The Utah Statesman

The Budget

2010-01-24T22:10:00.002-07:00

It’s time, once again to deal with the subject we all love to hate—The Budget. Its not pretty, its not an issue that holds your attention but it really has an enormous effect on our daily lives. These decisions matter so we might as well be aware of what it is we are deciding.

According to the Deseret News, Utah's executive appropriations committee has mandated an immediate 4 percent budget cut, with an additional 5 percent cut pending. (Article Here)

To anyone familiar with finance, you know this is a huge cut (and if you aren’t familiar with it, just trust us, it’s a lot). The Governor has issued his budget recommendations on how to accomplish this and I’ll give a quick play by play though it is important to note that these recommendations are not law, they will simply be suggestions for the executive appropriations committee.

First, the problem: We have a budget shortfall. Employment really went south as of July of ‘09 when not only did our Utah economy stop growing to generate new jobs (which happened roughly in December of ‘09) but we started to shed jobs significantly according to the Bureau of Labor statistics.

Now, take a look at this graphic from governor.utah.gov:

Notice here that there are two numbers for 2009: What would have happened with out the crash and the insanity that followed, and what we projected afterward. (Notice this reduction in revenue is more than the 5% that the legislature cut—we are losing money)

We’ve lost nearly 30% of our revenues and cut 5%. We’re looking even lower for FY2010.

Governor Walker has some proposals. First, we look at this slide, for FY10 (which is up to July 1st). Looks like the idea is to leave the rainy day fund untouched until FY11 and use The student population account which (as I understand it) is a fund that is managed by the treasurer into investments the income from which is used to fund education. Instead of investing, we’re going to spend it straight up.

Bonding for roads is a standard move to keep construction projects from stalling. Based on the Budget Change Detail from the fiscal analyst’s office it looks like we’ll be seeing a hiring freeze in government as well. The next graphic shows the summary:

The more interesting points are with regard to next year:

Notice here that a significant amount is coming out of the rainy day fund. The polls I’ve seen so far so and 80-90% support of this move. (And for those of you who didn’t know: yes, Cali is bankrupt and yes, we have a rainy day fund!)

Let’s look at the use of the rainy day fund thus far:

In 2004, we had 66 mil or so saved. During the good years we got this up to around 400 mil. The use of 166 mil is almost 40% of the total fund.

This means the recession needs to end and we need to be out of the deficit by FY13 or more stringent cuts will not be able to be avoided. The education portion will be gone in FY12 and the general fund will be gone by FY13 (at best).

My opinion is with the shortfall we saw above in revenues we’ve held out as long as we can without either using the rainy day fund or cutting the budget very aggressively which would leave those that depend on government services the most (handicapped, mentally ill, unemployed, etc) out in the cold. That is not an option in this state-- We will find the money to take care of our own.

From the looks of the title “New Revenue Growth”, I think we’re either going to see a miraculous economic boom predicted by our governor or (more likely) tax increases. Cigarette tax and Gas tax will definitely be on the table again as well as reinstating the sales tax on food (which I have heard rumblings about from the media but nothing from the legislature). I’m also expecting Higher ed to get slashed as well. Let’s face it, we’re easy to cut, so they’re going to cut us. (Meanwhile, the U of U will continue to build tunnels for… no reason and hike student fees.)

Health care reforms could also save the state some money. National politics has only recently been very interested in it while the state has been working on it one step at a time for years. If we can institute a few more common sense reforms, we should be able reduce our budget pains. The Gov is also calling for some medicaid spending that brings with it some matching funds from the Federal government.

However, while the legislators try to land this quickly stalling plane, we need to restart the engines. That is, we need our businesspeople to get us producing jobs again. We need to attract businesses with and educated workforce (which will be hard if we keep cutting higher education). The economy is recovering and we need to lead out. This is the situation as it stands.

The Salt Lake Trib outlined what those businesspeople want to see happen through the Salt Lake Chamber’s legislative priorities:

Salt Lake Chamber's legislative agenda:

Raise fees on tobacco and gasoline.
Do not raise sales, income or property taxes.
Reinstating the full food tax is OK, as long as matching cuts are made in general taxes so it is a wash for taxpayers. That tax was eliminated two years ago at the urging of then-Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
Keep vendor discount: Businesses paying more than $50,000 a year in sales-tax receipts now keep 1.31 percent. This allows them to recover various costs associated with collecting the tax. Eliminating it could return $20 million to state coffers.

(From <http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14232970> )

Power and Policy

2009-04-18T11:07:00.001-06:00

Politics is rarely a battle of good vs evil. More often, it is weighing two competing goods or being forced to choose between two evils. If it were a question of good vs. evil, the ethics of the situation would be merely a question of reaching deep down and doing the right thing. Questions as to what is good and evil or even what is good and bad (let alone the greater good) are open to interpretation and dependent upon perspective. Therefore, another variable emerges to break the deadlock: power. While working closely with the Majority Leadership team, I got the opportunity to see different types of power influence policy. Not only are there powers granted by the constitution but informal powers based on the dynamics of human relationships. The legislature does not function as the courts, where every item is weighed individually. Human relationships and power dynamics play a central role in this branch of government. We like to think that it is just a question of finding the perfect policy and everyone agreeing to it, but it cannot always work out that way with so many competing interests. I wish to address the means of securing power and explore the ethical exercise of it in policymaking.

Power is defined by the Cambridge Scholars as "A getting B to do what B would otherwise not do.' There are two basic categories of power: formal and informal. Formal power consists of a recognized, official rank or even an unwritten rule or tradition while Informal power is created mainly through relationships and special expertise or tactics. Gaining power is a tricky undertaking because if anyone finds out you are trying to do it, you've already lost. But you can also bet that they are all playing the same game as best they can.

Formal positions of power in the legislature are well established: Speaker, Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and Assistant Majority Whip make up the leadership team of the House of Representatives. The Speaker, with input from the other members of leadership, makes committee assignments. He appoints an Executive Appropriations Committee Chairman and Co-Chair who are tasked with creating the state's budget. They, along with the leadership from both the House and the Senate make up the Executive Appropriations Committee. Even if a bill passes into law, without funding from this committee, it is rendered ineffective.

The committee system is used to hear bills that relate to a specific topic. Chairmen of each committee control when each bill comes up, but because they can be removed at any time by the Speaker, they tend to move any bill the Speaker is interested in quickly. The committee positions are also important to legislators because they are given the chance to affect policy in a much more direct way than on the floor when they are only one of seventy five votes.

A bill goes from being written to the rules committee, which can assign it to any committee or simply hold the bill which essentially kills it unless the sponsor of the bill uses his influence (power) to get it out of committee. Then, if it is assigned to a committee, the chairman of the committee would need to put it on the agenda, and then it would be heard and voted on by committee members. Now, those seven or eight legislators who were individually one vote of seventy-five are now very important to the bill's sponsor. He needs a majority of the committee regardless of whether he has a majority of the total house. This allows bills to be sifted before taking up limited floor time to hear bills with the full house present but also presents a problem: A legislator that has interest in a bill being heard in one committee, may be hearing a bill from that member in another committee. Because both want their respective bills to pass, they might agree to exchange votes. Instead of hearing each bill on its merits, this power dynamic comes into play: 'if you don't vote for mine I won't vote for yours regardless of what I think or believe to be right.' This creates the moral dilemma of voting for something you may not agree with in order to secure something you do agree with. Once again if every bill were a question of good and evil this type of bargaining would be impermissible. As it stands, this type of activity is generally not well looked upon and even though you may maintain your formal position; your informal credibility will be severely harmed by constantly engaging in this type of 'hardball'.

The Woodstock Theological center calls government, "a carefully balanced network of free institutions deliberately designed to secure the common good" (Woodstock Theological Center, 2002). In the interest of securing what you believe to be good, you must sometimes allow the bad to keep that balance. In an interview, former Speaker Greg Curtis told me, "[the Legislature is] a process built on human relationships and the give and take of policy." We are often uncomfortable when the position of power of a certain legislator causes two unrelated bills to be dependent upon one another and at some point that "give and take of policy" becomes trading votes and letting your personal ego become attached to the passage of a bill. The line can only be drawn by each individual and requires political power as well as the moral courage to maintain. Moral courage without power is useless; Power without moral courage is dangerous.

The philosopher Nietzsche believed there was a difference between bad and evil. Though I do not share his opinion that evil was an invention superimposed upon us, I do find these terms descriptive and useful in our dilemma. Bad is simply a harm whereas evil is a wrong. In nearly every bill there are winners and losers but only in rare cases do we find a true wrong being addressed. An evil brings with it a moral value whereas a harm brings only a marginal value. In economics, everyone from the CEO of a firm down to an individual at a shopping mall makes these marginal values: is the harm of not having this money equal to the gain of obtaining the item? This type of decision carries limited moral significance. However, the question of whether or not to steal carries with it not only this cost benefit analysis but moral questions of good and evil. The line between bad and evil is often blurred in politics. Because marginal values (good and bad) do not carry moral implications, we can allow other factors to influence their outcome but, it would be unethical to conduct trades of this kind when moral questions are being addressed, these must be assessed on their merits individually.

Formal positions and the power granted through the exercise of the duties thereof are only one small part of the equation. Informal power is often as important or even more important to being an effective legislator. Informal power is often referred to as influence. Some people just seem to have a way of influencing others to their point of view. At times, "All you've got is your word." (Woodstock Theological Center, 2002) Building a reputation and gaining influence so that your word is listened to and valued often involves a very detailed methodology that has become second-nature to most legislators. Surprisingly, debate is usually something to be avoided. Outright argument is generally a result of failure to influence effectively. Many of the tactics I will outline are carefully implemented tactics that work upon those 'human relationships' that Mr. Curtis told me about rather than changing the views of others.

The purpose of these tactics is to avoid force by using influence. Force is an overt use of formal power while influence is a subtle application of informal power. When someone knows they are being manipulated or presented a situation wherein they have no choice, they resent it and become defensive and suspicious. When you are trying to move policy, those you offend become useless to you for future situations wherein you will need their cooperation. Any time you have to coerce or threaten, it weakens or negates your future influence. Debating someone to try to convince them they are wrong is usually counterproductive because even if you really are right, once a person, especially a politician, has presented an argument for or against something, backing down would seem like weakness or 'flip-flopping'. Thus, you are unlikely to succeed and risk making an enemy. It is far better to keep your hands clean so to speak. I saw this in action when a certain legislator very discretely lobbied other legislators to vote against a bill he did not support, waited until the votes against the bill hit 38 (the number needed to vote the bill down) and then voted in favor of it. He needed the sponsor of the bill he disagreed with to support legislation he was working on so he used his informal power rather that his formal power to defeat it. This tactic allowed him to keep his hands clean and his relationship intact.

The first and cardinal rule I observed is knowing when to keep your mouth shut. When a legislator meets with anyone, I noticed they don't say much about what they think. They ask questions and try to get every piece of information out into the open. Most people tend to spill their guts trying to appear intelligent but to restate an old truism: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Legislators often say what is happening and say very little about what they think about it. Robert Greene makes this observation about using this tactic: "They will go home and ponder your every word. This extra attention to your brief comments…adds to your power." (Greene, 1998)

Second, effective legislators have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish. If you don't have a concrete objective you have no business serving as a legislator because so much needs to be done. On the other hand, it is easy to be overwhelmed by all the worthy causes. After being clear yourself about what you want, it is easier to plan on how to accomplish it. However, knowing when to conceal or reveal what you want is important. If what you want is widely known, then others know that you can be manipulated with it. But keeping it a secret cuts you off from any support because no one in need of your help will know what they could offer in return.

Third, master your emotions. In Authur Schopenhauer's Art of Controversy, Schopenhauer recommends making your opponent angry, while I believe the advice here is shortsighted and probably assumes an already adversarial situation, his reasoning that an angry person is "less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies" (Schopenhauer, 1896) is very sound. While it is good to be passionate, if you are not careful, letting your emotions run away can cause you to say and do thing that actually harm your case.

Fifth, comes from Dale Carnegie. Everyone has a need for attention and to be liked. By simply being excited and happy to see someone, you help fill this need. You also create an informal friendship that the other person feels obligated to take into account. We naturally feel that a different set of rules apply to those we consider friends and that set of rules is always more favorable than those of just acquaintances. Carnegie writes, "It is the individual who is not interested in his fellow men who has the greatest difficulties in life and provides the greatest injury to others" (Carnegie, 1981). Failing to be genuinely interested in helping others, wrestling power away from them will exhaust your strength. When asked the best way to get into leadership both legislators responded to the effect of 'help your colleagues and be fair.'

After obtaining power, you become responsible for every exercise of it. Abraham Lincoln said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." There are moral and ethical responsibilities that come into play with power. And not all of them are clear. For example, Senator Buttars made a comment comparing homosexuals to terrorists. People clamored for his resignation saying such a statement was unbecoming a Senator and others clamored just as loud about his rights to free speech. The question arises: does obtaining power change your access to your own personal rights?

Becoming a legislator carries with it special rights and duties. In addition to your personal rights to speech, you also are given special rights that I term public rights. These are the rights that your constituency bestows on you in order to represent them. More simply they are the ways in which your formal power may be expressed. These include the right to vote on legislation, the right to speak on behalf of those you represent on the floor of the house, the right to create legislation, etc. Now by virtue of having these special rights, you are also given access to the media. This access to media is given due to your position not your person. Were it not for your position your opinions would not have as much force to gain exposure. Because of this special power, statements must be made in such a way that they reflect well on all parties the legislator represents: their constituency, their party, the legislature itself, and even the state. Senator Buttars comments received national attention not as Chris Buttars but as a senator from Utah. President Waddoups stated that the reason for Senator Buttars' removal from a position of power on a key committee was to "free Senator Buttars to feel more at ease in saying how he feels without feeling like he is speaking on behalf of his committee or the legislature". Even if you don't believe that this it is a moral responsibility to temper your own opinions to represent something greater than yourself, in the interest of maintaining your power you might find more diplomatic ways to go about it. Because of the way he chose to use his power, he lost it. It is evident therefore that tempering personal rights is an informal, though not legal, requirement of power.

Another good example of this principle is the ethics legislation regarding personal use of campaign funds, gifts from lobbyists, and to a degree the one year ban on defeated or retiring legislators becoming hired lobbyists. This demonstrates that there is a separation between your formal position and your person as an individual. Campaign funds are given to a candidate not as a person but as a prospective legislator which necessitates the restrictions on the use of those funds. Moreover, this legislation sets forth the position that it is unethical to give a gift as one person to another when there is a formal position of power attached. There is no ethical way to separate yourself from the position you hold while benefits from one have any chance of impacting the other.

Nevertheless, separation of one's person from position cannot be complete. We have a part-time legislature which means we expect our legislators to live in the communities they represent and take their experiences as private citizens with them as they make policy. This is meant to help create policy that is relevant to the communities they serve. So, where does personal experience become conflict of interest? For example, President Waddoups' wife was injured by an accident and according to one blog, "Part of Senator Waddoups' problem is that he is too personally invested in the situation. His wife was struck and seriously injured by a drunk driver years ago, and he took it far too personally, thus damaging his objectivity as a lawmaker. I don't believe he's capable of judging this situation on the basis of its absolute merit." (Utah Senate President Mike Waddoups Doesn't Want Kids To See Adults Pour Drinks, Leads Opposition To Governor Huntsman's Liquor Law Reforms, 2009) This blogger seems to demand that a policy always be judged on "absolute merit". In effect, what he is proposing is that the legislature should operate like the courts: judging each case and basing decisions on established principles. To some, it is unpalatable that personal relationships and personal experiences become a factor in lawmaking. The Utah code defines a conflict of interest mainly in economic terms. This, again, appears to be a question of morality rather than legality. Personally, I want legislators that are truly passionate about what they are advocating for but not at the expense of losing objectivity. Now, if we apply our same conclusion that we reached with senator Buttars losing power because he was too deeply opinionated and could not represent the legislature, do we then argue that Waddoups is likewise unfit to participate in reforming liquor laws as this blogger suggests? I would argue no. The main difference here is President Waddoups is basing his opinions off of verifiable events that although personal, are shared by many others throughout the state. Senator Buttars may not have trouble finding those outspoken few who agree with his comments but he would be hard pressed to find actual empirical evidence showing homosexuality producing greater harms than terrorism.

A good example of the use of power in policymaking is found in the events surrounding SB239. Apparently, several legislators from Utah county signed a document promising not to raise any tax for any reason (tying one's own hands like this puts you in a situation of powerlessness). In caucus, they openly rejected the leadership's proposal to increase the registration fee by $20 to balance the budget. At the same time bonding was planned to construct roads in Utah County including work on I-15 that according to the Salt Lake Chamber, "[would create approximately 60,000 jobs for Utah families." (Business Leaders Pleased with Legislative Decisions, 2009). So leadership decided to link the two; the bill containing the bonding now included the fee increase. By tying the two together, the legislators who were so outspoken against raising taxes were now faced with the decision to either raise taxes or fail to create jobs for their constituents (an excellent example of tying two unrelated items together due to positions of power). During the first vote, Speaker David Clark left his microphone on as he made a call to Rep Dougall. He said," "I'm not closing the vote until every Utah county person votes for this. There is no pass, there is no walk, we have built this entire budget around Utah County. You and your partner next to you… we'll wait all day. I'll call everybody in here and I'll get a 'no' vote." After nearly twenty minutes of keeping the vote open, a Utah County Legislator finally voted against the bill and the votes to pass the measure all changed to red 'no' votes. Utah County caucused and emotions ran high as they were faced with breaking their word to vote for this very beneficial measure or watch it fail and severely harm economic development back home. After a few hours the bill was reconsidered and the legislators in question were allowed to step off the floor and be absent for the vote. Much of the media coverage on this occurrence saw this mainly as the Speaker showing Utah County who was in control. It could be argued that he was solidifying his power base. However, what really happened is the Utah County legislators knew the bill was going to pass and wanted to get all the benefit of bringing this economic development to their constituents without having to stick their necks out and raise the tax to fund it. Many legislators quietly thanked members of leadership for their actions. However, because it was an overt use of formal power, some bad feelings and even negative media coverage was generated. However, without this action, a serious injustice would have resulted.

The art of legislation often is not philosophically pretty. There are ethical dilemmas that surface and decisions have to be made in real time without the luxury of long contemplation. When there are irreconcilable disagreements and deadlocks, something has to break through and get things done. We can't always find our way to agreement but one thing is constant, power in the hands of genuinely good people tends to do good things and the art of acquiring and maintaining both formal and informal power is essential to policymaking.

Bibliography

Business Leaders Pleased with Legislative Decisions. (2009, Mar 12). Retrieved Apr 17, 2009, from Salt Lake Utah Chamber of Commerce: http://saltlakeutcoc.weblinkconnect.com/CWT/External/WCPages/WCNews/NewsArticleDisplay.aspx?childWindow=1&ArticleID=162

Carnegie, D. (1981). How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York : Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved Apr 16, 2009, from Library.utah.gov:

Conflict of Interest and Ethics http://library.utah.gov/grants/lsta/documents/31809CONFLICTOFINTERESTANDETHICS.pdf

Greene, R. (1998). The 48 Laws of Power. New York : Penguin Group.

Schopenhauer, A. t. (1896). The Art of Contraversy. New York: Macmillan & Co., Lim.

Utah Senate President Mike Waddoups Doesn't Want Kids To See Adults Pour Drinks, Leads Opposition To Governor Huntsman's Liquor Law Reforms. (2009, Jan 6). Retrieved Apr 15, 2009, from Voice of Deseret: http://voice-of-deseret.blogspot.com/2009/01/utah-senate-president-mike-waddoups.html

Woodstock Theological Center. (2002). The Ethics of Lobbying. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.

The Utah State Legislature

2009-02-13T15:02:00.007-07:00

I am working as an intern at the State Legislature for representative Brad Dee. He is the Majority Whip in the House of Representatives. What that means is he is a member of the leadership. He is responsible for facilitating the caucus meetings, support the speaker, and serves on key committees. Being in leadership gets you a place on the Executive Appropriations Committee which holds the purse strings of the entire budget. As you can imagine, this year is not a good year to be serving on that particular committee. Cuts have to happen, that is the reality of our situation. The question is where do they go? I saw Rep. Dee come in after an early morning meeting and hold his head in his hands. He said there was so much ugly stuff that had to be done with the budget. In Health and Human Services, they were looking at the repercussions of the 15% cut in terms of people affected: Retirement homes that would have to turn our elderly away, etc. It was too much, Rep Dee told me, "I won't do it. We've got to find more money." All the campaign rhetoric aside, you get to see where priorities really are when you're up against the wall budget-wise. The problem is this isn't a battle of good and evil, its good vs good from here on out.

I've been dissapointed with the public thus far. They seem to find fault with everything legislators do and the media does a terrible job actually communicating the legislature's actions and intentions. Considering how hard these people work and how much they really do care (and I've been in the back rooms away from the cameras), it really is a thankless job.

Rep Dee is working on an Immigration Strike Force to help combat crimes associated with illegal immigration in cooperation with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). This is a product of a committee's study since last session. The 1 million dollar fiscal note on the bill should mean a death sentance for the bill but we may have found a way to fund it. Stay tuned. He also had two ethics reform bills come through committee: a 1 year ban before a former legislator can become a lobbyist and a change to the way campaign contributions are handled. Now you have to report within five days of reciept rather than just at certain dates during the campaign. The House is also going to run their version of the tobacco tax increase. The Senate bill was killed with a vengence in committee. It looks like he will be co-sponsoring some health care system reform bills with Speaker Clark.

Right now I'm watching some legislation on text messaging while driving. My question is how will they know if a phone is being used as a GPS device and not text messaging. Would a 'tom-tom' be illegal as well? The bill makes it an infraction (you get a ticket for it) but I think the bill will probably fail on this first go-round. But some further legislation is definately necessary. We have a law that makes it a class 'c' misdemenor to cause an accident while using a wireless device but this merely the severity of the accident and does not make texting while driving illegal in and of itself.

The Greatest Generation of Americans

2008-11-09T14:50:00.005-07:00

After my senior year of High School I went on a tour of Europe. By seeing other countries I learned a lot about my own but it wasn’t until I walked on Omaha Beach that I really learned about patriotism.
This is what I wrote after walking the beach and visiting the memorial:

‘I have stood in some of the most sacred basilicas and cathedrals of the Christian world but the hallowedness of the grounds in those Cathedrals pales in comparison with this beach. This ground is sacred.
It is said that some places acquire a ‘spirit of place’ a feeling left by such strong emotions, such passion, such sacrifice, that in that spot, those died and those that live because of their sacrifice can reach across time and touch one another. I have felt that here. I have felt their sacrifice not just for America but for me, as an individual... they fought for me-- someone that they had never met, who did not even yet exist, but without hesitation they were willing to give their lives for Freedom and for me. It is only a beach, but it is sacred to anyone who still believes in Freedom. ‘To these we owe the High Resolve to Keep that cause for which they Died Alive.’ --So reads the inscription of their memorial.
After leaving the beach, I walked up to the graveyard- a sea of white crosses and stars. The feeling is indescribable. There is a Norse custom to stack stones in remembrance of those who pass on. I carried a stone walking slowly from the Oceanside up the hill to a cross that read ‘Hill’ and I wonder if I deserve it. Do I deserve the sacrifice he gave? Do I live up to what he died for?
Down the road, I walked out onto an old German stronghold still preserved. I looks like the surface of the moon. Years ago this was a place of terror now children run and explore amidst the ruins. I climb down into a few bunkers watching children play unaware of what sacrifices were made for them here at Point du Hoc.
I remember though. And I will not forget. I know what cause was decided here. There were those who fought and died for it in hopes that someone would live for it. This is everything home stands for and coming face to face with it has changed me forever. Should the need arise I will stand for it. I will stand up against tyranny and oppression. I will stand up against terror and greed. I will be one to say, “Here am I”. This is my high resolve to keep the cause for which they died alive. They died for us let us live for them.’

More recently, on frontrunner, I was talking to a guy who was just heading home late one night. I asked him what he worked in and he told me the VA Hospital. Without really thinking about it, I said, “thank you for what you do.” He just said he was happy to help these guys who have been through so much. He asked me if I had ever met a world war II veteran and I said I hadn’t. He told me, “Those are the toughest, most noble men you’ll ever meet.” I mentioned the well-known quote about the ‘greatest generation of Americans’ and he agreed. He sighed and said, “You hardly see those guys anymore, they’re almost all gone.” I told him I wondered if we still had that type of character in us as Americans. He said he hoped so. “We need it now I’ll tell ya.”
Abraham Lincoln said in the famous Gettysburg Address:
“But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. "

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from this earth.”

What is an American? Does it even mean anything anymore? Do we deserve to stand with Lincoln, Washington, and all the great men and women who went before and declare ourselves Americans? The World War II generation is coming to a close a those great men and women pass on. There are still some left and if you have never had the honor of meeting a member of that generation, I challenge you to go do it. Go to a retirement home, go to a VA Hospital and come face to face with greatness. Tell them that you wanted to say thank you for who they are and what they did for you.
We are going to face challenges; some of them are already here. But I am sure that we still have true Americans left to face them. There are heroes among us and when they realize who they are things will start to change.

The Financial Crisis

2008-10-27T00:17:00.000-06:00

I attended an informal meeting of about 15 people in a home in cottonwood heights area last week with Carlene Walker, a current Utah State Senator; Bill Dew, a candidate for US Congress, and our surprise visitor, Bob Bennet. Senator Bennet serves on high ranking committees including the powerful appropriations committee and the banking, housing, and urban affairs committee not to mention the all powerful rules committee.

He talked to us about what exactly went down in Washington on the bailout so I have inside information that hasn’t been passed through the mainstream media.

First, some background. A bank doesn’t just put your money in a vault. It lends it out and makes money on the interest paid over the lifetime of the loan. Till the loan expires all you have is money on paper, an asset that you think will be worth something later, which is what they call ‘paper’ on Wall Street. So you get a loan to buy a car, house, start a business etc and pay it back to the bank with interest: the economy is happy, you’re happy, the bank is happy.

-ENTER THE EVIL-

Then the government had an idea (usually a good thing until they start tinkering with the economy). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created to buy loans from banks. This way, the banks get their money back faster and they can make more loans. In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to less stable and safe customers. At the same time, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime (risky) borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits by lowering standards.
Long story short, they started giving loans to higher and higher risk borrowers so on paper it looks like they post more and more profit. Eventually they started accepting loans made with stated income (liar loans). This means I could go into a bank and just say I make four million billion dollars a year and they wouldn’t check on it, they would just qualify me and give me the loan. This type of deal creates profit on paper so the executives get their big bonuses and we worry about when I can’t make my payments later. This has the side effect of our consumption exceeding our GDP which is basically like the entire nation living on a credit card (not the government, but the entire public!).
Other investment banks saw how profitable this was for the government banks so they decided to jump in and do the same. Their net worth on paper soared and a lot of executives got big bonuses too. Then weird stuff started happening. They started selling pieces of loans sold on the open market for a fee. So investment banks would buy these bundles of loans and take over the income streams as they came in but in pieces, sell the principle (with a fee), sell the interest (for a fee) etc. So this makes the banks collecting the fees happy. This had never been done before and so there were no regulations to keep it under control. So they kept making liar loans and high risk loans, selling them, turning record profits and collecting their bonuses.
What they began to find out was many of these loans were toxic loans, which means they were those loans given to people who never should have gotten them (and will never be able to pay them back.) So face value (paper) doesn't match the true income stream. So you go up to the Chief Financial Officer of say AIG, and ask so what is your net worth (how much money is your company worth)? and he says, “I have no idea.” !!! He can’t know because he doesn’t know how much of that paper is bad! If you don't know your worth you can't sell it. Bad paper marks down capital so your stock is bound to plummet. Now there is no market to sell these possibly toxic loans so the money just disappears, it was never there, you bought a piece of paper. That means your capital disappears so no one can make new loans to make up the difference. This loss of money is written up as a loss (in your net worth) when really you bought inflated paper that popped on you (turned out to be worthless). Toxic capital is fake capital and that scares investors away. Which is what causes a crash in your stock and your capital to disappear entirely which means game over, your bank is closed.

-THE CRISIS-

The Federal Reserve (‘the fed’) is basically the mother of all banks. They are what backs the banking system, they are the ones who give loans to the banks. One day, Senator Bennett gets a call from the chairman of the fed, Bob Bernake. (This is the man with the type of power that can change the stock of a company based on what jokes he makes at a dinner party.) He asks to speak with Senator Bennett and one other senator in private. He walks in, sits down with these two senators and says, “I’m out of tools. We have about four days.” Four days until what? Until banks start to fail and people’s money starts to disappear with them, credit freezes which means no more loans and business stops. The fed just simply didn’t have the funds to help these banks survive what he saw coming. Only the US Treasury had that kind of Money

-ENTER THE BAILOUT (aka introducing ‘superbob’)-

Senator Bennett explained the bailout by using a pretend bank: Walker banks has 100 million on paper but doesn't know real value of those loans. The bank sells to the treasury at a discount to get the capital to make new loans that will pay back. Or, instead of buying the loans straight up, we give them a loan. This causes their stock to skyrocket and we also buy the rights on that stock but since the government doesn’t take ownership in companies, it sells those rights to investors kind of like the mother of all insider deals.

This, he believes, will shore up the banks enough to let money start flowing to borrowers again.

You may have heard that the bill authorizing the treasury to do this was slowed up in congress. This is because Nancy Pelosi wanted the Republicans to bear equal responsibility in case this failed. She had the votes to push the bill though but wouldn’t do it. She turned this into partisan politics so the bill basically self destructed.
So Harry Reid (senate majority leader) amended a bill that had already been sent to the senate back to the house with a huge amendment containing the bailout plan. This sailed thought the house after the senators (Republican and Democrat) basically shamed them into shutting up and voting.

Now, why wasn’t this stopped in the first place by regulations? The answer is: because these were novel inventions. No one had ever used them before so no one knew what rules should govern them. Executives were only doing what they believed would get them better profits and hey, poor people were able to get loans to own a home so the government was thrilled. People saw this coming but we all were just happy to enjoy the ride and live on money we never had.

-THIS ISN’T OVER YET-

Senator Bennett was very clear, this financial crisis may be averted but it is separate from the recession that everyone has been talking about. We have avoided a depression but there will be after effects as well as the business cycle taking a downturn.
John D Rockefeller said, “As we address ourselves to the grave problems which confront us, problems both national and international, we may look for success in their solution just in so far as we continue to be animated by the spirit of cooperation and brotherhood. The hope in the future lies in the perpetuation of this spirit, and unless increasingly it is made the foundation of the political, social, and industrial life of the world, there will not be permanent peace and good will among men.”

Presidential Election- Favorite ads

2008-10-26T21:13:00.003-06:00

Presidential Election-

John McCain-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_A53PAxeR8

Barack Obama-

Here is a good quiz to see which candidate makes more sense based on where you stand on the issues:

http://www.myspace.com/mydebates

What you’ll see on the ballot this November- Candidates for State Positions

2008-10-17T00:37:00.010-06:00

Attorney General-

Jean Welch Hill- Democrat running to unseat Mark Shurleff. “With your support, I can bring a fresh perspective and balance to the attorney general’s office, including a focus on people, not politics.

I believe the attorney general is a watchdog, protecting the public interest and ensuring the highest ethical standards throughout state government.

As attorney general, I will advocate for stronger ethics legislation. For the past nine years, I have prosecuted educators who have violated the ethical standards of their profession, preventing those who fail to meet the standards from teaching in this or any other state. I will bring this experience to the role of attorney general to ensure public officials fulfill the ethical duties of their offices.”

Mark Shurtleff- Current Atty General. I don’t particularly like the stance he recently took on some abortion legislation but his record is still very positive. He has a long list of accomplishments and frankly, he's still got my vote.

The debate is probably the best way to differentiate between the two candidates:

Debate on KUED

Utah StateTreasurer-

Richard Ellis- I’ve personally met Richard Ellis. He refused to be bribed by Mark Walker to drop out of the race. Mr. Ellis already works in the Treasurer’s office and he has shown that he is able to stand up against corruption and show some real backbone. I try to stay impartial but having met him I would offer my endorsement (such as it is) to Richard Ellis.

Dick Clark- Running as a Democrat, I also had the opportunity to meet him briefly. Inspired by his sons serving in the military, he wanted to find a way to also serve. He is experienced in the private financial sector but has little governmental experience.

State Auditor-

Auston Johnson is currently serving as State Auditor and there doesn't seem to be much reason to fire him. The external review of his work was clean and approved. He has expirience and an excellent resume. The other candidates seem to be running only to make a point.

What you’ll see on the ballot this November- Candidates for US Congress

2008-10-13T15:41:00.004-06:00

1^st Congressional District- Northern Utah

Rob Bishop- Republican Congressman Rob Bishop has served for 5 years. Currently, he serves on the Armed Services Committee, Resources Committee, and Education Committee. Rob Bishop on the Issues

Morgan Bowen- Democratic challenger to Bishop the main point of his campaign seems to be opposing accepting nuclear waste from other countries in Utah. Morgan Bowen on the Issues

(A Dan Jones poll put Bishop ahead at 62% to 21% with 17% undecided. It looks like an easy win for Bishop.)

2^nd Congressional District- Southeastern Utah

Jim Matheson- Has served 8 years in the House of Representatives. Congressman Matheson serves on the House Energy & Commerce Committee one of the most powerful committees in congress. Congressman Matheson is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative House Democrats, with a reputation as a force to be reckoned with in the policy arena. He is a past Co-Chairman of the group. He recently helped push through an energy bill involving oil shale etc. Matheson on Energy in Congress

Bill Dew- Utah contractor and businessman, he would be a new face in Washington. He claims that Jim Matheson is not representing Utah’s values. Here is an overview of Bill on the issues.

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/icUNE1p0dnY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1">

3^rd Congressional District- Central Utah

(Cris Cannon failed to pass the primaries so we have two brand new contenders. This one should be interesting.)

Jason Chaffetz- Republican Candidate. Wants to “return to the core of Republican conservative principles of fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and strong national security.” Here a detail on his stance on the issues.

Bennion L. Spencer- Democratic Candidate. Worked as a journalist, teacher (MS in International Relations). “Democrat with conservative values”.

The big issues for November

2008-10-12T01:10:00.004-06:00

Major Issues—

It’s hard to tell the difference between candidates sometimes. Most of what you see on tv is just about whether or not they wore a flag pin on their left lapel or not or if they used to go to a church with a crazy pastor, etc. I think the best way to choose where to place your vote is on the issues. These are the major problems we face as a country and the decisions that really matter will be made by the people you choose.

Energy-

Based on our current rate of growth, we cannot supply enough energy to maintain our lifestyle. We have to either change the way we live, purchase more energy abroad, or find ways to provide it ourselves. Sources of energy are becoming more and more scarce as countries continue to develop. How do we become energy independent?

Education-

A lot of problems here, How do you get each child an equal opportunity to a good education? How do we keep ourselves competitive in the job market and keep it all affordable? What can and cannot be taught in schools? (Moral issues)

The Economy-

Banks made high risk loans and then sold them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This provided loans to poor people for a while so other big banks started doing the same. Bonuses were given to executives who put up the biggest numbers and on paper these loans look like profit. However, when these people who never should have gotten a loan in the first place *surprise* couldn’t pay for it- that money is gone. Without money coming back into the system, there is no money to lend out so I can’t get a loan to start my business, buy my house, etc. This is called a credit ‘freeze’. This is like bank cancer; when they can’t make loans they just quit working at all and since they lost the money in bad loans you can’t get the money in your savings account. It isn’t there. The government couldn’t let that happen so they ‘bailed these bozos out’ (as Doug Wright says). Now the question is this: How do we get the US economy back on track? How do we clean up the mess and get money flowing again?

Health Care-

People who need insurance can’t get it. In reforming health care, how do you get the money to the people who really need it? Insurance refuses to help provide health care in order to protect their profit margins. (Can it be moral to turn a profit when people’s lives are at stake?)

How can we get affordable, high quality, innovative health care?

Gay Marriage-

How do we afford everyone their rights while protecting our own closely held values?

Immigration-

The United States is a nation of immigrants but we need to regulate who is coming in. How do we let in the good people while keeping those who would harm us out? (Drug dealers, human trafficking, etc.)

Security-

How do we restore our status and standing with other countries? How do we end terrorism?

It is interesting to me how these issues are all interrelated. For example, we buy foreign oil which causes a lot of money to fall into the hands of those who would threaten our security so if we became energy independent we would become more secure and interestingly enough we spend about 700 billion a year on foreign oil (which happens to be the exact amount of the bailout). That money would stay in the US economy instead.

My Position on the “Gay Marriage Debate”

2008-10-10T10:51:00.003-06:00

Because of all of the current interest in the legislation on the ballot in California I wanted to pause to comment on the gay marriage debate:

Although many religious leaders and social experts warn against the damaging effects on society that homosexuality causes, and as a matter of personal opinion, believing it to be damaging to all individuals who participate in said acts. I cannot, I will not, impose my set of moral values on others.

A publication, Family Findings claims, “Those who hold this “live and let live” opinion misunderstand the nature of marriage. Marriage is both a private and public institution that has many public ramifications. That is why government is always involved in it.

If New Jersey citizens allow the courts or legislature to legalize same-sex “marriage,” the effects would be significant and far-reaching. It would permanently change the very definition of marriage for everyone. It would have an impact on healthcare costs, family law, religious institutions, sex education curricula, sexually transmitted disease rates, childrearing, and ultimately, the overall state of marriage itself. The reality is that gay marriage would surely affect you and your family.”¹ The strongest points are points summarized briefly in the following: (1) Homosexuality is a medically high-risk behavior. So, we can predict an increase in healthcare rates. (2) This type of sexual liberation will cause more out of wedlock births. “Rather than affirming marriage, as gay activists have argued, same-sex “marriage” has weakened the institution altogether. Out-of-wedlock births in the Scandinavian countries now range from 45 to 56 percent, compared to the U.S. rate of 35 percent. Implementing this Scandinavian experiment in our U.S. system would be disastrous. Prior to 1996, U.S. taxpayers were already shouldering a staggering $21 billion-a-year burden just to support unwed teen mothers on welfare.”² (3) “If emotional attachment is the only standard by which we judge fitness to marry, then no sexual arrangement is off the table. Equating same-sex relationships to marriage will open the legal floodgates to those who practice polygamy and polyamory (group marriage).”¹

The argument on health care is irrelevant from my perspective. We all pay for our healthcare separately and while insurance premiums will probably be higher for homosexuals, the effect on heterosexuals is not clear.

The second argument on “sexual liberation” is completely unfounded. Prohibition of alcohol didn’t make it go away and legalizing it to a point did not cause all young men and women to lose their standards overnight.

The third argument is the only one which holds any validity. Where in fact do we then draw the line on what we will accept into the definition of human association we call marriage? When indeed does tolerance become irresponsibility?

My reaction to this position is best articulated by Thomas Jefferson, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical… have assumed dominion over the faith of others setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others…is sinful and tyrannical.”³ I find, therefore, little legal or constitutional ability to protect against this (be it real or perceived) threat to the family and society. We can only trust to the morality of ourselves, our families, and our fellow Americans as is, and has always been, the responsibility that comes with living in a free nation. The government cannot do everything for us. We must take responsibility for ourselves and decide what is moral and good and strive for it as best we can. We must teach those within our realm of influence, not by coercion or threat but by reason and sound doctrine with respect yet firmness, tolerance yet with conviction.

I favor the idea of detaching the religious term “marriage” from government and replacing it with “civil union”. Each denomination can decide who they will or will not accept as “married” as it is their constitutional prerogative to do so, but the government cannot have this luxury. As a USA Today article reads, “[The state should leave] the moral validity of a marriage to religious organizations. For state purposes, couples would simply sign a civil union agreement that confirms their legal obligations to each other and any progeny. Whether they are married in religious ceremonies would be left entirely to them and their faith. The government's interest and role would be confined to enforcing the civil contract, as it would any other civil agreement. Consenting adults should be able to assume the obligations of a civil union regardless of how their neighbors view their morality. As in other areas, adults should be able to follow the dictates of their own faith so long as they do not endanger or harm others, particularly minors. Whether damnation awaits monogamists or polygamists or same-sex couples is a matter between citizens and their respective faiths. The government should address that aspect of marriage that concerns its insular needs: confirming the legal obligations of consenting adults.”⁴

Let this be our guideline as we move forward: we all exercise our rights in order and harmony to obtain happiness without infringing on the rights of others. This definition must include children and minors. Children are not naturally born to a mother and a mother nor a father and a father. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that children have a natural right to be raised by a mother and a father. Allowing homosexual couples to adopt children would impose on them an unnatural environment without consent. We clearly have no right to do so. Again, children have a natural right to be raised by parentage of one man and one woman and insofar as we can prevent other ways in which this right may be violated, we must do so.

Homosexuals will naturally wish to form associations (which in many cases they already have) and one may legally opt to become a member. Only a legal adult is able to make such a decision to become a part of said associations. Because, things tend to produce things like themselves as opposed to producing something opposite to their natures we may say that children begin as heterosexuals as they are born to a mother and father. As one of Newton’s laws of physics states, “An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force.” So during lifetime, if acted upon in a certain way a person may develop homosexual tendencies which he or she can ultimately decide to act on or ignore. At adulthood, a person is adequately prepared to make lifestyle decisions such as these.

This debate is not an easy one to settle on grounds of morality, but in terms of legality and constitutionality it seems clear that we must not dictate our standards of morality to others but hold to them ourselves. We must not infringe the rights of others, especially children, and seek to be tolerant while remaining firm and committed to our values.

References:

1 Family Findings P.O. Box 6011, Parsippany, NJ 07054. Phone: (973) 263-5258 Printed September 2005: http://www.njfpc.org/html/PMPC/SoWhat_SSexMarr.pdf

2 “Nordic Family Ties Don’t Mean Tying the Knot,” USA Today, Dec. 15, 2004, as cited in

National Center for Policy Analysis, Daily Policy Digest, “Unraveling the Knot in Scandinavia,” Dec. 23, 2004. & Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation

Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing, June 1996, p. 1.” As quoted by previous.

3 “An Act for establishing Religious Freedom” by Thomas Jefferson as re-printed by John Somerville and Ronald E. Santoni in Social and Political Philosophy p247

4 USA Today Article: “How to end the same-sex marriage debate” by Jonathan Turley

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-faith-edit_x.htm

What you’ll see on the ballot this November- Constitutional Amendments pt2

2008-10-08T17:34:00.003-06:00

Constitutional Amendment C

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to:

• change the start of the Legislature's annual general session from the third Monday

in January to the fourth Monday in January; and

• exclude federal holidays from the calculation of the 45-day limit on annual

general sessions of the Legislature?

Translation of Amendment C

We always start our legislative session on Martin Luther King Jr. day. And we’ve been criticized for it for years. What they want to do is start a week later so we can take Martin Luther King Jr. day off to respect his memory. (It’s about time!)

Constitutional Amendment D

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to clarify that the time when the Legislature is

required to divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts is no later than the

annual general session following the Legislature's receipt of the federal census results?

Translation of Amendment D

They’re supposed to divide up the voting districts at the earliest session. If it’s a special session then they don’t want to have to get distracted from the purpose of the special session. (This redistricting gets really nasty because if you draw the lines right, you could change the way the elections turn out.) Also the clock on the redistricting deadline starts ticking after they get the results instead of after it is completed (It could be a year after the census until we get the actual numbers which puts our congress in breach of our constitution though it’s not their fault.) This just gives them the flexibility they need to keep the constitutional law.

Constitutional Amendment E

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to authorize the state to invest money in the

newly issued stock or bonds of private companies if the money comes from the State School

Fund or from land granted to the state by the federal government, as an exception to a general

rule prohibiting those investments?

Translation of Amendment E

Amendment E gives the legislature permission to invest a small portion of the money going to Schools. They won’t touch the money needed for the current year, but instead of just sitting on the rest they’re going to invest it, earn interest and all the interest goes back into the fund which means we increase the amount of funding to schools without raising taxes. Gov Huntsman is calling this a ‘must pass’ bill.

What you’ll see on the ballot this November- Constitutional Amendments pt1

2008-10-06T18:30:00.002-06:00

Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional Amendment A

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to:

modify and clarify how a vacancy in the office of Governor is filled;

define when a vacancy occurs in the offices of Governor and Lieutenant

Governor;

modify the term of office of a person filling a vacancy in the office of Governor

or Lieutenant Governor;

modify and clarify the exercise of the powers of Governor when the Governor is

temporarily disabled;

modify and clarify how the disability of a Governor is determined;

modify how a vacancy in the office of Lieutenant Governor is filled; and

establish a process for determining the disability of a Lieutenant Governor?

Translation of Amendment A

This is just an amendment that clarifies the order of succession should anything happen to our governor. This is just a housekeeping issue and all of the provisions are in order. Here's the full version if you're interested in more. The main things to look at are how 'disability' is defined and the fact that we should be able to elect a new Governor and this bill defines exactly when this would happen (the end of the current term or the first monday in january, whichever is sooner) If you want to read the exact title (which is what they put in the law books) click here.

PS- I listened to the debate in the senate and it passed unanimously.

Constitutional Amendment B

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to allow a permanent state trust fund to include

money or other assets given to the trust fund under any provision of law?

Lyle Hillyard is the sponsor for this bill. Constitutional Amendment B amends a provision of the Utah Constitution relating to a permanent state trust fund. The Amendment expands the sources of money that can be placed in the trust fund to include money or other assets given to

the trust fund under any provision of law.

Background and current provisions of the Utah Constitution

In 2001, the Utah Constitution was amended to establish a permanent state trust fund. Money may be removed from the trust fund only if the Governor and three-fourths of the Legislature agree. Interest and other income earned from the money in the trust fund are deposited into the state's General Fund. Under the current Utah Constitution, the trust fund may receive money from two sources: (1) money the state receives relating to the November 1998 settlement agreement with leading tobacco manufacturers; and (2) other funds and assets that the trust fund receives either by bequest through a will or by private donation. The Utah Constitution does not currently state that the trust fund may include money from any other source. It is, therefore, subject to dispute whether the Utah Constitution would allow the Legislature to appropriate money to the trust fund or to provide by law for some other source of money for the trust fund.

The effect of Constitutional Amendment B

Constitutional Amendment B expands the sources from which the permanent state trust fund may receive money or other assets. The Amendment states that the trust fund may also consist of money or other assets given to the fund under any provision of law. This Amendment allows the Legislature to appropriate money to the trust fund or to provide by law for other sources of money to be deposited into the trust fund.

Translation of Amendment B

The state has a trust fund (which is basically like setting aside money in a bank account. The money can only be accessed after getting ¾ of the legislature to agree on it. Originally, the fund was set up after the state won a law suit against the tobacco companies. We decided let the state treasurer hold the money “in trust” or in other words, go invest it. All of the interest (payoff from the investments) goes into the state general fund which is used for ‘general state use’ and higher education (a small amount also goes to public schools).

What they want to do is expand the sources of money that they can put in the fund. This measure is not expected to have any impact on taxes but there may be an positive impact on the ability to fund state programs in the future without having to raise taxes.

Here’s what Lyle says:

Utah has been blessed with abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas. The extraction of these natural resources brings thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in positive economic impact to our state. In addition, Utah collects nearly $100 million each year in revenues generated from the severance taxes imposed on the extraction of minerals, crude oil, and natural gas.

But with each shovel of ore and with each barrel of crude oil taken out of the ground, our resources are gradually depleting. We don't know when but one day Utah's natural resources will be gone. What will Utah have to show for the tons of ore and millions of barrels of oil and gas extracted from our state then? Nothing, if we continue with business as usual.

Utah needs to join other natural resource rich states and establish a permanent trust fund where all or part of the severance tax revenues can be deposited and put to work for future generations. Montana and Wyoming are two states that now have trust funds with balances in the billions of dollars. Neither trust fund began with large amounts of money,

but over time, the revenues deposited into the trust funds compounded and grew to their current levels.

Earnings from Montana and Wyoming's trust funds provide tax relief for citizens and revenue for schools and other important public services. More importantly, these trust funds demonstrate a commitment to future generations and to the sound and prudent management of ever-depleting natural resources.

The passage of Constitutional Amendment B would allow the Legislature to place all or a part of the revenues received from state severance taxes on minerals, crude oil, and natural gas into the state permanent fund. The earnings from the trust fund would then be used for capital and infrastructure projects both statewide and in energy producing areas of the state.

The true beneficiaries of Constitutional Amendment B have not yet been born. When you vote YES on Amendment B you will be benefiting our grandchildren for generations to come. These generations will one day thank us for having the vision and foresight to put this money aside for their benefit.

We must be wise stewards of Utah's natural resources. We must set aside the income we now receive from these declining assets and save it for future generations. We need to stop spending and start saving. Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment B.

-Lyle Hillyard

Utah State Senator and

Senate Chair of the Executive Appropriations Committee

No opposition has been submitted to this amendment.

Mark Shurtleff opposes new rule to protect Physicians right to choose

2008-09-29T23:08:00.005-06:00

Mark Shurtleff came down hard against a proposed federal regulation that would protect any health care worker who felt morally opposed to performing abortions from being forced to do one.

If you want to get an abortion, I can’t stop you but I will not force someone to do something they are morally opposed to. You’re going to force someone to break their religious or moral belief that may well be sacred to them? That doesn’t sound like America to me. The bottom line is this: If you want to have the right to choose you should afford the same right to everyone else.

Actions have consequences and you should be ready to face them. This is not a good situation because you have to choose between bad and worse. People want to call it forced-birth and say I don’t care about the lives of these children after birth but that is the result of a bad decision made by the parent. Now, I accept that there are situations like rape where a choice was not made, but if you did indeed make the choice, you are responsible for the consequences; and if I’m morally opposed, I should not be forced to act as your accomplice in killing your child because you don’t want to face the consequences of the choice that you made. Those consequences are a part of freedom. Legally, I cannot stop you, but legally you cannot force me.

Shurtleff is now trying to mitigate the damage by saying that he just wanted it rewritten and so on. His main point was that the legislation "would violate states rights to authorize emergency contraceptives to rape victims."

Shurtleff wrote, "The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider's right to claim a personal moral or religious belief."

Leavitt argues for, “the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers."

"The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not," Leavitt wrote. "If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience."

This is the text of the letter Leavitt wrote:

Norman F. Gant, M.D.,
Executive Director
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2915 Vine Street
Dallas, TX 75204

Dear Dr. Gant:

I am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers. Specifically, I bring to your attention the potential interaction of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s (ABOG) Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification (Bulletin) with a recent report (Opinion Number 385) issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Ethics Committee on November 7, 2007 entitled “The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine”.

The ACOG Ethics Committee report recommends that in the context of providing abortions, “Physicians and other health care professionals have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive service that patients request.” It appears that the interaction of the ABOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.

As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians and other health care professionals by passing two non-discrimination laws and annually renewing an appropriations rider that protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds. (See 42 U.S.C. § 238n, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, § 508). Additionally, threats to withhold or revoke board certification can cause serious economic harm to good practitioners.

I am concerned that the actions taken by ACOG and ABOG could result in the denial or revocation of Board certification of a physician who -- but for his or her refusal, for example, to refer a patient for an abortion -- would be certified. These actions, in turn, could result in certain HHS-funded State and local governments, institutions, or other entities that require Board certification taking action against the physician based just on the Board's denial or revocation of certification. In particular, I am concerned that such actions by these entities would violate federal laws against discrimination.

In the hope that compliance of entities with the obligations that accompany certain federal funds will not be jeopardized, it would be helpful if you could clarify that ABOG will not rely on the ACOG Ethics Committee Report, “The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine” when making determinations of whether to grant or revoke board certifications.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Michael O. Leavitt

Whether or not the idea that this legislation would violate the rights of rape victims to contraceptives is a valid claim to be assessed but as of now I don’t know if I can support Mark Shurtleff for Reelection.

The problem here seems to be that there is a real worry that the person who wants the abortion will have their rights denied. The solution will have to protect the right of the patient to services available and the right of the practitioner to moral beliefs.

Oil Shale: Fool's Gold or The Answer to the Multi-Billion Dollar Question?

2008-09-27T22:11:00.008-06:00

OIL SHALE

Did you know Utah alone has more oil than Saudi Arabia? We have literally mountains of it in a mineral known as oil shale. The problem has been that oil prices weren’t high enough to justify developing this, slightly harder to obtain, oil. A ban on leasing state and federal lands to development of this resource has just expired.

Last week in the US Senate, democrats tried to block oil shale development in the west again. Opponents are getting desperate (they just can’t admit they were wrong) and making some really stupid claims for example:

"Oil from shale would have no effect on pump prices for a decade, if ever, since the technology to produce it is years away." Salt Lake Tribune (read editorial)

Oil Shale technology has been used in countries like Indonesia (No, really Indonesia) have been using this technology for years (since the Clinton administration). It is not only viable but companies are working on perfecting the process to capture the natural gas that is also released during the process. The fact is we’re sitting on 800 billion barrels of oil and now we can go get it.

The plan is to heat the oil shale to produce refineable kerogen using natural gas pipes. (We have no shortage of natural gas in Utah)

So here’s the breakdown:

THE BENEFITS

Billions of barrels of oil

Helps create jobs

Lifts our economy

Promotes energy independence

THE COSTS

Open Pit/ Strip Mining is hard on landscape (of course... it’s a desert)

Requires 3 barrels of oil to every 1 barrel of oil produced

Refining process generates high levels of CO₂, a greenhouse gas

The resulting oil can only be used for Diesel and Jet Fuel (*UPDATE: Appropriate refining processes equivalent to hydro-cracking can transform shale oil into a lighter range hydrocarbon (gasoline).)

The resulting oil does not burn as cleanly as conventional oil.

CONCLUSION

There is now a demand for oil shale production with the high oil prices we face as well as improved technology and this lapse in the ban on leasing the land for this purpose provides the opportunity.

Business-sense seems to say go for it but the costs are worth consideration. Should we blindly do whatever the market forces of supply and demand tell us to do? Or should there be a moral voice overseeing our decisions? Is the overall benefit greater than the costs? I think they are. I support oil shale. I think the desert is probably the very best place to extract and refine oil. And as long as we keep our economy strong we will continue to lead the nation in patents here in Utah. We need to keep our researchers working on the real multi-billion dollar question: Alternate Energy.

Republican? Democrat? Leftist? Rightist? I thought I was an American.

2008-09-26T00:19:00.018-06:00

A lot of people don’t know what to think when they hear these words. My friend recently tried to figure out what ‘leftist’ meant by listening to people on the news and radio. She said, “So leftist just seems to mean all the stuff you think is bad and don’t agree with, right?” I thought of Liberals (with the capital ‘L’) like John Locke, like Montesquieu, and like Thomas Jefferson who started the concept of rule of law, not by kings but by the people, going. Some of these “evil” liberals are my heroes. Really, the words we throw around are loaded with meaning. I want to go though the sources of these words and link them to the modern usages.

LIBERAL

Liberalism (the big ‘L’) was this view (extreme at the time) that maybe government (aka Kings) should respect law. That maybe, just maybe, laws should be based on a system of trying to figure out what is fair, moral, and good and not the whims of how king ‘whatever his name is’ is feeling that day. They began the idea that you had rights and the defense of these rights was the main objective of a Liberal. To top it off Jefferson said, “If oppositions must be silenced for the sake of truth then it is not Truth.”

As far as economics, Adam Smith summed it up. They believed that the market would regulate itself since any evil that would come into it would be damaging to people who would simply dispose of it by not buying from them. Without money, these institutions would shrivel up and all that would be left would be the good institutions that do benefit society.

This gives a pretty good outline of what a Liberal was: Someone who believed in the rule of Law, not the rule of some guy and the defense of rights as the main objective of any government.

CONSERVATIVE

A Conservative (in the old language) was more community-minded. Men like Edmund Burke thought it was a bad idea to value, “The right over the good” that is the right to act over what is actually good for all of us. We have to agree only to use our rights up to the point where we interfere with the rights of others and never cross that line. They believed in slow change and practicality. You don’t change things until you can prove without a doubt that it’s better than what you already have and when you write laws you can’t do it from up in your ivory tower, you have to get down into the streets and see the problems you’re trying to solve and then you can legislate.

They were more suspicious of this idea of the market regulating itself and thought the government should keep an eye on things more.

THE IDEOLOGICAL CONTINUUM

Sounds fancy, huh? It’s really simple. Imagine a line stretching from side to side. Let’s start from the middle and work our way to the extreme right and the extreme left.

On the right, you have conservatives who are less interested in rights and more about protecting the people. Then as you go further right you wind up with full on fascism (‘You owe the country your life so you have to do whatever it says.’)

On the left you have folks who think the main goal is to protect rights and then you head further and further left until you end up with the idea that everyone should share (have equal rights to everything) and be owners of everything together.

This is where the ideas of ‘leftist’ and ‘rightist’ come from.

MODERN USAGE

Today, we have com up with the terms liberal and conservative (no capitals). These have very little to do with the ideologies we talked about before.

To make it simple, here’s what I understand to be the basic, philosophical points:

Democrat Republican

Government Regulation (economy needs regular “tweaking” to make it work.

Higher Taxes (More government programs)

Larger Overall Government

Protection of Rights

Free Market Economy (Straight supply and demand with little government interference.)

Lower Taxes (Fewer government programs.)

Smaller Government overall

Protection of Values

On Some Key Issues:

Democrat Republican

Pro-Choice on Abortion

Support Gay Marriage

Drilling would not be effective, research and development only.

Universal Health Care

Pro-Life on Abortion (may introduce a Human Life Amendment to the constitution)

Ban on Gay Marriage

Drilling for Oil in ANWAR, tap all national oil assets and invest in new tech.

Keep Health Care a private industry, reform insurance for it.

POLITICAL COMPASS

Really there is more to it than just left or right. You can be an economic conservative while having democrat values (libertarian) or an economic liberal while having conservative values (authoritarian). So the political compass solves this problem. Politicalcompass.com has a good test to find out where you stand. (I’m about as close to the center as they come but I’m pretty free market and slightly conservative in my values.

As you go up you become less interested in rights and more interested in protection. As you go left you want to regulate the economy more and as you go right you become more and more into the idea of a free market. (republicans live in the top right while democrats live in the bottom left.)

BUT WE’RE STILL ALL AMERICANS

I hope this gives you a pretty good idea on what people mean by ‘flaming liberal’ or ‘republican blowhard’. At the end of the day, we all have our opinions and we all join up with those that most reflect what we believe in but we need to remember that we’re Americans first and members of a political party second. George Washington warned us about the divisive spirit of faction and we need to be careful not to villainize each other. If you don’t fit into either category, don’t worry, that’s a good thing. To commit wholly to any ideology is dangerous. Disagreeing with ‘your’ party on some policies is healthy, even vital, to our country. The fact that we can disagree, even passionately on a subject is what makes this country great as long as we always remember that we’re all still Americans and we respect one another.

Four Lost American Ideals pt 5

2008-09-21T08:41:00.008-06:00

PUBLIC VIRTUE

The fourth lost ideal is public virtue. That’s a lost phrase in our modern day. Usually when I ask groups what it means someone will say, ‘public officials being virtuous while in office’ that’s not a bad idea, but it’s not what the founders meant. How about ‘passing good laws that are virtuous’? Once again, a good thing, we should have more of that but not what the founders of our country meant. In fact, when they used the word ‘virtue’ in general, they usually mean public virtue. They were liber educated and because of that they knew the root of the word. They read the Greek philosophers. In Greek they had a whole bunch of different words that translate into the word virtue. (The Eskimos have over 20 words for ‘snow’ why? For an Eskimo, what kind of snow, what texture, what size of flakes, what wetness of snow is coming down makes the difference between whether you’re alive in the morning or not. What does that say about the Greeks?)

When all these different words for virtue got translated, we added different words on the front of them to get the meaning across. For instance, private virtue means you’re good in your life, you’re moral. Public virtue means something different. Public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society. Thomas Jefferson signed and wrote most of the Declaration of Independence along with a number of other people. That was a supreme act of public virtue. They put themselves on the line against the greatest power on earth at the time. It was treason, it was illegal. And the British came after them with everything they had. We lose a lot of history because we’re locked in employee or professional education and we don’t see the point. (You ever ask how am I ever going to use this in real life? You’re still in employee/professional education mode.)

While Tomas Jefferson was away working with the congress after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the British attacked his home. His wife grabbed their baby and fled into the weather. Both his wife and his baby died from resulting illnesses. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson gave his wife and only child when he penned those words, ‘Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’? Did you know that when he signed his name there he gave up his wife and child? Public virtue.

George Washington, during the revolutionary war the camp got so close to his home, Mount Vernon, that he decided to visit his wife at home. He began to ride home and overheard some of the soldiers saying ‘The general gets to go home. I sure wish I did.’ Most of them were one or two year conscripts. But that night, when George Washington turned his horse around, because he didn’t want to let the troops down, he hadn’t seen Martha for 7 years. Public Virtue.

Tomas Nelson was the Governor of Virginia. He had grown up poor and through hard work and his determination he had taken some real risks and became very successful. When the revolutionary war broke out he had to choose sides and he sided with the Americans right from the start. Little by little he had to give away all his animals, his grain from his own stores, his funds, everything to his men since he was serving as colonel to keep the war going. There came a time when his city was taken by the British and the Americans were able to surround and the cannons were shelling the city. They bombed every building except Tomas Nelson’s and the British officers all were hiding there because they all knew it was the colonel’s. He went and stood in front of the cannon and said, ‘Why!?’ and they said, ‘No, we can’t. That’s yours.’ He said, ‘I order you... please, I beg you!’ They turned the cannon and shelled it. He was there when the British surrendered and then went home to pick up the pieces. He was destitute. He had a nervous breakdown and died shortly thereafter. His wife died about 3 decades after that after raising their 11 children alone. She willed all her earthly possessions: $20 she had saved in the bank, to a local church. She understood the price of freedom. (Which is often not blood, but sweat and tears.)

Another signer of the Declaration of Independence was Robert Morris. Robert Morris when the revolutionary war started was the wealthiest man in the United States (picture Bill Gates type wealth). After the war, he spent the latter part of his life in debtor’s prison. Where did the money go? There were good business decisions and bad business decisions. But in general, most of the money went to George Washington. On numerous occasions, George Washington had his back up against the wall and said, ‘We’re going to lose, get me Robert Morris.’ On numerous occasions Robert Morris gave, and went out and raised money for the cause.

You know the story of the battle of Trenton? You’ve seen the picture of the colonist army crossing the Delaware River and George Washington is standing in the bow of one of the boats with his eyes fixed on the other side? That was right before the battle of Trenton which changed the course of the revolutionary war. We were losing everything up to that point and won pretty much everything thereafter. Several days before, Washington was gathered with his generals and advisors. They looked at what they could do, how it could happen, and said if we do this, if we can pull this off, we will turn the war around and we’ll win this thing. This was after years of suffering, years of losing, years of effort and struggle for the cause of freedom. And they were saying all it will take is this win to turn the war around. They sat down and said here’s what we’ll need. As they planned they found out they didn’t have the soldiers, they didn’t have enough powder, or shot to even fight. They didn’t have shoes, they hadn’t been fed, there weren’t boats to cross the river. And Washington said, ‘All is lost.’ And then he said, ‘Get me Robert Morris.’ Robert Morris came. By this time, Robert Morris had given away much of his fortune. He didn’t have much more to give so he went out to other people. All the creditors said, ‘We’re not going to lend to the colonist army, you’re going to lose.’ So he said, ‘Will you lend to me then?’ and they loaned him the money based on his reputation and he signed his name. The boats were bought, the lead, powder, the men were fed, the war was won. All because of a man named Robert Morris who had public virtue, he had been an owner, who had a liber education, who understood Providence, who had built the resources, paid the price but when the time came, it wasn’t about the resources. It was about something a lot more important- freedom.

There was a time when the British were way ahead in the revolutionary war because they had the gold. They bought the shot and powder that they needed and the Americans went to obtain the same materials with their worthless, devalued dollar. So congress got together and decided to pass a suggestion, a suggestion. Congress is supposed to pass laws but they knew they had no power, they knew they couldn't enforce it. But they said if you care about America, if you care about freedom, do us a favor, if you own a shop, burn it down. If you own a farm, burn the fields, because the British will come and if you won’t sell to them, they will take it from you by force. And thousands of Americans walked into the shops they had built, poured the kerosene, lit the match and walked away into hardship. Thousands of American farmers walked into their fields they loved so much pouring kerosene, lighting the match and looking ahead to the coming winter in famine which would hit them. Can you imagine that? That’s what freedom is worth. I wonder if I would be one of those to look around and see business opportunity? Would I have tried to make a profit of the British? Or would I have been one of the ones who said freedom is more important than me.

There is a story from northern Missouri that during the great depression there was a time when the farmers realized they couldn’t sell their crop for any reasonable amount so why even try? But there was one farmer who was out there planting. The other farmers got together and they got his friend to go talk to him. So he went down to the field and said, ‘you know you’re not going to be able to make anything on this crop right?’ And the man looked at him kind of funny and said, ‘I know that. I’m planting oat trees.’ Now his friend knew the poor farmer had gone crazy. ‘Oak trees!? Oak trees take a hundred years before they’re usable. And the farmer turned to the man smiled and said, ‘Oh, these aren’t for me. They’re for my grandkids. When was the last time you did something hard for your grandchildren? When was the last time that you consciously, purposefully, voluntarily did something that was hard for your grandchild? I challenge you to go do it. I challenge you to be an American.

Every time a major change occurs in history it’s always because a man or woman steps forward and says, ‘Here am I’. They’ve prepared, they’ve paid the price, and they have public virtue. They have the vision to see something more valuable than money and they step forward and give it all. They cross the Delaware and the world changes.

I don’t know what the future holds or what challenges lie ahead. But I do know that history repeats itself, freedom will be under attack because it always is and I do know we’ll be able to face and overcome those challenges because there are men and women of public virtue; men and women who will voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society. If there are not such men and women then we won’t maintain our freedom. But there are such men and women and many of you are reading this now. As you’ve read this series you may have felt something. Providence is real and you do have a role to play. But in order to participate in public virtue, we have to participate in the other ideals first so we have the resources, the moral backbone, and the ability to be ready to do it. To be ready when your moment comes that you can make history; where you will look at the world and see what it is and how it should be and say, ‘Here am I’ and stand up for what you believe; stand up and make that change. Challenges will come and Americans will be ready to deal with them. Be one of them. Pay the price.

In the year 1764, Thomas Jefferson was a college student with a broken heart. George Washington was a businessman trying to turn a profit. John Adams was a teacher. James Madison was a shy high school student. Who are you? Become an American.

Four Lost American Ideals pt 4

2008-09-19T23:52:00.009-06:00

LIBER

Third lost ideal of America: Liber. Liber is the Latin word for ‘tree bark’. What does that have to do with anything? It’s the root word of liberty, and also the root word of library and library and liberty are very closely connected. History proves that your freedom is a result of what you understand and what you know. The reason the word for tree bark has this meaning is that tree bark was used in ancient Greece and Rome to write on. There were two groups of people in the classical world: There were slaves, and there were liber. Liber were those who were able to read, write, calculate, and engage in contract. They were the ones who used tree bark. Now understand that there were slaves who knew how to read and there’s a difference between literacy (being able to read letters on a page and know what they mean) and liber (which is the ability to understand the meaning behind those words and then to write your own words and use language in ways that are transformational, that impacts other people, that impacts their choices). So liber and slaves were two groups in the ancient world. I would submit that we still have those same groups today. Liber are those that have an education, and I don’t mean literacy, almost everyone has literacy, slaves in the ancient world had literacy and slaves in the modern world have literacy. But the liber have something more, they have depth, there is something behind the literacy. You not only know what the words mean, you know where they came from, you know their background, their base, you know how it fits into the world and you can do something with them.

There are three types of education: employee education, professional education, and liber education. Employee education is what most people in America have. The goal of employee education is to train you in what to think so you can get a job, any job. That’s not a bad goal but it’s not an American goal. Being an American means you have a goal that is beyond that. The goal of professional education is to train you in when to think: within your field, your area of expertise and leave other areas to the other experts in their fields. That’s the goal: to make you into an expert. The purpose of liber education is to train you how to think, because a nation of thinking Americans is a nation that will be a nation of owners, it’s a nation of people pursuing Providence their own unique personal mission, and a nation that remains free You take those three together and you look at the way those different types of education work towards them and you see that only liber education trains people specifically and purposefully to be Americans. The others train them to be employees and experts and there’s nothing wrong with employees and experts but a nation of employees and experts is a nation very different from what came to be called America.

How do I know what kind of education I am getting? In an employee education, it’s a conveyor belt model where everyone learns the same thing, at the same time, at the same age, and from the same textbook regardless of their individual mission, interests, passions, goals, or desires. Everyone gets the same basic education and was tested the same way and was expected to fit in to conform. That’s a very effective way to train employees. It’s an effective way to train people to do repetitive tasks without rocking the boat, stay in their place, and do their job. Professional education makes some additions to that. They train in am more competitive way. If you want to get to the highest levels of a profession, you go to the schools that are the most competitive. (Editor's note: I think all three are necessary and good. Where you stop in your education: at employee level, professional level or the liber level is your decision.)

Liber education has a very unique methodology and curriculum. The methodology is mentors, the curriculum is classics. By classics I don’t mean someone’s old list on some literature guru’s wall. I mean works that are worth studying over and over again and you learn more each time than you did the last. Great education has always come from the great works of history. You want to become great? Come face to face with greatness. There are great mathematicians, why would you spend your time studying the dumbed-down version of math when you can go straight to Newton, straight to Euclid, straight to Pythagoras, etc. Great thinkers go to the originals and study them in depth. And that’s what it meant to be an American
We look at the old American frontier in American history and we say, ‘these people were illiterate, they didn’t go to school.’ Yeah, you could say that, but they carried the Bible and Shakespeare with them everywhere they went and they were thinking. (Compare the worst written letter between farmers back then to a text message today.) They were leaders, they had a different education.

Look at the different final goals of the three levels of education: employee education says get a job get as much security as you can and what’s the big goal? To retire. Professional education says the focus is your career. Get as far ahead as you can in your career, build up an estate why? Again, to retire. What does Liber education do? The goal is to get a superb education, achieve your mission, and then when you’ve been successful, to look around at what society needs and get out and serve. Those who lead approach life differently, they approach their studies differently. When we go to college and we’re going to be an employee or a professional, then we go to college to get a degree. If we’re going to be a leader, we go to college to get an education, to learn how to think you go to get the kind of education that every great leader in history had. Find your personal classics.

When we graduate, in employee or professional mode, we go out and get that job looking toward retirement. But if we’re in the liber mode, we go out we build businesses, we build organizations, we build networks, we build resources, and then when we get to the point where we’ve become effective in building those resources, where we now have resources where we are owners, then we look for ways to get outside of ourselves and impact society and change it into what it needs to be. We become statesmen. To be an American used to mean that you were a statesman or preparing to become one, a person who sees society as it is, sees it as should be and inserts themselves in the middle and says, ‘Here am I.’ Here’s my resources, my network, everything I have to offer, and here’s what I’m going to do to impact society. That comes after the resource/mission focus is done. Real Americans don’t retire, they don’t understand what it means, it doesn’t make sense to them.

Look inside yourself and ask yourself the question: Am I an American? Do I deserve to stand with Jefferson and Lincon and all the men and women who kept this country free? I would submit that you are every bit as capable as anyone I’ve mentioned and you have a mission too. As I said, they aren’t genetically or inherently superior to us but they do make choices and those choices have consequences and those choices will have an effect on your life and the lives of generations to come.

Four Lost American Ideals pt 3

2008-09-17T22:55:00.006-06:00

PROVIDENCE

The second lost idea is a word that you find all the time in the writings of the founding generation, through the civil war period, all the way the 1890s and all of the sudden, it starts disappearing. By recent times, the 1980s and 90s it’s basically non-existent. The word is Providence.

Providence is essentially the idea that there is a Power higher than us. Part of being an American was also believing that there was a higher power and you organize your life in such a way that they follow that. And in Europe they kind of laughed at that. They were in the midst of the enlightenment and government by science and reason was in vouge. But our founding fathers wrote, talked and debated using this word 'Providence' over and over in their letters and even in their public debates. 'Providence wants this for our people' etc. They really cared what was morally right in founding the country and the only true Source for that is God. Moreover, they recognized their mission came from God, that it was sacred and that helped give then the courage to move forward.

We say God, but they said Providence because Providence is more than just a belief in God. It starts with a belief that there is a Higher Power and we should organize our lives around that but there’s a second side of it. Providence, had the connotation that not only is there a God, but God has a purpose for me, as an individual. It’s the idea that I have a personal mission from Heaven to accomplish here on this earth. There’s something I’m supposed to do. There’s something that’s unique to me and there’s something that’s unique to you. And I need to spend my early life finding out what that is and then devote the rest of my life to accomplishing it. That’s Providence. Today, we see that word and think, oh they believed in God. But, it’s much more than that. They also believed in God’s direct connection to me and everything I do when I get up each day. Providence is more than my belief, its my action, it’s who I am, it’s what I do, it’s how I spend my time. Being an American used to mean that you believed in freedom, in ownership and were an owner, and that you had a mission and you were going to do everything in your power to accomplish that mission. We need more Americans in modern America. We need more Americans in the modern World and I’m an optimist; I think we’re going to get them.

Four Lost American Ideals pt 2

2008-09-15T21:31:00.006-06:00

GEORGICS

The first lost idea of America is georgics. It’s a strange word to us. But it wasn’t a strange word to the founders. It was in their letters, in their writing, in their newspapers, it was in their public discussion. ‘Georgics’ comes from the Latin, ‘geo’ meaning the land, and ‘ergo’ meaning to work: ‘To work the land’. I’m going to translate the word a little into our modern times. The translation of being georgic in our modern times would be to be an owner. Part of being an American was ownership.

There was a big debate between Jefferson and Hamilton about what kind of an America we should have. They agreed that we should be a commercial society. (Montesquieu, the most quoted philosopher in the constitutional convention taught there were three basic types of societies. He thought that there were three basic reasons that societies exist: Martial- An honor-based system where honor is only gained through excelling in warfare and all wealth and beliefs are channeled into that goal eg, Sparta. Religious- Where people congregate for a religious goal eg Egypt, and Commercial- Where all are joined in order to gain wealth.) The founders thought: ‘We don’t want to be a martial society, we want peace. We don’t want to be a religious society, not that we don’t like religion but any time you make religion the center focus, you wind up corrupting it by mixing it with politics and become intolerant of other belief systems.’ Commercial seems to be the best to provide for people’s needs and even go beyond that to wealth and prosperity.

Now, there are two types of commercial societies and they argued about this: Hamilton said, ‘We want a kind of society where everyone is working for big entities with centralized capital. We have big industrialized cities with everyone working together to create huge wealth.’ Jefferson said, ‘But that impacts freedom. Freedom isn’t as strong when you do that.’ And Hamilton said, ‘Well they’ll have enough freedom and besides there will be huge prosperity.” Jefferson said, ‘No, I don’t like that model. I think you should have a bunch of people who are small farmers, shopkeepers, and businessmen. We should have a nation of independents.’ He said, ‘You can’t have independence unless you’re a nation of independents.’ So it was dependents vs. independents. In modern English we would use the words employees and owners. A dependent is an employee, someone who works for others, who is dependent on others. An independent is an owner, someone who is georgic. It used to be that when someone said that’s an American there was the connotation that: there’s someone who owns their own business. Georgics, independence, ownership: those are roots of American freedom.
In 1776, the time of the Declaration of Independence, you have approximately 90% of the population in the north are owners. By 1900, you had 90% of Americans in general are owners. By the year 2000, you have less than 10% of Americans are owners. And the impact on freedom has been direct. It has followed suit and it always will, ‘You can’t have independence unless you’re a nation of independents.’ If you’re a nation of dependents, you won’t be free.’

Four Lost American Ideals pt 1

2008-09-14T00:14:00.009-06:00

The following series of posts comes form a presentation given by Oliver Demille from George Wythe University

(note: some editions have been made for clarity and length.)

BEGINNINGS OF STATESMANSHIP

In the year 1764, Thomas Jefferson got dumped by his girlfriend. He was heart-broken. In fact, he was so heart-broken by the whole thing that 20 years later he was still lamenting the thing in his journal and talking about how much it had hurt him. It got worse however, because he got a note from his best friend. His best friend said, ‘I need to talk to you , Thomas.’ He said, ‘ok.’ He thought, ‘you know he’s going to come cheer me up, this is great.’ His best friend came, sat down, he began to tell his best friend about how heartbroken he was and how hard this was and his best friend said, ‘No, no Thomas I need to talk to you. I need to tell you something.’ He said, ‘Well ok, what is it?’ He said, ‘Thomas I’m getting married.’ He said, ‘That’s wonderful! I got dumped but you’re getting married, that’s great. When is the wedding?’ and his friend said, ‘No, Thomas, you need to listen to me…I’m marrying…her.’ Jefferson, like I said, was still heartbroken 20 years later. He said that he kind of was giving up on the romance for a while, which he did, and settled down to study with his mentor, George Wythe.

In that same year, 1764, John Adams was a teacher at a small community school in the city of Boston. He wrote in his journal that he really liked being a teacher and the reason he liked it is because, it wasn’t stressful. He said, ‘I hope that I can spend my life doing things that are just enjoyable: I can just think, I can talk, I can learn, I can go home and be with my family and I don’t have to get caught up in all these stressful and frustrating events that happen in the world in politics and law, and in other areas.

In that same year, 1764, James Madison was in his 13^th year. He was a student. He was a good student, his mentors and his parents corresponded back and forth and both sets were very happy that he was such a great student but they were both very concerned because he was so quiet and shy that they wondered if he would ever amount to anything.

In that same year, 1764, George Washington, was a businessman. Records show that his major effort that year was an unsuccessful attempt to get out of debt. He did make a profit and it wasn’t many years after that, that he was able to be more successful.

That was the year 1764. A decade later, these same individuals would declare independence from the greatest power on the face of the earth and they would sign it with ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.’ A decade after that, they would write and help ratify the Constitution of the United States. Gladstone called it, ‘The greatest work ever struck off by the mind and purpose of man.’ But in 1764 these were all just regular people: college student, a teacher, a younger student, and a businessperson. So here’s my question for you: What took these regular people, like you and me in 1764, and turned them into the greatest generation of statesmen, of leaders, that the world has ever known? They really were just regular people. They weren’t somehow genetically superior to us. Great men and women in history aren’t better somehow, but they do make choices and those choices have consequences.

Our generation will face similar challenges. I don’t know exactly what they’ll be and I’m not predicting that because I have a crystal ball, I’m predicting that because every generation in history has it’s challenges, there are no exceptions. In fact, our generation is lucky in that we’ve gone a long time without the level of challenge, the level of difficulty that happens to most generations. Another way to say that is, we’re long overdue for some serious challenges. Now I’m an optimist; I’m not saying that pessimistically, I’m not a doomsayer, I’m not saying there’s bad things, I think the very best that America has to offer, the very best that the world has to offer is still ahead. I really believe the best we have to offer is still ahead but understand that when societies give their best, it’s because they’re in the midst of challenges and so they have to rise to that occasion. It’s great because that’s who we are: that’s our generation, that’s why we’re here, that’s who our children are and its exciting to look ahead, just like the founders did in 1764, realizing that challenges were ahead, which they did, and prepared another generation to be ready.

LOST IDEALS

I want to cover four lost ideals of America. There are really 5 ideals of America, and the first one is freedom, but that one’s not lost. We still know the word; we still talk about the word, the danger lies in the fact that all these ideas of Americanism are connected and if we lose the other four, then eventually we will lose that ideal of freedom. We will lose that freedom that the founding generation fought so hard, and that later generations in the civil war and world wars etc. fought so hard to maintain. So these four lost ideals are essential because we’re Americans. Think about that word for a minute, because it used to mean something. You can be American or you can be un-American. You can be called un-American even if you were born in America. That doesn’t work if you’re Irish, there’s no such thing as un-Irish, there’s no such thing as un-German, there’s no such thing as un-English, but there is such a thing as un-American. The reason there is such a thing is because it means something different. It means more than that we’re just born in a certain geographical place. Being an American used to mean (and I think it still does but we’ve forgotten) that we, as Americans, believed in and lived our lives according to 5 ideals, the first being freedom. The other four we’ve lost. I want to talk about those four because I believe that there are people who want to be Americans. There are so many out there who would be Americans if they only knew what it meant.

First Post

2008-09-13T23:54:00.003-06:00

I started this blog for a number of reasons. First of all, I see a lot of people who want to be informed citizens but just don't know how to go about it. Politics is a blur. The media seems to pick up on superficial nonsense and ignore real issues. Information on local politics is avaliable but only to those who consciously seek it out. They confuse people. I don't claim to be the solution, but I do want to help.

The second is actually also my subject for my first post. I was asked, "Why would anyone want to be an American?" by a friend who is preparing to apply for citizenship. This country has been good to her so I think she knows already and can probably answer her own question better than I can.

A few months ago I attended a cottege meeting with a professor from George Whythe College(now University). I have never felt so inspired or clear about what I want to do with my life and what it means to be an American, why it is that old men cry when they attend a flag retirement, why it is that so many have been willing to give their lives for me and my oppertunity to live in a free nation and where my hopes and dreams still mean something.

I want to post what I heard with a few editions as my first series of posts.

I invite you to visit http://www.gw.edu/ to find out more.

For lectures on just about any subject that interests you or just to help you get excited about learning visit: http://bookstore.gwythe.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F7674969&rnd=3621718&rrc=N&affl=&cip=24.10.230.155&act=&aff=&pg=cat&ref=20

I highly recommend 'World Views and the Emerging State', 'Cycles from the Classics' and 'A Classical Approach to Art, Math, and Science.' (Look under 'Audio' for more. They have something for everyone.) Everyone needs a motivational boost now and then.