If Term Limits Will Not Work, What Will?

I argued in a recent post that term limits are not the answer to improve American Governance.  In review, here are the arguments against it.

-Experience is important in nearly every job in America.  Why not in politics?
-Term limits could tip the balance of power away from elected officials in favor of un-elected bureaucrats and lobbyists.
-There is no evidence that the states that have term limits have seen improved government.
-Term limits removes a check on the power of the politician.  The office holder is free to do more without the check of having to be elected again.  In other words, you would give a US senator 6 years where he doesn't have to worry one bit about what you think or say about his job.
-People who support politicians financially do not want the risk of a revolution.  They will do all in their power to put a like-minded person in the place of an office-holder who is term-limited out of office.  Gerrymandering also ensures that a like minded person gets elected.

What will work instead?

-Once a person leaves political office, he/she is forever forbidden from being anything other than an adviser to current office holder.  He/She will not be allowed to represent anyone to the current office holder on either a paid or unpaid basis.  In other words, he/she can't become a lobbyist, paid or unpaid.

-End gerrymandering, or the practice of drawing district boundaries to the favor of one party or another.

-Put a citizen's recall mechanism for members of Congress in the US Constitution.  Also, allow members of the House of Representatives and US Senate to be impeached by their state legislatures.

-Put a cap on congressional and presidential salaries and pensions.  Sure, you can serve in Congress for more than 12 years, but you are no longer eligible for pay raises and your salary is capped at that rate except for adjustments for inflation.  This should encourage members of Congress to retire after serving for 12 years.  Also ensure that pensions will cap after 12 years of service.

Perhaps you have other idea?  Let's talk about them.

The Rule of Law and Kim Davis.

This is trying to compare Kim Davis to a Wal-Mart clerk unwilling to sell a man condoms, but there is one big difference.

If a Wal-Mart Clerk refused to sell someone birth control based upon her religious beliefs, she would be fired from her job, and would not go to jail.  Likely, before she applies for the job, she has researched the duties of that job, and researched what the store sells.  If she is uncomfortable with anything the store sells, she probably never even applies to work there.

According to the National Association of Counties, here are the duties of the County Clerk.

1. Recorder of the county, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
2. Chief election officer responsible for the administration of elections in the county
3. Clerk of the Probate Court in handling informal proceedings only
4. Miscellaneous duties including those of notary public, administration of oaths, certification of acknowledgements, declarations, instruments and protests.

Do you see what is missing from this list of duties?

As much as I fell for Kim Davis, I must point out that it is not the job of the county clerk to decide who gets a marriage license.  It is simply her job to administer it.  Once the State of Kentucky decides that same-sex marriage is legal, the county clerk has no say in the matter.  It doesn't matter if it was the courts, the legislature or the governor by executive order.  The marriage license is a certification of an instrument.  It's a legal record that the state approves of the union.  The clerk only records the transaction.  Now, let's compare this metaphor, since it was brought up.

It's 1985.  A clerk who has worked at Wal-Mart for many years goes to work one morning to find out that the store will now sell condoms.  As a practicing Roman Catholic, she now finds that she has to sell the condoms.  Therefore, she addresses her supervisor about the matter.  After much discussion, and probably after the store manager consults their legal department, the employee is terminated from her job.  Like the county clerk, it is not the job of the Wal-Mart cashier to decide what the store sells.

Kim Davis was given a way around her religious convictions.  She was told that her deputies could issues the marriage licenses, and that she didn't have to sign any of them.  However, she refused and chose jail instead.  She is now, as I understand, no longer in jail, but awaiting impeachment hearings in the State Legislature.  That is bound to be a contentious hearing, if the state legislature takes up the matter.

But she wasn't the only the only one whose refusal to compromise caused the problem.  Rowan County Kentucky is only 286 square miles large.  There are six other county seats nearby.  The couple that wanted the licence only had to drive, at most, an hour to another county seat to gain one. One difference between people like me, and people who are unwilling to compromise is that I could drive an hour to get a marriage license in another county.  Out west, there is a good chance it will take LONGER than an hour to get to your county seat and get a marriage license.  Here in the southern part of Salt Lake County, in traffic, it could take an hour to get to ANY county seat.

Therefore, I have a hard time empathizing with anyone involved in this matter, no matter how I feel about same-sex marriage.

In the long run, people think that Kim Davis is a martyr in this debate.  That is not true.  She is only a pawn.  Both sides have bigger agendas than this.  But I do feel that if a county clerk can suffer any other consequence for not issuing marriage licenses other than the forfeiture of her job, then this country is truly in trouble.  Not simply because of same-sex marriage in and of itself, but the way that the issue has divided the country, and the way that the two sides in the debate attempt to one-up each-other.  When the judge sent her to jail, he made her a political prisoner.  We have done this in the United States, but we shouldn't be proud of it.  And it is something we should NOT do.  Not matter how you feel about the same-sex marriage debate, this was the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to react.  If you are for same-sex marriage, would it be any more fair and any more right if the tables were turned?  Let's pretend that same-sex marriage is not legal, and a judge sends a county clerk to jail for issuing a license to a same-sex couple.  Does that still make it the right decision?   Perhaps he can order her suspended, into an unpaid leave of absence from her duties until impeachment proceedings, according to the laws of the state.  But prison?  That is going to far.

Perhaps proponents of same-sex marriage should realize that not all of the United States is ready to accept it, especially in the back-woods counties of Kentucky, and they should give the issue some time to settle before county clerks are arrested and jailed.  Perhaps opponents of same-sex marriage should realize that it is now the law of the land and should act accordingly.  As conservatives, we use the rule of law to justify the deportation of illegal immigrants.  We shouldn't be selective about the rule of law.  It should still be our friend, even now.  The reason this issue is dividing us conservatives now, is because the rule of law isn't working in our favor, or the way we THINK it should.  Today, the rule of law says that Kim Davis is wrong.  We can believe in the rule of law, and not believe in same-sex marriage.  And we should also trust that God will sort it all out in the end.

Will This be Known as Jason Chaffetz Foley?

The Plan to Stop More National Monument Declarations of Utah...and What is Wrong With It.

Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop released a proposal today in which they hope with stop another massive national monument declaration.

1.  Dinosaur National Monument, will become Dinosaur National Park.
2.  The Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry to become Jurassic National Monument.
3.  Counties in Eastern Utah (Daggett, Uinta, Duchesne, Carbon, Emery, Grand and San Juan) will be exempt from the Antiquities Act and President Obama and future presidents will not be able to use the act to declare new national monuments there.  It is not unprecedented.  Alaska and Wyoming now have similar exceptions.  

What is bringing this all to pass?  The rumored Bear's Ears National Monument designation.  With the stroke of  The Presidential Pen, every section of land south of Canyonlands, East of Lake Powell, West of the section of Manti-LaSal National Forest that covers the Abajo Mountains and North of Utah Highway 95 would become a new National Monument.

While not quite the scope of Clinton's Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument of 1996, this one is still very large.  And this will will block, like GSENM, a large proposed mine.  Unlike GSENM, it is potash instead of coal.  This mine will be very small, but could provide hundreds of well-paying jobs to the economically depressed San Juan county region.  Unknown to most people, however, this could also block or curb development of what could become a major, if not the largest wind farm in Utah.  (Wind farms are no longer green, I guess.)

The Bear's Ears formation is actually just a pair of mesas to the northeast of Natural Bridges National Monument.  The formation is sacred to the Navajo Nation.  This area could be protected with a simple extension of NBNM.  But that is not what this is about.  Not only is the intent to stop mining, but to put an end to cattle grazing and OHV use in the area between Canyonlands and Lake Powell.

The Bear's Ears Mesa in San Juan County, Utah.  This photo was taken from the road that leads to nearby Natural Bridges National Monument.

Chaffetz and Bishop are on the right track.  President Obama seems to respect states that show some initiative...sort of.  And our Congressional Delegation deserves credit for beating President Obama to the punch here, but getting a proposal to the public before the President rubs the genie bottle and invokes the Antiquities Act yet again.  But their proposal probably doesn't stand much of a chance at becoming law.  It should pass the House of Representatives, but may not go any further.  Here is why.

1.  President Obama will likely not sign it, if it even gets to his desk.  (The Democrats in the Senate could block it by not bringing the proposal to cloture.  Harry Reid would likely be against it.  It could also be watered down with earmarks from other states.)  He may give Utah's delegation a pat on the back, but it may not go farther than that.  He is one president who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unwilling to let go of power, and wants to use all that he can get away with.  One who loves to act without congressional authority will never give up any of that power, even if it is only a few fly-over counties in Eastern Utah.

2.  It will upset the Navajo Nation who wants Bears Ears preserved as a National Monument.  Perhaps it stands an improved chance of a presidential signature if at least Natural Bridges National Monument is extended to include the Bear's Ears mesa.  Chaffetz and Bishop should include that as part of the proposal and at least try to get the Navajos on their side if it is not already included.

The rumored Bear's Ears National Monument in orange.  The Actual location of the Bear's Ears Mesa is in black.

3.  Emery County doesn't want a national monument or park in their county.  Governors from Matheson to Huntsman have tried to designate the San Rafael Swell as a national monument, only to encounter pushback from Emery County officials.  (The Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry is right at the northwest edge of the San Rafael Swell.)  Each time a monument or park has been proposed, it has been tabled.  Even though the BLM is in charge of the land, the people in Emery County would view the new monument as an encroachment on their freedom.  There is a chance the Emery County will allow the quarry to become a National Monument, if they believe the entire Swell will be left alone.  However, they probably believe, with good reason, that this is nothing more than fools gold.

San Rafael Swell and Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry

4.  The environmental special interest does not compromise.  It's in their charter. (They blame Glen Canyon Dam, which they consider a disaster on compromise.)  They are that annoying little nephew that never goes to sleep.  If Obama capitulates and signs this bill into law, they will NEVER, EVER let him forget it.  They will dog him to his grave as the president who caved.  President Obama doesn't want this as part of his legacy.

I don't know how to fix the problem, other than to pray the President Obama doesn't react with his pen before he leaves office.  Perhaps keep his attention focused on other matters.  That is not going to be an easy task.  This proposal doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Saint George with the current administration.  One thing I can say about Joe Biden, is that if he is elected, at least he will listen.  Hellary Clinton, no way.  (Yes, I know I misspelled it.)  Donald Trump or any republican will likely sign the bill.

Let me add that declaring national parks for the sole purpose of getting tourist dollars is a bad idea.  If that is the reason behind any of this, let's kill the deal now.  The National Park Service doesn't hire marketing people.  How else do you explain Arches getting over 1 million visitors per year, where Cayonlands, right next door, sees 2/5 less than Arches?  They are practically in the same neighborhood.  The national parks are supposed to market themselves.  I hope that if Dino Monument becomes Dino National Park, that it can be one of those places that calls people to it by itself without any advertising.  Do you hear it calling you?

Dino Monument was originally created a century ago, 100 years ago this October, by President Woodrow Wilson.  It was expanded to its current size during the Great Depression by President Roosevelt so that some communities in western Moffat County, Colorado could use river rafting as a way to keep their communities alive after they lost all other sources of income.  River rafting through Dino Monument is one heck of a ride, especially in June when the river is high.

Dino Monument became a source of controversy during the 1950s when a hydroelectric project, the 500 foot-tall Echo Park Dam was proposed, along with a smaller dam downstream in Split Mountain Canyon.  It was defeated after a contentious debate and the Flaming Gorge Dam, which impounds a slightly larger reservoir with a slightly smaller dam (but with about half of the electricity generation of the two proposed dams) was built instead.  The Sierra Club will tell you that Glen Canyon Dam was the compromise put in place not to build a dam in Dino Monument, but the Glen Canyon Dam was considered for at least 30 years before the Echo Park Dam was proposed.  The Glen Canyon Dam probably would have been built anyway.

What do you think?  Do you think that Utah's Great Five should become the Super Six?  I think that eventually it should be 11 (see below).  But that is my opinion.  Let me know what you think.  I think a lot of Utahans don't want to see any changes at all and some even think that the five we have are too many.  Others don't like control from the Federal Government at all.

Echo Park area of Dino Monument.  The controversial dam would have been a few miles downstream from here, flooding this area.  In my book this park ranks about a 9.25 out of 10.  Perhaps you rank it higher.

Here are some other national park worthy sites in Utah:

Monument Valley on the Utah-Arizona border.  Currently, this is a Navajo Tribal Park, but in my book, worthy to be a national park.

This is the Escalante River in Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument.  This part of the controversial Clinton Legacy monument is national park worthy right down to the point where the river empties into Lake Powell.  You really have to visit this monument yourself to get an idea of how large it really is.

This is from the Grand Staircase or Paria Valley region of GSENM.  Definitely stunning enough to be a national park.

Here is a map of GSENM.  The green shaded area is the Ecalante Canyons area.  The Blue Shaded area is the Grand Staircase Section, or the Upper Paria River Valley.  The yellow section in-between is the Kaiparowits Plateau.  The middle section is the controversial part of the Clinton declaration from 1996.  As you can tell, there are not as many stunning sights in that area as there are in the others.  This section is probably does not meet national park standards.  There is a lot of coal in the southern section of the plateau, and stopping mining was the reason for such a large monument declaration.  If the Kaiparowits Plateau had not been included in Clinton's declaration, it would have been less controversial and could be two separate national parks by now.  You can get more information and photos from this site: http://david-mirjamfirst.com/GET-AWAY'S/(2009)-USA(July)/12a)ScenicByway12(UT)/imagepages/image73.html

I-70 snakes through the San Rafael Swell.  It is worth a visit.  If San Rafael Swell became a national park, it would be the only plateau park in Utah that could be visited from Salt Lake City with a single gas tank.

This is Temple Mountain on the southern edge of San Rafael Swell, just north of Goblin Valley State Park.  More information can be found here: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/price/recreation/SanRafaelDesert.html

One of the many peaks in the High Unitas.  The only East-West mountain range in the Continental United States.  The dramatic peaks make it worthy for National Park consideration.

Top 25 popular sites in Utah (First Update)

This is part of my research for a later entry.  This is not the final numbers, and they will be adjusted as my research improves.  I've rounded up the numbers for simplification.  Sports teams like the Utah Jazz are not on the list.

1.  Temple Square...about 5 million per year.
2.  Utah ski resorts...collective...so far can't find individual data...about 4 million per year.  (I don't yet have information on individual ski resorts, which is what I would rather have.)
3.  Zion National Park...about 3 million per year.
4.  Ashley National Forest, including Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area...about 2.5 million per year.  (Shared with Wyoming.)
5.  Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Lake Powell)...about 2 million per year.  (Shared with Arizona)
6.  Bryce Canyon National Park...about 1.75 million per year.
7.  Lagoon Park...about 1.2 million per year.
8.  Arches National Park...about 1 million per year.
9.  Capitol Reef National Park...about 750,000 per year.
10.  Cedar Breaks National Monument...about 700,000 per year.
11.  Canyonlands National Park...about 400,000 per year.
12.  Dead Horse Point State Park...about 380,000 per year.
13.  Antelope Island State Park...about 380,000 per year.
14.  Jordanelle Reservoir...about 357,000 per year.
15.  Sand Hollow Reservoir...about 351,000 per year.
16.  Strawberry Reservoir...about 350,000 per year.
17.  Great Salt Lake Marina and Saltair Beach...about 266,000 per year.
18.  Wasatch Mountain State Park...about 260,000 per year.
19.  Willard Bay...about 259,000 per year.
20.  Snow Canyon State Park...about 255,000 per year.
21.  Dinosaur National Monument...about 250,000 per year.  (Shared with Colorado).
22.  Bear Lake State Park...about 229,000 per year.  (This is only the Utah state park.  There is also the Idaho State Park and about a half dozen private or municipal sites.  I am confident that this represents about half of the visitors to the Bear Lake Valley every year, which would it closer to #11.)
23.  Deer Creek Reservoir...about 228,000 per year.
24.  Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument...about 200,000 per year.
25.  Utah Lake...about 150,000 per year.  (State Park only).

Just missing the cut: Goblin Valley, Palisade Lake, Timpanogos Cave, Natural Bridges.

Popular sites that I do not yet have data...Bonneville Salt Flats, Hill Air Force Base Museum, San Rafael Swell, Rio Tinto-Kennecott Mine, the Olympic Park, among others.  If you have a link, please pass it on.

Some surprises so far...

Canyonlands National Park...it is not that much farther from Moab that Arches, but it just doesn't get the same love.

I'm surprised that Dinosaur is as popular as it is.  But more on that later.

Utah has some great and wonderful state parks, some of the best in the US.  The State tourism board needs to market some of our state parks as well as the national parks.

Reasons, other than the gay leader question, for the LDS church to discontinue their relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.

-  LDS Scouting is not a world-wide program.  Outside of the United States, there is not a relationship between the LDS church and scouting organizations in most countries.  In some other countries, charter of troops by religious organizations is strictly forbidden.  To be consistent world-wide, the church should have the same program for all of its young men.

-  In LDS some wards, the scout troop is an organization unto itself, operated by life-long scouts, outside the direction of the Bishop and the priesthood.  Priesthood leaders often allow those outside of the Priesthood organization to run their scout troops unchecked.  In such troops, those life-long scouts will often reject direction and council from the Bishop or those called to assist him.

-  Priesthood leaders often do not ensure that adult volunteers are properly trained.

-  Too often, the purposes of scouting and the purposes of the Aaron Priesthood are not intertwined like they should be.

-  Scouting can create inequality among the youth and create divisions within Aaronic Priesthood quorums where boys should be taught that all of them are equal.

-  Scouting is a great way to develop leadership skills, but often only the boys that show natural leadership skills are chosen for leadership positions.  Nearly all boys will eventually become husbands and fathers and will need leadership skills in those capacities.  Those who do not have natural leadership abilities who become leaders in the troop or quorum are often not trained.

-  Even though scouting positions are not necessarily priesthood positions, women are excluded from leading troops, especially from the 12 year old scouts and beyond.

-  Not enough emphasis on the scouting program once a boy turns 14 and enters the Teacher's Quorum.  At this age, boys should be part of Varsity or Venture scouting groups.

-  Even though scouting is an organization outside the church, non-members are often excluded from participating in scouting, even when there are not other scout troops inside the community.  If they are included, usually it is with the sole purpose of being a proselyting tool.

-  LDS members will still be free to participate in scouting, even without the church chartering units.

-  Even though there are scouting programs for young women, there are no LDS-sponsored scout troops for girls.

-  Scouting requires the church to raise money outside the collection of tithes and other offerings and the accountability of the Ward Clerk and Church Auditors.

-  Senior full-time adult scouting leaders at the council level and at the national level are paid, sometimes handsomely, for their work.

-  For many, scouting is a gospel hobby.  This means that one's conviction of the church rests solely upon the scouting program.

-  Some adults in the church will only accept church callings within scouting.  Some adult members of the church will never accept a church calling in scouting.

-  There has been sex abuse in the past with adult volunteers in scouting, even inside of LDS-sponsored organizations.

-  The Boy Scouts of America will continue with or without the sponsorship of the LDS Church.  In fact, scouting will probably adjust to not having the LDS church with so much power.

Now that we have Same Sex Marriage, are our Religious Liberties in Danger?

This is a question which is not easy to answer.  But there have been a lot of people on both sides of the argument answering a question that we do not know today.  It will take the courts years to decide where the line between religious liberty and marriage equality should be drawn.  But I have done a lot of research on the subject from legal minds far superior to my own.  Here is where I now think the answers lie.

1.  Now that same sex marriage is legal, will polygamy be next?

The answer is unclear at this point.  But let me give an argument against it.  Same sex marriage was about marriage equality.  Nothing will make a marriage more unequal than polygamy.  If a man is allowed to have more than one wife, it tips the scale in favor of the man.  It increases sexual access and opportunity for the male, but reduces it for the females involved.  If a woman is allowed to have more than one husband, then the opposite is true.  It increases sexual opportunity for the female and decreases it for the males.  A similar argument can be made if groups of females or groups of males are allowed to marry.  There is always bound to be someone left out.  Also, allowing a female to have more than one husband may make it more difficult to identify the paternity of a child.  (Not that marriage equality is concerned about children,)  Polygamy and sexual equality are not good partners.

Although a lot of marriage and family experts believe that it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legal because of same sex marriage, there are still good arguments against it.

2.  Now that same sex marriage is legal, why should we even have marriage licenses?

People have argued that marriage is a right, and I have been one to believe that you can't license a right.  But there are still good reasons for a marriage license.  Without a marriage license, couples who are married in the eyes of the church are just cohabiting in the eyes of the law.  And if a couple is merely cohabiting, it weakens the remedies for domestic violence and other family crimes.  If you take away marriage licenses, then you have to re-write all sorts of laws.

This may be something that needs to happen, eventually, but it  may not be time for that, just yet.

3.  Now that same sex marriage is legal, churches that continue to preach against homosexual relationships should lose their tax-exempt status.

Doctors are allowed to opt out of abortions if it goes against their religious convictions, even if the facilities that employ them are federally funded.  Hospitals can even refuse to perform abortions and not risk their federal funding.  It is likely that this kind of precedent will, at least for the next several decades, protect churches and pastors from having to perform same-sex marriages.  Even if churches are forced to pay taxes, many will pay the tax rather than go against something that is against their beliefs.  There are now several churches, including the Episcopal Church, that will perform same-sex marriages, it is unlikely that the courts will be able to force churches to change their dogmas.

Hopefully, churches and same-sex couples will simply learn to agree to disagree on this one.

4.  If a run a wedding-related business, will I be forced to serve same-sex couples?

The line of public accommodation isn't clear at this point.  It is true that there have been cases where bakers and photographers who have refused to accommodate same-sex couples have been forced to pay large fines.  But business law is complicated.  It is very likely that if this trend continues, that everyone who has a religious conviction against homosexuality may avoid entering wedding-related businesses.  If that does happen, you may see these services unavailable in some cities.  The courts will eventually take all of this into consideration and eventually common-sense will win out.

But for the couple in Oregon, the case that has become so well-known, recently.  I think they had a poor defense.  If it were me defending their case, and I am NOT a lawyer, I would have argued that my business was targeted because of my religious beliefs.  I would have argued that therefore, they, the plaintiffs, were guilty of religious discrimination against me.  I would have turned the tables on them.  If you really don't want to accommodate a gay wedding, be prepared to play hard-ball.  Hit back as hard as they hit you.  It is likely your only defense.

I would also add, as a Latter-Day Saint who has lived outside of Utah, that religious discrimination has been alive and well for a long time.  In some towns where I have lived, I would have had a difficult time finding a photographer, a caterer, a baker or any other wedding service provider to accommodate my LDS Temple wedding.  This is because Mormons aren't held in high regard in much of the Christian community.  I wounder if a Baptist has a hard time planning a wedding in Provo?  I suspect non-Mormons in Utah have experienced this difficulty as well.

In my legal mind, and I speak as someone who has had only two semesters of business law, I can think of only two defenses for the wedding cake couple in Oregon.  First, by serving a same-sex couple, my reputation would have been irrecoverably damaged in the community that I serve that I would have lost my customer base, and eventually my business.  Even if it is the case, I doubt it could be proved in court.  Another possible defense is that even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, that there is no possible remedy.  That the actions of the court to punish the bakers would not have served as enough of an example to the rest of the Christian community to change their minds.  I suspect that if you look hard enough, you can find a Christian photographer, or baker, or seamstress that will accommodate a same-sex couple.  I would not have used either of these defenses.

Therefore, I would advise people in the wedding industry to consider carefully who they serve.  It is not true that you can turn away potential customer for any reason.  If you are religious, I would ask you to consider making who you accommodate a matter of sincere prayer.  And I would encourage you not to turn away anyone without cause.

Outside of the wedding industry, if you business is large enough that you must get a business license from your city, then you must accommodate.  There is no excuse for you, no matter how uncomfortable you are with the prospect.

I would believe, however, that the same exceptions (The Mother Murphy exceptions) that apply in race and gender accommodations, should apply in regards to accommodating gay persons.  For those of you not familiar with these exceptions, if means that if Mother Murphy is renting out rooms in her house to supplement her meager, fixed income, she should only be required to rent to those with whom she feels comfortable in serving.

One more suggestion that I have.  If you are in the commercial real-estate business, I would consider putting in single-commode bathrooms in future buildings instead of the traditional male/female bathrooms.  This means that you have several private bathrooms together where you have a commode and a sink inside.  It is really not much more expensive and will save you for transgender lawsuits later.

That is all that I have to write about this topic now, but if you have more questions that I could research, I would be happy to do so for you.  Please leave a comment.

In conclusion.  I do not agree with those who feel our religious liberties are in danger or that our constitution is hanging by a thread.  But if we over-react, we will get there sooner than we think.  I believe that we can learn to live together, and that people faith really have nothing to fear from the LGBT community.

5 Progressive Ideas Will Not Fix America's Problems.

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.

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.

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.

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.