any such effort would be dismissed as discriminatory against ethnic groups.
For all these reasons, efforts to reform immigration have stalled in Congress for years. The US Constitution only provides limited mechanisms for the executive or judicial branch to act when the legislative branch is hopelessly deadlocked. But President Obama doesn't agree. And when Congress failed to act on immigration, he decided to act on his own. Not only was the very action, at best, borderline constitutional, it was sneaky and it will be months before any of this could be fixed by Congress or by the Supreme Courth. Here are some of the sneaky ways in which this executive order was executed.
1. Lame Duck Congress.
Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, but the newly elected Congressmen/women/androgynous beings and Senators do not begin their term until the 3rd of January. The sixty days or so remaining in the term of the old Congress are referred to as the Lame Duck days of Congress and the constitution limits what can be done at this time. Usually, Congress does not take up new business during their Lame Duck session.
Legislation passed during this time can be quickly over-turned when the next Congress takes office in January. Let's also not forget that the party controlling the Senate changes in January. Any effort to undo what the President has done will die in the Senate before the GOP takes over. Also, the Republicans do not have an over-ride proof majority. Any action taken by Congress could be vetoed by President Obama.
2. Thanksgiving Recess
The president did not sign his executive order until after most members of Congress were on their way home for the Thanksgiving recess. Therefore, members of Congress who decided that spending a week back in their districts and with their families look week for not doing anything.
3. His term and legacy
The last two years of a president's second term are usually forgotten as the debate in the media turns to the fight over who will replace him. Too often, the last two years of the second term of many of our past presidents have been marked by scandal and controversy. Johnson had Vietnam to deal with. Reagan dealt with the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's sex life came to haunt him. And George W. Bush had a whole slew of problems.
I personally wouldn't have yelled a whole lot of Obama had been able to get congress to pass the action that he took in a bill. This bill affects a small percentage of the undocumented immigrant population. I would be frankly surprised if the Latino community doesn't act like the kid who got a $2 bill from grandma for Christmas.
I was once told by a college professor that I had that politician who actually solve problems don't get re-elected. It is absolutely true that the President can't make law on his own when Congress doesn't act. Our founding fathers would have been foolish to write the Constitution to allow it. Why even have a legislative branch if the President can act on his own? The president can write executive orders, but only within the realm that Congress has permitted him to act.
I would have rather seen the President provide a little more leadership and patience in this matter. He could meet with Latino leaders. He could put names and faces on TV. He could encourage citizens to petition their representatives. But he did not of that. Perhaps the teleprompter on the bully pulpit is broken. I think the president doesn't have the command of a crowd that his predecessors possessed. Something that Hollywood describes as "IT". I fear for what else this president is going to do on his own. I hope that someone will emerge as a leader in Congress and put the president back in his place.
I don't say that as a Republican. I say it as a Citizen of the United States. Anyone who applauds what the President has done should remember that what this president has done, the next president can undo. And what this president has done, the next president can repeat. It is scary to think about no matter which party you belong to. If Barack Obama can do this, what will Sarah Palin do if she ever gets elected? Even Democrats in congress should stand up for the sake of the country.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Three Things McDonalds Does Wrong
I am not going to bore you with another reason to raise the minimum wage. You simply have to read this blog. I have already spoken on it. I am simply going to explain that the problems that McDonalds and the fast food industry have brought on themselves. I worked for a McDonalds for about 4 months and am grateful that I was able to escape.
1. Too many franchises.
Within a 10 minute drive from my home, there are no fewer than 7 McDonalds outlets. In Riverdale, Utah, there is a McDonalds inside Wal-Mart and another right across the street. There are is one in Roy, Utah. There are two nearby in West Haven, Utah. One near 40th and Midland Drive. The other is just east of the 21st Street interchange with I-15. In Ogden there is one near 12th and Washington. There is another near 40th and Washington witch is technically South Ogden.
There is a reason for this. McDonalds doesn't consider food to be primary to their business model. It is real-estate. They purchase the prime locations for franchises, for no other reason than to keep competitors like Burger King and Subway out of the neighborhood.
Source
What has happened as a result? The restaurants compete against each-other for customers. This means that they must keep their prices low, perhaps too low, to really operate efficiently. More supply with the same level of demand means lower prices for your product. That is the main reason why McDonalds employees are paid at or near minimum wage. The franchise owners can't afford to pay more.
Because McDonalds is an industry leader, nearly everyone else in the fast food market has to follow suit. If you are going to compete with McDonalds, you have to operate on a small margin as well. Which means low wages industry-wide.
2. Low-quality food
I am certainly not going to endorse the findings in Super Size Me or any other trashy documentary. These guys are too biased in their findings, and it is obvious.
There are many counter-arguments, however. KSL recently produced a news story about a many who has had at least one Big Mac every single work day for several years. That is all he will eat for lunch.
However, when the food is cheap, it is also low in quality. Sure, it is not as bad as it could be. McDonalds has the buying power to get higher-end cheap food. But it is still cheap food. Very few are going to argue with that point.
3. Career Path
Hey, did you hear the one about the famous celebrity chef who got his start at McDonalds. Me neither. Here is a list of people who began working at McDonalds and became famous. None of them for their cullinary skills
http://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-who-used-to-work-at-mcdonalds?op=1
Of course there was this story as well...
http://news.mcdonalds.com/US/news-stories/McDonalds-Quality-Ingredients-Take-Center-Stage-D
I will concede that if a famous chef or a top chef ever worked at McDonalds, they would consider that knowledge bad for their image and would hide it from the public. Most famous chefs will say that they began their careers washing dishes at some mom and pop bakery or restaurant and worked their way to the top. From my McDonalds experience, I would argue that most people who work their way to the top a McDonalds want to become franchise owners rather than some famous chef.
It has also been my experience that if an employee gets a better offer elsewhere and wants to leave, there is little resistance in letting him go. There are hundreds of people out there who want that job.
We have three things that McDonalds has done to make their own bed. Let's see if they decide to fix it.
1. Too many franchises.
Within a 10 minute drive from my home, there are no fewer than 7 McDonalds outlets. In Riverdale, Utah, there is a McDonalds inside Wal-Mart and another right across the street. There are is one in Roy, Utah. There are two nearby in West Haven, Utah. One near 40th and Midland Drive. The other is just east of the 21st Street interchange with I-15. In Ogden there is one near 12th and Washington. There is another near 40th and Washington witch is technically South Ogden.
There is a reason for this. McDonalds doesn't consider food to be primary to their business model. It is real-estate. They purchase the prime locations for franchises, for no other reason than to keep competitors like Burger King and Subway out of the neighborhood.
Source
What has happened as a result? The restaurants compete against each-other for customers. This means that they must keep their prices low, perhaps too low, to really operate efficiently. More supply with the same level of demand means lower prices for your product. That is the main reason why McDonalds employees are paid at or near minimum wage. The franchise owners can't afford to pay more.
Because McDonalds is an industry leader, nearly everyone else in the fast food market has to follow suit. If you are going to compete with McDonalds, you have to operate on a small margin as well. Which means low wages industry-wide.
2. Low-quality food
I am certainly not going to endorse the findings in Super Size Me or any other trashy documentary. These guys are too biased in their findings, and it is obvious.
There are many counter-arguments, however. KSL recently produced a news story about a many who has had at least one Big Mac every single work day for several years. That is all he will eat for lunch.
However, when the food is cheap, it is also low in quality. Sure, it is not as bad as it could be. McDonalds has the buying power to get higher-end cheap food. But it is still cheap food. Very few are going to argue with that point.
3. Career Path
Hey, did you hear the one about the famous celebrity chef who got his start at McDonalds. Me neither. Here is a list of people who began working at McDonalds and became famous. None of them for their cullinary skills
http://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-who-used-to-work-at-mcdonalds?op=1
Of course there was this story as well...
http://news.mcdonalds.com/US/news-stories/McDonalds-Quality-Ingredients-Take-Center-Stage-D
I will concede that if a famous chef or a top chef ever worked at McDonalds, they would consider that knowledge bad for their image and would hide it from the public. Most famous chefs will say that they began their careers washing dishes at some mom and pop bakery or restaurant and worked their way to the top. From my McDonalds experience, I would argue that most people who work their way to the top a McDonalds want to become franchise owners rather than some famous chef.
It has also been my experience that if an employee gets a better offer elsewhere and wants to leave, there is little resistance in letting him go. There are hundreds of people out there who want that job.
We have three things that McDonalds has done to make their own bed. Let's see if they decide to fix it.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
$15 per hour is too much too fast.
It may be time to raise the minimum wage, but $15 per hour is too much way to fast. That is the proposal in Seattle right now. This will not have the effect that people think it will have. There are three questions that politicians need to consider before raising the minimum wage. First, what percentage of workers will be effected by the proposed increase, not just overall but on a business by business basis. Second, what will business do to meet the excess payroll expenses. Third, what are the potential unintended consequences of the increase.
The typical business guideline is that a company spend 30% of their revenues on labor. That means that for every dollar your company makes, you should spend 30 cents paying people. If your company makes 1 million dollars, then you can spend 300,000 on paying your employees. But this varies by industry. Service industries like hotels and restaurants will spend a higher percentage of revenue on payroll while many professional offices will spend less on payroll. Service industries pay a little over 50% of their revenue on payroll. Other industries pay as little as 15% on payroll.
Currently, the federal minimum wage is 7.25 per hour. 15 dollars per hour represents a 107% increase in the minimum wage. This increase is not only going minimum wage workers. A business is going to have to raise almost everyone's wage. Currently, approximately 30% of the workforce nationwide makes $15 per hour or less, depending on who works full-time or part-time, where only about 2% of the workforce makes the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour, a company is not going to raise the wage of the person who makes $14.75 to $15 per hour. The raise will have to be greater. What effect will this have if only Seattle raises the minimum wage?
The companies that will be hardest hit are the service companies. The service industry will be hit the hardest. This means that businesses in these industries will have choices to make. How do you deal with such an sharp increase in your expenses. This isn't like some vendor increasing their prices. You have no choice but to pay this money. A company that can't make payroll doesn't stay in business for very long. If your paying 50% of your revenue on payroll and suddenly it become 100%, you have nothing left for any of your other expenses. You have to pass most of these expenses onto your customers. Or you cut your staff. Or you move. Or you close.
What will likely happen is that some business will pass the new expenses onto their customers, and will even double their prices. Some business will cut their staff. Some businesses will increase their prices a little while cutting some staff. Some businesses will relocate. Some businesses will close.
Can you imagine operating a restaurant with only have the staff? Can you imagine waiting longer for your meal because there are not any clean dishes? Because there is not a cleared table? Can you imagine waiting twice as long for your food because the wait staff and kitchen staff are inadequate? Imagine what happens when word gets out that you can stay or eat in Everett or Bellevue or Renton or Federal Way pay less and get better service?
Could a business operate in downtown Seattle, bring in perspective clients and deal with the expense. Would it also make sense to operate that business in the suburbs? Would you also not want to operate where your employees have less expense to deal with.
There is also a myth that many people have. Too many people believe that their boss, their business owner has plenty of money. That they can absorb the expense. Even if you have the cash, even if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, you don't stay that way for very long by letting your payroll expense grow beyond your revenue. However, most owners in the business industry aren't exactly rolling in the cash. It's a good bet that the person who owns the nearby McDonalds franchise is struggling just as much as most families are.
Imagine going to Seattle in the near future where most of the service businesses are boarded up. Where most people at the downtown offices brown bag not to save money, but because there are very few affordable places nearby to have lunch. Or where the company caters lunches from nearby cities to save money. Imagine going to Pikes Place Marketplace and finding very few of sites there are operating. Imagine walking along the waterfront with your family, but finding that the only places to eat will cost you hundreds. This is probably not the future that the Seattle Chamber of Commerce wants, which explains why they are fighting the proposed increase.
It may be time to raise the minimum wage, but such a steep increase will be too much for one business community to deal with. The effect on the service industry will be too drastic. If done, the increase in the minimum wage should be lower and implemented more gradually and should be done in a way that is realistic.
The typical business guideline is that a company spend 30% of their revenues on labor. That means that for every dollar your company makes, you should spend 30 cents paying people. If your company makes 1 million dollars, then you can spend 300,000 on paying your employees. But this varies by industry. Service industries like hotels and restaurants will spend a higher percentage of revenue on payroll while many professional offices will spend less on payroll. Service industries pay a little over 50% of their revenue on payroll. Other industries pay as little as 15% on payroll.
Currently, the federal minimum wage is 7.25 per hour. 15 dollars per hour represents a 107% increase in the minimum wage. This increase is not only going minimum wage workers. A business is going to have to raise almost everyone's wage. Currently, approximately 30% of the workforce nationwide makes $15 per hour or less, depending on who works full-time or part-time, where only about 2% of the workforce makes the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour, a company is not going to raise the wage of the person who makes $14.75 to $15 per hour. The raise will have to be greater. What effect will this have if only Seattle raises the minimum wage?
The companies that will be hardest hit are the service companies. The service industry will be hit the hardest. This means that businesses in these industries will have choices to make. How do you deal with such an sharp increase in your expenses. This isn't like some vendor increasing their prices. You have no choice but to pay this money. A company that can't make payroll doesn't stay in business for very long. If your paying 50% of your revenue on payroll and suddenly it become 100%, you have nothing left for any of your other expenses. You have to pass most of these expenses onto your customers. Or you cut your staff. Or you move. Or you close.
What will likely happen is that some business will pass the new expenses onto their customers, and will even double their prices. Some business will cut their staff. Some businesses will increase their prices a little while cutting some staff. Some businesses will relocate. Some businesses will close.
Can you imagine operating a restaurant with only have the staff? Can you imagine waiting longer for your meal because there are not any clean dishes? Because there is not a cleared table? Can you imagine waiting twice as long for your food because the wait staff and kitchen staff are inadequate? Imagine what happens when word gets out that you can stay or eat in Everett or Bellevue or Renton or Federal Way pay less and get better service?
Could a business operate in downtown Seattle, bring in perspective clients and deal with the expense. Would it also make sense to operate that business in the suburbs? Would you also not want to operate where your employees have less expense to deal with.
There is also a myth that many people have. Too many people believe that their boss, their business owner has plenty of money. That they can absorb the expense. Even if you have the cash, even if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, you don't stay that way for very long by letting your payroll expense grow beyond your revenue. However, most owners in the business industry aren't exactly rolling in the cash. It's a good bet that the person who owns the nearby McDonalds franchise is struggling just as much as most families are.
Imagine going to Seattle in the near future where most of the service businesses are boarded up. Where most people at the downtown offices brown bag not to save money, but because there are very few affordable places nearby to have lunch. Or where the company caters lunches from nearby cities to save money. Imagine going to Pikes Place Marketplace and finding very few of sites there are operating. Imagine walking along the waterfront with your family, but finding that the only places to eat will cost you hundreds. This is probably not the future that the Seattle Chamber of Commerce wants, which explains why they are fighting the proposed increase.
It may be time to raise the minimum wage, but such a steep increase will be too much for one business community to deal with. The effect on the service industry will be too drastic. If done, the increase in the minimum wage should be lower and implemented more gradually and should be done in a way that is realistic.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Same-Sex Marriage in Utah...Worst Case Scenario for the LDS Church
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
