Hope Rising

I swore that I would give up on America if Mitt lost the election. If we couldn't make the right choice now would we ever?  Staring into the face of a pending financial storm with enormous deficits, gross unemployment, and staggering national debt we just turned down a man with an impeccable record of experience, a man some would appropriately term "uniquely qualified" for our time, and a genuinely good man. If the fate of America had once rested on the shoulders of great men whom God seemed to personally appoint how could this not be yet another Providential appointment?  I truly believed Mitt’s triumph would be historic and in future days he would be ranked with the presidential giants of our past.  As state’s surprisingly quickly broke for Obama the collapse had begun.  My hope was absolutely crushed.

But then I realized something so plain that I was startled that I would have so easily forgotten it.  Surely good had lost before and hopes dashed. The whole world has crashed down on truth's small faithful band before and yet she, truth, had arisen triumphant against it! I realized Mitt was not the cause - truth was.  Mitt was but one of its many faithful advocates and he fought bravely.  He came up short but that did not end its campaign.  His campaign lied shattered to pieces but truth stood stronger because of his efforts.  Principals will not fade into the night merely because of one setback.  Truth and freedom, those happy companions, to whom but few pay the price of their fellowship will march on.

I have sat on the sidelines cheering on truth's campaign but not given myself to the cause.  In my folly I never took up sword or pen to advance its tenets. Mine was faith without works, and was dead.  My sole act was to vote, a mere gesture not worthy of pride or self-congratulatory praise.  I had even questioned others who actively enlisted in the cause: "what difference can you make?"  But last night I saw for perhaps the first time that Mitt Romney had done so eloquently what I professed to love so deeply.  He had pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor for what he believed in, for freedom and for truth. Certainly he gave those things for this cause.  Now what will I give?

In saying all of this I by no means intend to label President Obama as evil but I do believe he is misguided and his policies trample upon freedom and truth.  But for too long have far too many, including myself, sat idly by while our freedoms have slowly slipped from our grasp.  America has fallen asleep and we need to wake up before a nightmare becomes reality.

America was to be the great human experiment.  As Alexander Hamilton once wrote "it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, to decide by their conduct, and example, the important question whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitution on accident and force." Our failure would be "the general misfortune of mankind." (The Federalist No. 1). Although written over 200 years ago those words are as relevant today as they ever were.  It is now for us to pick up the shattered pieces of Romney's valiant effort and forge ahead in the cause of truth and freedom.  Let us declare with one voice as did our noble forebears: "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor." (Declaration of Independence.)

We must keep the conversation going and believe as Justice Holmes did that truth will win the day in the marketplace of ideas. Don't give up on America, Mitt never did.

Optimum Liberty!
Each year on each issue and candidate I have an opinion and like to hear the opinions of others.  My opinions change as I am influenced by new information and the considerations that others bring up.  When I ran for office many years ago now, I offered voters a picture of myself that wasn't very issue-specific.  Instead I told them that if elected, I would approach each decision by asking myself at least four questions.  The last one, for instance, was whether the measure under consideration would help simplify government.  If so, I would tend to support it.
With the election drawing near, I am thinking about turning that process around.  We live in a republic.  Elected officials are representatives.  What are the criteria that we, as voters, apply to candidates?  What questions do we want them to ask themselves when they face a decision?  Do we have a fair idea as to what they think are the most important questions, and how they would lean depending on the answers?  If we can size up candidates this way, rather than on specific measures or issues, it could make our vote last longer, meaning that once the issues of the day have floated by, we will still have a sense of how the candidate will approach the new and unforseen particulars they will face.
I would like to know what your criteria would be.  Here is mine for starters:
Will this decision promote individual liberty?  This is not a uber-libertarian question.  Anarchy is not liberty.  If I can get a sense that personal liberty is important to the candidate and that they will ask themselves that question with each decision, then I will tend to support the candidate.
As a constitutionalist, I think all these questions ought to be ways of looking at how the elected official will carry out their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, as every elected official in the U.S. must swear to do.
Your thoughts

Social Security a bad deal for America

I know, you can't believe it. The only token liberal of the blog and family coming out and saying Social Security is a mess. Not only is it a mess, it's a catastrophe. I used to think social security was a good deal, and that's because it was. However, it was an unsustainably good deal and it will probably bankrupt us in the future if it isn't reformed. Here is an excerpt from an article posted on MSNBC, which typically leans left.

"People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades.

"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

The shift among middle-income workers is happening just as millions of baby boomers are reaching retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers behind to pay into the system. It's coming at a critical time for Social Security, the federal government's largest program.

The trustees who oversee Social Security say its funds, which have been built up over the past 30 years with surplus payroll taxes, will run dry in 2033 unless Congress acts. At that point, payroll taxes would provide enough revenue each year to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

To cover the shortfall, future retirees probably will have to pay higher taxes while they are working, accept lower benefits after they retire, or some combination of both.

"Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who has studied the issue as a fellow at the Urban Institute." http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/news.aspx?feed=AP&date=20120805&id=15415077

I'm no expert in personal finance, but it seems that everything social security is designed to do - give a basic retirement ($1200 a month, pretty low if you ask me), give benefits to the disabled, etc - can already be done in the private sector at a much higher rate of return and far more efficiently. I wish I had the choice of opting out of social security as I'll probably get half or less of what I put in. That just doesn't sound like the greatest investment I'll ever make.

Here's to My Dad, Who "Made It"

I saw this video just now, and it struck a powerful chord with me:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-on-small-business-owners-20120718,0,5614318.premiumvideo

It reminded me of my own Dad, who never asked for or expected any government handout or bailout when financial times were (and still are) tough.  Who is in the office on all major holidays and most weekends busting it.  Who risked it all and went on his own to start his own small business, and pays through the nose to our government because politicians feel he should pay much more in taxes only because he worked for himself, but employed several other people in the process.  Who, because of punitive and arbitrary fees and oppressive interest charges by the IRS, frequently is forced to raid his own meager savings just to make payroll.  Who denies himself every luxury and even what many would consider basic necessities (a car, at the moment, as an example) so that his family can have better and so that he can keep the taxman at bay.  Who, day in and day out, lays it on the line and puts his nose to the grindstone for clients who most likely won't pay timely, if at all.  Those who know you the best and love you the most don't tell you nearly often enough, but your backbreaking work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated.  We love you and thank you for having the courage to chase your version of the American Dream, even as the government makes it ever increasingly difficult for you to do so.  Here's what a "man's man" looks like.

Here's to you, Dad, an entrepreneur who "Made It," at least in my eyes, in spite of the government, not because of it.  And for one who never ran so much as a popsicle stand before becoming President to suggest the opposite is audacious and insults you and the millions of American entrepreneurs like you who pull themselves up by the bootstraps to build their businesses from nothing.  Obama has it backwards.  Without entrepreneurs, their drive, their ideas and businesses, the salaries that go to their employees, and the taxes that these productive businesses and individuals pay, the government's coffers would be empty.  Where does he think the money for roads, airports, infrastructre, and research for the internet came from, anyway?  You'd think that a man whose sizeable salary is made possible by people like you would be less insulting and more thankful.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0718-20120718,0,2313230.column

Obamacare Stands - SCOTUS Highlights and Thoughts

The majority, concurring and dissenting opinions released Thursday are 193 pages long.  I've only made it through the majority.  Here are the main highlights and my commentary thus far, starting with my summary:

If Roberts had to uphold Obamacare as constitutional (outlets are now reporting that he initially voted with the conservatives to overturn it, but that he later switched his vote which may have been influenced by outside forces), I think he did so in the most conservative way possible.  He kept the Commerce Clause jurisprudence in check by rejecting the Government's expansive arguments, redefined Obamacare in politically-advantageous terms, and granted the States the ability to opt out.  Moreover, his repeated emphasis on "federalism" - the states' retained ability to do things (the mandate, for example) under the police power which the feds cannot - lends further credibility to Romney's distinction and justification of the Romneycare mandate.  Roberts also quelled attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by teaming up with the liberal justices and deprived the left of a campaign theme which they were already developing and banking on - that SCOTUS is nothing more than a dangerous majority of conservative politicians in black robes.  Finally, this opinion may have breathed new life into the Tea Party, which was instrumental in producing a Republican majority in the House in 2010 and was spawned, in large part, by Obamacare's passage in the first place.  In sum, Obama and his allies may have won the battle on Thursday, but the prospects for a conservative victory in the war were not dashed by the SCOTUS ruling, in my opinion.  In fact, the prospects arguably improved.

Read on for specific opinion highlights and my reactions ...

1. Judicial Deference

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.  Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.  It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

- It's pretty clear what Roberts is saying here.  If you dislike Obamacare, then vote accordingly in November.  I also thought his word choice was interesting.  It was strongly-worded: "thrown out of office," not just voted out.  Also, implied in the last sentence is that the policies enacted by the people's elected leaders in 2008 (Obamacare) were such that the people needed to be protected from the consequences of those policies, i.e., the consequences will be negative and damaging to them.  Though Roberts ultimately upheld Obamacare, subtle backhands at the law can be found throughout the majority opinion.

2. The Much-derided Broccoli Analogy Carries the Day - Commerce Clause Argument Rejected

"Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make [but doesn't] within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him. ... [M]any Americans do not eat a balanced diet. ... The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance. ... Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.  ... That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned."

- Solid logic, which was famously ridiculed by the mainstream media and talking heads on the left after oral arguments.  It was good to see that that Supreme Court reined in several decades of unrelenting Commerce Clause expansion, BUT ...

3. Individual Mandate Valid as a Tax  

"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

- So what the feds can't do (compel you to engage in commerce via the individual madate) under the Commerce Clause, they can do if the mandate is reasonably construed as a tax?  Isn't the practical effect - getting more people to buy health insurance - the same, as many on the right argue?  So what difference does it make?  Shouldn't we be concerned here?  Doesn't this just unleash Congress's taxing power, as depicted in the cartoon?  The majority provides 3 considerations to allay these concerns:

a. Unlike under the Commerce Clause, the Constitution does not make any promises to shield us from federal regulation via taxation as long as we do not engage in activity.  Plus, Congress already uses tax incentives to encourage buying things (e.g. homes, professional educations) whereas SCOUTS has never sanctioned, under the Commerce Clause, the government's mandating of the unwilling citizenry to engage in commerce by purchasing products that the paternalistic government deems necessary.


b. If the Court decides that the mandate is a "tax," then that means that it is not punitive in nature (notwithstanding Congress's frequent use of the word "penalty" in the statute), which would be much worse and unconstitutional under the Taxing power.  The outer limits of a "tax" are also policed aggressively by the Courts.

c. Government can exercise much more control over your behavior under the Commerce Clause than it can under the taxing power.  In other words, "Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs [under Commerce Clause regulations]. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the rightto bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in othercontroversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.  By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxingpower is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punishindividuals subject to it."

- I'm no tax attorney, but I'm not sure I buy this last distinction.  Isn't it a federal felony to not pay income taxes (Wesley Snipes comes to mind)?  If convicted for tax evasion, aren't you then branded a criminal and would thus suffer the same attendant consequences that Roberts lists above?  The dissent may have something to say here, but I didn't get that far.

I would add a 4th consideration:

d. It is much more politically difficult to pass something that looks like a "mandate" if you have to call it a "tax" to ensure that is passes constitutional muster. That word is politically toxic, and politicians will avoid it if possible.  Roberts' opinion just made it that much more difficult to do, and provided conservatives with good ammo to grow and solidify its majority of people who disapprove of Obamacare by allowing it to be labeled as such going forward.

4. Feds can't threaten to withdraw all Medicaid funding from States if they don't comply with Obamacare's Expansion


"When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism. ... The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion."

- This ruling (7-2, by the way) essentially allows the states to "opt out" of the Medicaid portion of Obamacare if they so desire.

I'm interested in your analysis of the decision and how it may affect things (health care system, upcoming election, etc.) going forward.  Comment away!

Thought-Provoking Headline ...

"Nobody thought about taking away your Big Gulp until the Government began to pay for everyone's healthcare."

Click here for the article.

Washington Post "Hit Piece" on Romney is a Joke

An interesting series of events took place this week.  Joe Biden forced Obama's hand to clarify his stance on gay marriage, voters overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage in the same state that is hosting the DNC convention later this summer, Obama "evolved" his position on gay marriage (a development that the creator of Will & Grace, stating the obvious, labeled as "choreographed"), his interviewer Robin Roberts got "the chills" a day later when remembering the historic moment with fellow Obama cheerleader George Stephanopolous, a 5,500 word Washington Post article was published online on Thursday reporting on things Romney allegedly did almost 50 years ago when he was a 17 year old high school kid to a "presumed" homosexual classmate, and by the end of the week Romney was polling ahead of Obama 50% to 43%.

There's a lot to talk about here, but I want to focus on the WashPo article.  It is obvious that it was conveniently shrink wrapped in a nice little package just waiting to drop at the perfect moment, right after Obama announces his latest stance on gay marriage, to contrast and paint Romney as a homophobic bigot who bullied his "presumed" homosexual high school classmate.

The WashPo piece struck me as incredibly juvenile and the mainstream media double standard could not have been more obvious.  First of all, the use of the phrase "presumed homosexual" was outrageous and unbelievable.  There was no evidence, no quotes from friends, nothing to suggest that this hair cut was motivated by the guy's sexual orientation.  How ridiculous and unprofessional, then, was it for the "reporter" to insert that phrase to construct that baseless, politically and conveniently timed inference?  Romney responded, and there is no reason to doubt this given that it happened in the early 1960's, that whether Lauber was gay or straight "was the furthest thing" from his mind.  Fellow WashPo blogger Jennifer Rubin correctly observed: "Frankly this seems that an incident was plucked out of a long story on Romney's teen years to make an inference, without factual support, that Romney harbored anti-gay animus."

I'd also like to know what 17 yr. old boy didn't do something he wasn't proud of in high school?  Is the preferred liberal presumption that one is doomed to live the rest of his life as he did in high school; that one cannot grow up and become more mature?  Indeed, Paul Begala thinks so: "Once a bully, always a bully."  What nonsensical BS.  By the same logic, Obama, the sitting President, should be busted for his continued illegal use of cocaine, which he admitted to as a youth.  After all, once a crackhead, always a crackhead, right?  Come on ... And we wonder why good, changed, and very capable people (e.g. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) don't want to throw their hat in the ring?  If immature actions from nearly 5 decades ago in high school are going to be put under the microscope like this, really?

Finally, I'm curious: where was the slanted 5,500 word vetting piece exploring Obama's admitted associations with Communist and Marxist professors and advisers to whom he was drawn, or the 20 years he spent as an adult sitting in the pews listening to Reverend Wright, or his Bill Ayers connections, or a host of other legitimate and relevant topics from Obama's past to report?

Nothing to see here, folks, move along ...

I wasn't surprised to learn that the WashPo piece imploded within a day.  Incredibly, the "reporter" either wildly inflated or flat out falsified important details.  For example, as reported by ABC, it turns out that one of Romney's friends, Stu White, who was first reported to have "long been bothered" about the hair cutting incident wasn't even there and didn't learn about it until he was contacted several weeks ago by the Washington Post!  The Post's subsequent airbrushing of the story has also been troubling. The bullied youth's family released a statement decrying the article as factually inaccurate and said that if Lauber were alive today, he would be furious about the story and that he was used to further a political agenda in this manner.

It's comforting to know that the mainstream media isn't in the tank for one candidate above another and that it holds "reporters" to such high and unbiased journalistic standards.  What a joke.

Mo' Mormon Stuff

I just thought I would continue the non-issue of Mitt's mormonism by posting what John Stewart had to say about it.  I actually think he does a pretty good job at bashing all of the mormon bashers out there.  Click here to see the clip.

Will Obama Court the Anti-Mormon Vote?

Going along with the recent Mormon theme, I read an interesting piece today in the liberal blog, "The Daily Beast."  I thought it was worthy of discussion.  Here's an excerpt:

"There are votes in anti-Mormonism, but the Obama administration must resist any temptation to play on it.  ...
It's important that Barack Obama wins this election, but for the country's sake, it's important that Mormonism not lose."

Here's a link to the full article:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/23/democrats-have-bigger-anti-mormon-problem-in-election-than-gop.html

So here are my questions.  If Mitt Romney wins, could that be viewed as a positive step toward a post-bigoted society similar to the way many viewed Obama's 2008 win as a positive step toward a post-racist society?  If Mitt loses, how big a factor will his religion play into that?  Also, what do you think about this author's observation about it still being very much socially acceptable to be anti-Mormon, and will that dynamic manifest itself in people's responses to poll questions?

The Mormon Moment - Mitt Romney and Jabari Parker

Because I know all of you are basketball fans and Mormons, I wanted to bring your attention to an up and coming basketball star. His name is Jabari Parker out of Simeon High School in Chicago, Illinois. Jabari was just named Gatorade National Boys Basketball Player of the Year...as a Junior in high school. I first found out about Jabari last year when he was a sophomore and was able to watch one of his games on ESPN back in December. Some people have called him the next Kobe Bryant. However, Jabari lives by the mantra "Basketball is what I do, not who I am."

"Parker has maintained a 3.63 weighted GPA in the classroom and ranks 18th in his class of 377 students. The principal-appointed President of Student Representatives with the Local School Council, he donates his time as a youth basketball instructor and has volunteered locally with Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity), the Salvation Army and the New Beginnings Church. He is also a seminary bible study student and a senior citizen youth ambassador in association with the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints Hyde Park Ward. He will begin his senior year of high school this fall and remains undecided on a college destination."

Keep your eyes out for Jabari as an up and coming basketball star over the next few years. You can read more about Jabari on the ESPN article where some of this information came from, or various other articles that have been written about him for the past two years.

http://espn.go.com/high-school/boys-basketball/story/_/id/7804376/jabari-parker-named-gatorade-national-boys-basketball-player-year

Santorum Exitorum

So Rick Santorum is officially out. Creighton, did you do this? Many people will be really sad to see him leave the race. Up on the list of down in the mouth will be Jim Messina, who is Pres. Obama's campaign manager. I would like to hear how Occupy this handicaps the race based on economic numbers. Isn't the economy at the end of the second quarter determinative? Let us know.

Health Care Reform About to Meet its Doom?

I have followed the last few days of oral arguments before the supreme court on the Affordable Care Act with interest. I still haven't developed an official opinion about the bill but for the most part find myself agreeing with most of the provisions in the law. However, the law is so complex and so huge I don't feel like I know everything about it, which worries me. I don't want to go into practice in a few years and get blindsided by some provision I wasn't aware of.

Health care in the US is sort of a mess. CNN recently did a story on a little girl who had a rare medical condition that required frequent, expensive medical care to keep her alive. Her parents rejoiced when the law was passed because it eliminated the lifetime spending cap. I think in this specific case the cap was at $5 million and the little girl was only 3 and up to around $3 million in care. Her parents were worried that she'd be kicked off the plan as soon as she hit her limit and her parents would have no way to pay for her care.

I have to spend one half day every other week with a family practice physician in Centerville. Last week when I was in I met a woman who had a son that she was not able to get coverage for because he had a "pre-existing condition." His father had been laid off, lost health insurance, and the boy lost coverage for more than a month, making insurance companies able to deny coverage based upon pre-existing condition. His parents were now facing bankruptcy trying to pay for his medical care because he was uninsurable.

As I understand it, this current bill really is contingent on the individual mandate, and it makes economic sense. How can you ask insurance companies to cover more expensive people (those with pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime limits) without increasing the base of healthy people to spread the cost out. Listening to the arguments it does sound to me like the individual mandate is indeed unconstitutional and an overreach of federal power. With that being said, what can we do to fix these problems?

I don't think any of us wants to see people with pre-existing conditions denied health insurance, nor do we want to see 5 year old girls kicked off their health insurance because they were born with an expensive medical condition. This seems like a very tough problem to tackle, and I certainly don't have the answers.
What do you guys think?

Best. Headline. Ever.

Creighton, were you and your pot-smoking partner Alex, by chance, in West Covina yesterday dressed in all black?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/medical-marijuana-deliveryman-robbed-by-baton-wielding-ninjas-in-west-covina/

Found this on Drudge today and thought I'd share.

Utah Legislators at it again

Earlier this week, Utah legislators waded into controversy by passing "abstinence-only" sex education in Utah. Sponsors of the bill claim that sex education should be left up to the parents, and that this subject should only be taught in the home. Districts can completely opt out of providing sex education, but if they choose to teach sex education, they must teach abstinence-only.

This is an absolute joke. This is political pandering at its worst. Let me share why.

I received plenty of abstinence-only sex education at home and at school during seminary. This is the proper place for moral instruction. I can tell you that in high school (and Finn can vouch for this), ALL of my non-LDS friends were sexually active in one way or another and half of my LDS friends were sexually active. I think nationwide estimates put the number around 50-60% of all teenagers coming out of high school have had a sexual encounter.
Most of my friends practiced the "pull-out" form of contraception. This is the method of pulling out just prior to ejaculation to avoid sending sperm into the vagina. All of them thought they could never get a girl pregnant this way, but little did they know that there are sperm in the pre-ejaculate, and all of them were playing with fire every time they had sex. One of my LDS friends later told me he couldn't believe how naive he had been, and he counted himself very lucky he wasn't a teen father.
I heard other rumors in high school about contraception that were not true. Some girls thought if you douched with Coca-cola after having intercourse, that would destroy the sperm. Some of my friends thought if you had sex in a hot tub, the girl could not get pregnant. Many of them thought it impossible to get pregnant the first time they ever had sex. The list goes on and on.

We live in a real world. Obviously, I and all of you believe in abstinence-only before marriage. But what about after marriage? Many of us have used various forms of contraception, the likes of which I had no idea about until we had a two hour lecture on it from Andy Anderson's wife in physiology at Utah State. Did I instantly think that I had just been taught about how to away with sex like some Utah legislators are claiming and go out and start banging every girl I saw? No.

The current policy in Utah has parents sign a permission slip that allows the school to instruct the students about various forms of contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, and other sex-related material. If you choose to withhold your child from these courses, you are absolutely permitted to do that, and currently about 10% of Utah parents do. That means 90% of Utah parents choose to have their children attend these courses to learn about these things.

What I really wanted to be able to do was give the Utah lawmakers a multiple choice test covering the material of sex-education and see if the could even pass. My guess is that most would get about half the answers right. As a parent, I want my children to have sex education at school and then be able to talk to them about it and answer any additional questions they might have.

As soon as the bill passed, thousands of calls were put into the governor's office, a petition gaining tens of thousands of signatures (including mine and most the students in my medical class), emails and letters have all been sent to prod the governor to veto the bill. On an LDS church owned news website, the following poll was conducted:

I know this is a small sample size but for 80% of likely conservative readers to think Gov. Herbert should veto this bill is significant.

However, Governor Herbert obviously doesn't care what the people of Utah think:

"Herbert was not available for comment Friday, but a spokeswoman said the governor's office has received thousands of calls, emails and letters regarding HB363. Herbert has said that he will not be swayed by mass email campaigns and would make a decision based on what is the best policy for the state of Utah."

I know some of you may argue that it's no place for the government to be teaching your children about sex education. I would argue that a public education should be correcting myths and providing correct information about contraception and including an element of abstinence being the best policy. Information and knowledge is not something to be feared but embraced. If Governor Herbert decides politics is more important than the health of teenagers, he will lose my vote and support come next election.

Just a conclusion from a national study done on abstinence-only sex education programs:

"This assessment of the impact of formal sex education programs on teen sexual health using nationally representative data found that abstinence-only programs had no significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing the risk for teen pregnancy and STDs. In contrast, comprehensive sex education programs were significantly associated with reduced risk of teen pregnancy, whether compared with no sex education or with abstinence-only sex education, and were marginally associated with decreased likelihood of a teen becoming sexually active compared with no sex education."

Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others

Is contraception a right?
Much of today's political discourse skirts the question whether this or that activity or status or good or service is a "right."
The Declaration of Independence has a partial list of self-evidently "inalienable" rights that drafters, including one slave owner, agreed were bestowed on all men by their Creator. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the Bill of Rights, the vague Pursuit of Happiness became Property (5th Amendment). Modern discussion of "rights" have warped the concept to the point that it is near meaningless to speak of "rights."
Housing and healthcare are widely regarded (now) as rights. Compare these with the type that are included in the Bill of Rights, and some real differences emerge.
Housing and healthcare are goods and services. I can enjoy them only if someone pays for them. If they are a right, they must be supplied to me. But who pays for them? The builder or doctor, or a current or future taxpayer, must be compelled to provide them. So their rights to liberty or property are undone by my right to housing or healthcare. New rights aren't bestowed by the Creator, they are supplied by government force.
Because they come through government force, new rights are not "inalienable." They are very alienable. Just ask the employees of church hospitals and soup kitchens. If they had a right to contraception, some political pressure was all it took to wipe the right away. So new rights come and go with each political breeze.
With one interesting exception old rights are "negative" in the sense that they are couched as things the government should not interfere with. My (old) rights may bump up against your (old) rights, in which case government (usually via the courts) plays referee. But old rights almost always are: "Government, don't ____" Fill in the blank with "muzzle me" or "censor my book" or "confiscate my gun" or "tell me what to worship."
The only exception I can think of is the right to defend yourself from criminal prosecution. This includes the right to a speedy jury trial, to cross-examine witnesses, and to have an attorney help you. These are resources the government must allow you to have in order to take on the government.
New rights are not like old rights. New rights aren't about restricting the government from interfering in your life. New rights are about empowering the government to run your life by fostering dependency on government-supplied goods and services.
Once you say healthcare is a right, then contraception drugs and services must be free, and the refusal of government to force someone (everyone? the wealthy?) to pay for it is tantamount to a ban. Government must also pay for abortion. I really don't understand how the Catholic Church or anyone else can be surprised by any of this.
The Constitution is not so much about the "what" as about the "who." Once government gets to determine people's rights without reference to the Constitution, there is no telling what "rights" will be inflicted on us.

You guys want to nominate Santorum?

You guys want to nominate this guy?

If there is one candidate Barack Obama will wipe the floor with, it's this guy. I haven't liked this guy from about the middle of November. His rhetoric is far to the right, he is going to alienate 65% of the American population who do not agree with his far-right conservative ideals. Yes he is energizing the white male conservative Christian base (why? I have no idea! Someone please tell me what they see in this guy?) with his anti-gay, anti-big government, anti-abortion, anti-women, I'm God's candidate blah blah blah speeches, but that is not going to win him votes in November. 

If you guys nominate Rick Santorum, it's four more years of Barack Obama, guaranteed. Conservative pundits might like him, but I predict Americans in general will not.

War Drums

Because diplomacy and harsh sanctions against Iran have run their course without the desired results, insiders are forecasting that Iran will be bombed sometime later this Spring or Summer. With or without the United States' permission or support, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities before they reach the "immunity zone," wherein no bunker-busting bomb can penetrate, in the name of self-preservation. It is unacceptable to the Israelis that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, seeing that Iran's leaders have repeatedly referred to Israel as the "cancer" of the Middle East that needs to be "wiped off the map."

These are certainly some perilous times across the globe, to say the least. Whether we like it or not, this imminent conflict in the Middle East will affect us in profound ways given our historic support of Israel, our presence in the region, and our obvious dependence on foreign oil imports. So I guess I just wanted your insight about some of the following questions regarding this issue:

1) How do you see this impacting the 2012 U.S Presidential election?

2) Given how war-weary this country already is, is there any way we could help our Israeli allies with the Iranian attack without it turning into a multi-year occupation of yet another foreign nation?

3) Are you guys cool with Iran getting a nuke? In other words, should we even be helping Israel at all?

4) How (if at all) does President Obama's recent decision to shut down the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline play into all of this? If we opened up our markets to Canadian oil for refining via Keystone, would there be less of a dependency on Middle Eastern oil? What are the national security implications at play here?

Of course, any other thoughts you might have about the impending Israel-Iran showdown would be welcome as well. Looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say.

Tax Time Again


A couple of weeks ago, Mittens (that's for you Creighton) was destroyed in the South Carolina primary by Newt, and one of the main reasons, in my opinion, is that he was unwilling to share his tax information when called out on it by his opponents.  After losing the primary, he did come out and release his info and we all learned something that we already new...Mitt has a lot of money.  We also learned that for the amount of money he has, he sure pays a pretty low tax rate, around 15%.  Upon learning this, much of the media tried to turn this into a crime against the country, showing us yet another shining example of how corporate greed is destroying America.  Fortunately, this was an unfounded argument and didn't stick, and in reality I was kind of proud of Mitt for astoundingly low tax rate.  The way I see it, he is just like any other good American I know.  We all have to pay taxes, but we try to pay as little as we possibly can.  So, kudos to you Mitt for finding your way through the loopholes that litter our current tax system, I wish I knew more of them.

I have recently begun gathering all of my information for the last year to be able to file my taxes.  1098-T for school, W-2 or is that a W-4 that I used for work study this last summer.  Do I file a 1040, 1040EZ, or is there some other number and letter combo that could work better for me?  And what in the world do all of those numbers and acronyms mean anyways?  My father in law is helping us out with our taxes again this year via his friend who is an accountant.  Did you know that even though I grossed approximately negative $90,000 last year between mine and my wife's schooling, we somehow owe taxes on part of that loan money?  I don't understand it and I probably never will.  Then we learned that I can deduct the cost of my computer (that I bought before I was in medical school) from my taxes this year, plus other books or "supplies" we "needed" for school.  So, like we Mitt, we are slowly trying to chip away at what I can give back to the government for all they do for me.

Then, a couple of days ago, I found an article from the NY Times outlining the story of James Ross.  He is a self proclaimed "1 percenter" who is a lawyer and now runs an investment firm in New York.  The surprising part of his story is that last year he paid 102% of his taxable income to taxes!!  Are you kidding me??  Sure, many people will say that we shouldn't fill sorry for a multi-millionaire who has to pay a lot in taxes, which I don't exactly feel sorry for him, but I do think there is a fundamental flaw in a system that even has the possibility to have people pay over 100% or even close to 100% of their taxable income.  (Here's a link to the article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/business/at-102-his-tax-rate-takes-the-cake-common-sense.html )

So let's sum this up.  Basically, Romney was able to make millions and pay just little bit back in taxes because most of his money came through investments.  Mr. Ross had to pay back most of his money because his was based on an "earned income", that is, he worked for his money and I will have to pay however much in taxes for taking out student loans (from the government who is also getting interest on those loans).  So tell me this, why is it that we find it appropriate to tax the life out of people who are working hard for their money, doctors, lawyers or other professionals, but allow those people who just invest the money they have and let there money work for them get away without paying even half of what the rest of us pay?  I feel that one of the best ways we can get our country and our economy back on track would be to just do a flip flop.  Let those people who are out making jobs and working hard for their money, enjoy the money they earn.  As for the investors, let's use their money to fund the many government programs that are both useful and sometimes necessary for the people lower on the economic totem pole.

I'd love to hear any ideas or any comments from all of you that are smarter than I am when it comes to this stuff.

The Abortion Question

A couple days ago I was driving to school listening to Rush Limbaugh (yes, I listen to Rush Limbaugh every day, although I am not a Rush believer). During a timeout, I heard an ad for Newt Gingrich, er, a super pac ad against Mitt Romney from Winning our Future. They basically just played a recording of Mitt Romney talking about how he supported a woman's right to choose, and even supported a young woman under the age of 18 getting permission from a court to have an abortion when her parents wouldn't give the permission. I'm sure it made all those social conservatives cringe and throw their support behind the Newt.

I don't think Romney ever was down with abortion. I'm not necessarily a Romney supporter or hater, I think the dude says what he has to to get elected. Although I believe he mostly kept his promise to the people of Mass that he wouldn't mess with a woman's right to choose (not that he could anyway).

I have two points to make in this post, but before I do, I want to make something clear. I am strongly opposed to abortion. I would never advocate anyone get an abortion (except in cases or rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is in severe jeopardy, and even then, I wouldn't necessarily advocate the woman get the abortion.) Being in medical school has made me wonder if I could actually perform one of these elective procedures and the answer is not a chance. I literally would feel like I was committing murder, I couldn't do it. And so I am against it. So with that disclaimer, I make my point.

Point #1
This actually should not fire up conservatives too much that Romney said these things. Massachusetts is obviously a pro-choice state, most of the residents are pro-choice, and in their state, the majority of people want a pro-choice governor. Republicans believe in state's rights, and if that's how Massachusetts-ites want their state to be, then so be it. Romney probably wouldn't have been elected if he would have ran on a pro-life platform.

Point #2
I made it clear that I was against abortion in almost all cases, but with that disclaimer, how do you get rid of it? If you make abortion illegal, there will be women who are raped, or who are impregnated by their father or brother, or women whose health is in serious jeopardy. Where does the bigger injustice lie? In forcing those women to bear a child that was the product of a serious crime? Or allow a woman to die? And on top of that, illegal and dangerous abortions will continue. It happens in countries where abortion is illegal. I think I'd rather have legal, safe abortions done by someone professionally trained than illegal, dangerous abortions performed by some novice looking to make a buck. I just don't see how to get rid of it, other than sharing our opinions about the sanctity of life and hoping people make the right decisions.

What do you guys think? I hear candidates talking about overturning Roe v. Wade, but I just think why bother? Even if you threw all your weight behind it, it probably wouldn't happen. What are you going to replace it with?

West Virginia Crackers and Taxes

Recently, the tri-state region of OH, PA, and WV has been experiencing an enormous boom in the natural gas industry. Hydraulic "fracking" combined with new horizontal drilling technology is enabling energy companies to safely harvest huge amounts of clean natural gas. The Marcellus and Utica shale formations underlying the region have more than three trillion cubic feet of natural gas, just waiting to be produced. As a result, several energy companies have flocked to the area to cash in. Hundreds of rural families who have owned homesteads in relative poverty for generations have literally become overnight millionaires merely by leasing their natural gas rights. Employers can't hire people fast enough to keep up with exploding demand. Most law firms' bottom lines are getting hammered right now, but my employer regional law firm - headquartered in Bridgeport, WV - experienced record breaking profits last year. These profits mainly came from the dramatic increases in oil/gas title and transaction work from the fracking boom. In short, economic outlooks are looking really, really good across the board.

This boom has convinced Shell Oil and another unnamed oil company to construct two "cracker" plants somewhere in the region. Cracker plants, like the one pictured above, chemically break down ethane (a byproduct from natural gas drilling) into usable ethylene. Guess how much it costs the companies to invest in and build just one cracker plant? $3.2 billion. Guess how many short-term, shovel-ready construction jobs that one plant would create? About 8,000. Guess how many long-term, good paying jobs that one plant would create? As estimated by the American Chemistry Council, 12,271 (2,484 in the chemical industry; 6,262 in the supply chain; and 3,524 from the 'induced' increases in consumer spending).

Naturally, with two cracker plants up for grabs, OH, PA, and WV are fiercely competing with each other to entice the companies to invest those billions and bring those tens of thousands of jobs to their states. So politically, something encouraging, albeit counter intuitive, has taken place in WV. Newly elected Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (D) ran his campaign on a very simple and focused message: "Lower Taxes. More jobs." To his credit, Tomblin is striving to keep that promise by working closely with large Democrat majorities in the WV House and Senate.

Last week, the Legislature fast tracked a bill to the Governor's desk. The bill slashed state property, inventory, and machinery taxes that a cracker plant would have paid from $30 million per year to $1.5 million per year - for the next 25 years! Do the math, those savings add up. Despite strong opposition from environmental and anti-development special interest groups, the tax cuts passed unanimously in the Senate, and only 1 member of the House voted no (strangely, a Republican). Legislators were calling it "by far the most important legislation we will pass this year." Gov. Tomblin quickly signed the bill to take it with him on a sales trip to Houston, where Shell is headquartered, as part of his pitch to bring the crackers to WV instead of PA or OH. Obviously, this has been a very popular move with West Virginians, who elected Democrat Tomblin on the promise of creating more jobs.

I applaud the Dem leaders of WV who, bucking conventional partisan wisdom, are trying to create more jobs (and, consequently, more tax payers); not by jacking up taxes, but by slashing them. They understood that to be competitive with other states whose taxes are lower, and whose legal and regulatory environments are much more conducive to run a business, things had to be changed. Vilifying, demonizing, and "punishing" evil job creators with higher taxes wasn't the route they chose. They knew that WV didn't stand a chance with where our tax levels were compared to PA and OH. West Virginians are hoping that this legislation will pay off and deliver the grand prize: billions in new investment and tens of thousands of new jobs. This is a great case study in how you ultimately grow your tax base, your tax revenues, the employment rate, your approval ratings, and your reelection chances. The Obama administration should take notes.

I'm forming a new party, you guys want in?

It's not going to be a very popular party, but it's one that's needed. This is what my party is going to be about....







That is a huge number. I can't even wrap my mind around that number, but this number is just looming over us like a dark cloud waiting to unleash its unspeakable fury. This number terrifies me. I think about how absolutely nothing is being done about it all the time. They even tried to form a super-committee to attack this number and they all walked away with no solutions. Well that's why I'm forming a new party.

It's called the "People of the US who want a government that doesn't spend more than it brings in party."

Now I'm all for government spending. I think they do important things like national defense (although I think they go a little overboard), build infrastructure, support education, yada yada yada. However while these things are good, it is not good to fund these things when we do not have the money for it.

So who's to blame for this mess? Everyone! Every senior wants their social security and medicare, every republican wants their sons and daughters taking names and whipping a** in the middle east, and every democrat wants to take a bunch of money from the rich people (or just future money that apparently will come out of thin air) and give it to people who don't have that much money. Everyone wants the government to cut spending but when they try they get special interest groups to rally against any chance of cutting the funding of this or that. And every republican refuses to raise taxes on millionaires like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet.

So here's my proposal, why don't we tackle this monstrous number with full-force effort from everyone in the country and get back to being fiscally responsible and the great country we should be? This could be raising the age before social security kicks in, it could be not giving social security to people who don't need it, it could be not paying the interest on my student loan while I'm in medical school, maybe we raise taxes on dudes like Romney and Buffet to pay the same percentage as someone in the middle class, maybe we pull more troops out of the middle east and cut down on the military, maybe we stop giving huge benefits to public sector workers, perhaps we limit the earned income tax credit, maybe cut unemployment benefits after 6 months, but we have to do something, and right now we're doing nothing and it doesn't look like we will be anytime soon.
And that worries me.
The figure below scares me the most...

Welcome Welcome

So the idea of this blog is to present ideas you consider when it comes to politics and we all discuss them. Perhaps you read an article you wanted to share, or maybe you want to learn more about something, or maybe you just want to vent about what's going on (or not going on) in Washington. Or in your own state.

Just a couple of guidelines that will maybe help us all be civil and a little more informed.

Please don't question people's character. Just because someone believes differently than you do doesn't mean they are a bad person or they want the country to fail. No one likes to have their motives and integrity questioned.
Try to have an open mind and consider other people arguments and evidence they present before jumping to conclusions or mounting your defenses. However with that being said, people are going to have differing opinions so that's where the comments can be fun as debate goes back and forth.

If you really don't agree with someone you can always challenge them to a duel. Preferably to the death, I'll come watch.