Recently in Politics Category
I purchased a copy of "John Adams" by David McCullough at a local grocery store a couple months ago and finally finished it this last week. The book was first released in 2001 but, since then, the HBO television network has produced an award-winning mini-series based on the book and a repackaged reissue of the book was released..
I was very intrigued by John Adams after reading
about him in the Joseph Ellis history narrative "Founding
Brothers." What intrigued me
most was his steadfast relationship with his wife Abigail and his on-again,
off-again friendship with Thomas Jefferson.
"John Adams" peels away another layer and reveals an incredible amount of detail about the man and his roles in the early years of our country.
What impressed me most in the book was how relatively "solid" Adams was in his beliefs and his philosophies. Around the time he was elected the second president of the United States, there was a great amount of fervor within those involved in politics them to rally around political parties. Adams' political philosophy probably made him more of a federalist than a republican, but he refused to affiliate with either of the predominant movements at that time. This made him both popular and unpopular with both parties, but gave him a tremendous amount of freedom as president to do what he felt was right. Reading about this demonstrated to me just how counterproductive a two-party system can be, especially for executive-branch candidates.
So much of Adams' political beliefs are needed today. He was a
frugal, sensible man who didn't see politics and public service as a
life of celebrity or extravagance. He never felt he was above anyone else
as was demonstrated by his pitching in to help fight fires when they broke
out while he was in office. It's amazing to me to imagine the
president of the United States standing in a chain line passing buckets of
water down so that a burning building could be extinguished. Today it would
be called a "publicity event" or some such nonsense.
When I finished the last chapter of the book, which covered Adams' death and the services and recognition paid to him afterward, I couldn't help but cry for a couple of minutes. After reading the book, which contains hundreds of excerpts of letters and speeches from Adams, I felt I had made some progress toward knowing the man. While I knew from the beginning he had died almost 200 years ago, reaching that part of the book and realizing everything he had done, said, and influenced in the 89 years of his life hit me like a pile of bricks. We owe a large debt of gratitude to this man.
In related news, the HBO miniseries (which I have not seen) is coming out on DVD this Tuesday, June 10, 2008. You can get it from Amazon.com.
American Solutions does seem to be somewhat weighted toward people who want to get rid of some of the current restrictions that keep oil companies from drilling in various areas of the US. Doing this would boost our domestic production, but unlike some of the people on this site, I don't think that will significantly affect crude oil prices much. We need to get busy investing in all kinds of alternative energy production as well as drill for more domestic oil.
Do you remember when you were in elementary school and you learned that plants had some mysterious process that involved a substance called chlorophyll and energy from sunlight and it made them grow? Do you remember learning that plants emit oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, which is opposite of animal life like humans (we emit carbon dioxide and take in oxygen)?
If carbon dioxide is fuel for plants, having an increase of it in the ecosystem could result in more plant growth, you might think. I'd never heard anything reported about that until a couple days ago. I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio show and was talking to a scientist named Arthur Robinson who said, yes, several studies have shown a correlation between increased carbon dioxide and increased plant growth.
In addition, the conversation between Beck and Robinson touched on the Oregon Petition, another thing I had never heard of. The Oregon Petition is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists, 9,000 or so of which hold doctorate degrees, which says, in a nutshell, "Global warming is a myth, a fraud, a lie, etc. and should not be the basis for government policy."
Considering that all of the three frontrunning candidates for the US presidency are in favor of sweeping policy changes in the name of global warming, it would appear to be up to us, as citizens, to raise awareness of these issues. "Cap and trade" policy is nothing more than hefty taxes on businesses which do nothing but funnel money into the government. On a global scale, these policies will seriously stifle technological development in less-developed countries and could result in widespread preventable loss of life!
It pays to study your history or else you're doomed to repeat it.
View the video segments on YouTube.
I've been reading the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. The title of the book is guaranteed to set people off, one way or another and for this reason, Goldberg seems to spend a extraordinary amount of effort defending his premises and explaining that he's not saying that today's liberals are anti-semetic, genocidal maniacs. What he does say, and says very well, is that history's most common tales of fascism, such as Adolf Hilter and Benito Mussolini, were largely influenced by progressive thought--the same progressive thought that rules the Democratic party and liberal politics today.
In a July 2007 debate, Hillary Clinton responded to the question of whether she would refer to herself as a "liberal."
"You know, ['liberal'] is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
"I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.
"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.
"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics."
At the time of this debate, I was reading The Forgotten Man by Amnity Schlaes which provides a new look at the political forces at play before and during the 1930s when the United States was enduring The Great Depression. What Schlaes reveals--and what many people don't know--is that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies were formed with the help of a team of progressive advisors and cabinet members who had varying degrees of infatuation and admiration for Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini and the forms of government they were managing and/or advocating.
Schlaes offers that the policies of the Roosevelt administration were a significant input into why the Great Depression lasted for the entire decade of the 1930s while other industrialized nations around the world suffered an economic hit in 1929 and then recovered relatively quickly.
I mention this because, thanks in part to my friend Glenn Beck, I recently came across a number of platform statements and congressional records belonging to presidential candidate (and current frontrunner) Barack Obama that suggest he is ready to (blindly?) take us right into a repeat of the 1930s.
National work programs
The Roosevelt administration, in the interest of stimulating the economy and helping the large number of unemployed, created a number of government work plans including the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work program for young men, 17 years old or older. The CCC put these men to work in camps on various projects around the country such as clearing out dead wood in forests and building bridges, walkways, and roads, and other construction projects, usually in rural or undeveloped settings.
Last week, Barack Obama announced to Wisconsin auto industry workers that, as president, he would propose over $200 billion in programs to create new government jobs. The bulk of this spending would go to create a workforce of "green-collar workers" that would tackle environmental issues like finding new forms of enviro-friendly fuels. Other jobs would go to infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges.
While I agree that good hard work is good for the mind and soul and would benefit individuals who would otherwise be unemployed and potentially idle, I can't help but be concerned that Sen. Obama hasn't studied his history. Quite frankly, it doesn't seem like many on the left have studied their history because these types of programs are becoming quite a popular topic of discussion among liberals. If we know we're going into a period that may be like the 1930s, why would we do the same things that prolonged the suffering and the stagnation then?
The less-fortunate
Many Americans believe we have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate around the world. Liberals believe this should be a function of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer this be done by private organizations and charities. One of the reasons conservatives feel this way is because the charitable feeling is completely lost when your money is forcefully taken from you by the federal goverment in the form of taxes and fees, no matter how good the intentions are. Plus, there is the issue of how efficiently those funds will be handled.
Senator Obama, along with fellow senators Chuck Hagel and Maria Cantwell, have sponsored legislation known as the "Global Poverty Act" which passed the Senate Foreign Relations committee this last week. If passed, this legislation would require that the federal government provide a small percentage of the economic GDP as financial aid for countries where people live in poverty. The US would not send this money directly to the people or their governments. Instead, we would give that money to the United Nations to administer the funds.
Again, when will people learn?! Our government created a formal "War On Poverty" after World War II and spent plenty of money on programs to help the poor improve their station in life. Did anyone actually rise out of poverty? Not according to statistics. Because of this and because the government continued to rise the poverty level to include less and less poor households, those who qualified for assistance under these programs grew.
1964, Ronald Reagan gave a speech titled "A Time For Choosing". In it, he addresses the inefficiency of the government's welfare programs.
"We are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead."
He also talks about the overall ineffectiveness of cutting checks to those "in-need:"
"If government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? ... But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater."
Again, haven't we learned anything from our past mistakes? Why can't our political leaders learn what works and employ those techniques instead of playing the same old card again and again?
What works for poverty, unemployment, etc.? Not free handouts.
The LDS Church here in Utah has its own welfare programs which are available to anyone, regardless of church affiliation. These programs are not handouts. Instead. they are structured, compassionate programs that encourage the recipients to "give in" to receive. Meals, clothing, and other assistance are available to those in need and, in turn, the recipients are asked to give of their time and effort to help provide the same services to others. This is a perfect example of why private charitable organizations are much better equipped to deal with these kinds of problems than the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal government.
Obama's legislation states that it is all part of an international agreement to help combat poverty. This means that all participating countries will be taking a portion of their national revenue and giving it to the United Nations for distribution to poor areas. Two alarm bells go off when I ponder this: Global redistribution of wealth, a socialist policy tenet, and international taxation by the United Nations! When will the madness stop?
The United Nations is supposed to help keep the peace in sensitive areas of the world and it can't even do that well. Why would anyone think this organization would be effective and act responsibly in an effort to combat poverty? Oil for food, anyone? Do progressives, liberals, and socialists simply lack the ability to learn?!
Debt
The United States government, and by association, the citizens of the United States, are between $9 and $100 TRILLION dollars in debt. I fail to see the sense of spending more than what is required to maintain bare essential services until this debt is eradicated. Social programs, earmarks, museums, assistance programs... They should all be stopped or shrunk so that some of the government's revenue can be applied toward the outstanding debt.
History tells us Thomas Jefferson had much to say about debt, both personal and national. He stated it was vital that the country not take on debt and if it did, that it should be no more debt than could be paid for in one generation.
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
As a country, we have ignored Jefferson's advice since the beginning of the 20th century and now we are witnessing the effects of years of irresponsible borrowing in our economic outlook.
And speaking of irresponsible borrowing, Barack Obama has proposed a $10 billion federal fund to help "innocent victims" caught in the subprime loan mess. Are there really innocent victims? I don't think so. When you borrow money to purchase a house, you have plenty of opportunity to learn what you're getting into, what your obligations are, etc. The lending institutions are certainly not innocent either because they have time-tested methods for determining risk when lending money. What Obama is suggesting is essentially saddling us with more national debt because of a few people's irresponsible behavior.
Fiscal discipline and revenue
Barack Obama's website says a lot about a need for fiscal discipline and responsibility. I'm glad his website says these thing, but if he really believes in these things, how are these billions upon billions of federal programs going to be funded? There will have to be greater revenue to the federal government and/or less spending on programs that are already there. Obama's honest about this, if not direct about it. If you peruse his website, you'll learn he wants to cut spending on various programs and he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Well, only for the rich, not for the poor or middle class taxpayers.
While repealing tax cuts for the rich is a popular thing to do (because there are a lot more people who aren't rich than are), it is, by definition, not fair. I would really like someone to explain to me why it makes sense that we pay a different percentage of our assets in taxes based on the amount of assets we have. To be fair, equal, and all that, shouldn't we each pay the same percentage?
What are the economic repercussions of saddling the "rich" with more taxes? The rich are more likely to spend more than those who are less wealthy, so this would cut into their spending power. The rich are more likely to employ others than those who are less wealthy, so this cuts into their hiring power. Hello?! Tax hikes on the rich is a direct attack on important driving forces of the economy: consumer spending and employment!
I have been pretty quiet about the 2008 presidential race mostly because it's either been too early to say anything or because there's been too much happening so quickly as has been the case the last three or four weeks. But, with "Super Tuesday" coming up, I'm adding my opinion to the pot.
If you know me, you know I'm a conservative. I'm more fiscally conservative than socially conservative, but I'm very much a small-government, let-people-find-solutions kind of guy. I would say I'm a Republican, but if folks like George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain represent the platform of the GOP, then I'm mighty reluctant to join their ranks.
Like just about everyone else, I like Barack Obama. He seems like a real swell guy. I think it would be very cool to have someone with his youth, energy, and inspirational manner as our country's president. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama comes with a downright scary set of political beliefs that, if followed, would bankrupt the government and the American people.
I believe John McCain and Hillary Clinton are cut from the same cloth. They've been part of the Washington inner circle for too long and they have suspect loyalties spread between too many different places, many of which are cause for deep concern. Whether it's Clinton and her bizarre Chinese campaign contributions or McCain and his adviser Juan Hernandez, who's big on that whole MexAmeriCanada thing, it's all bad!
Speaking of which, that's what baffles me the most about John McCain's popularity right now. In 2006, a ridiculous majority of Republicans and a sizable chunk of Democrats in this country were vocal in their opposition of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation that was going through congress. The amnesty-laced legislation everyone was upset about was not just supported, but sponsored by John McCain! But, I guess that's all water under the bridge now.
Rudy Giuliani really impressed for a long time because he's so down to earth and has a good "Let's Just Get This Done" attitude. He doesn't have the most conservative ideals, but I think he has a lot of what the office of the President needs right now.
It's too bad Rudy just dropped out of the race...
...and endorsed John McCain. Arrrghghgh!
Ron Paul. Dare I even go there? I mean, if you watch or listen to what Ron Paul says, a lot of his beliefs are bound to impress you to your core, especially if you long for a return to basic constitutional values in government. Dr. Paul has excellent ideas on reforming the way government generates revenue and spends its money. What most people don't realize is that it would come with a price most people aren't willing to pay: legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, withdrawal from the Middle East, and a drastic downsizing of our military.
I don't think Ron Paul is electable. In a dreamy libertarian world where everyone knows how to assume personal responsibility, Ron Paul would be a great leader. Unfortunately, at least half of the United States citizenship is ill prepared for such a leader and it would ruin their lives, not to mention the non-citizens living in the country illegally who are dependent on our social programs that would vaporize within hours of Paul's inauguration.
That leaves me with Mitt Romney. I really don't have anything bad to say about Mitt Romney. He's not a Washington insider. He's not a tax and spend liberal. He's inspirational to listen to, maybe not quite as much as Barack Obama, but he's close. He agrees with at least half of the constitutional pining of Ron Paul and believes in strict fiscal responsibility of the government.
He's Mormon. Big deal. So's Harry Reid, but we don't like to talk about that because he's going to burn in Hell.
Perhaps the most persuasive reason to me to vote for Mitt Romney is that he has a record of getting involved with companies, organizations and projects that are on the ropes financially and organizationally and he's been able to lead miraculous turn-arounds.
Glenn Beck says he
attends church meetings with many "leaders of industry" that
are close friends of Mitt Romney and they all say he is a good man of
considerable values and integrity. That also appeals to me.
I'd love to see a Romney-Paul candidacy. My buddy Adam said that would probably make most of the heads of people who frequently read and comment on digg.com or fark.com explode into a gazillion pieces. Well, that would just be a bonus, now, wouldn't it!
What do YOU think?
I just finished watching the one-hour interview with candidate Dr. Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's show on CNN Headline News. I was very impressed with what Dr. Paul had to say. I agree with many who have said that he hasn't been given a fair shake by the media and they typically quote small snippets of his statements out of context and generally make him look ridiculous. The things he wants to do with the office of the U.S. President are radical, but they are good things and I am proud of the platform he's running on.
I haven't seen any video of the interview online yet, but it probably will begin showing up soon. In the meantime, if you did not see the show, you can read CNN's transcript of the show.
I just wish Mitt Romney or Barak Obama were saying the things Dr. Paul is saying. While he's spot-on with regards to the problems our country is facing and the solutions to those problems, he lacks the commanding leadership characteristics required to be “presidential.”
I have been so busy lately, but have wanted to chime in on the state referendum up for vote here in Utah today. I feel a little guilty for even mentioning it because I was so busy today I didn't even get around to voting and that is not something I am proud of.
If I had voted, I would have voted FOR Referendum 1, also known as "that school voucher thing." But, I really don't care what happens. Looking at the preliminary election results this evening, it doesn't look good for the referendum at this point.
I have two big problems with the legislation that was passed and signed into law. First: It provides vouchers to parents who want to send their kids to private schools based on need. That seems to fly in the face of the intended purpose of vouchers! If vouchers are intended to ease the overall burden on parents who pay property taxes (of which a large portion goes to their local school district) and fork out the tuition costs for a private school, why would the largest voucher amounts go to the families who pay the lowest property taxes (presumably the families with the lowest incomes). That's just... backwards!
A sensible school voucher program should be equally accessible to all families regardless of need or income.
Next, the pro-voucher camps have argued the legislation is actually good for public schools because for every child that is removed from public schools and placed in private schools via a voucher, there would be at least $3,500 left in the school's budget for that year. Again, this flies in the face of another thing a voucher program is supposed to do: Make poor-performing schools feel the heat.
The concept of school choice means you can pull your child out of a poor school and send them to a better school. Since schools get their funding based on the number of students enrolled, this effectively punishes the poor-performing schools and encourages them to improve. It's called "competition" and it works really well in the real world.
Because the voucher legislation up for referendum vote doesn't effectively penalize poor schools, it therefore gives them no incentive to improve. The result would be poor-performing schools that continue to be poor-performing schools.
So, I say let the referendum fail. Legislators need to get serious. They tried this last year to pass legislation that was extremely accomodating and sympathetic to public schools, especially poor-performing public schools, and it was balked at. This next legislative session, Utah lawmakers need to push through some voucher legislation that actually has some teeth!
I recently finished Laura Ingraham’s latest book Power To The People and present a review of it.
Laura Ingraham is a nationally syndicated conservative
talk-radio host. In Salt Lake City, she is heard on 1430 AM (KLO) from 7-10
a.m. She’s probably a second or third tier conservative host as most
people don’t know who she is — they know Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, and even Glenn Beck, but may have never heard of Laura Ingraham
before. It wouldn’t surprise me if people thought she was “Dr.
Laura” but, believe me, she and Laura Schlessinger are
completely different. For one thing, Ingraham is, like,
really educated and not just some physiology grad.
Some people probably confuse Laura Ingraham with Ann Coulter. There are some similarities in their “acts,” but I find Coulter to be much more vitriolic in her attacks of liberal democrats where Laura Ingraham is just entertaining.
Laura’s radio program features lots of soundbites and clips from TV news programs with witty analysis by Laura and her studio cohorts. She is also frequently joined by this or that politician or pundit to talk about the issues of the day.
One of Laura’s program’s trademarks is the opening montage of soundbites that accompany the theme music. Unlike Limbaugh’s opener (classic) or Hannity’s (*rolls eyes*), Laura’s gets changed quite frequently as she mixes it up weekly or daily with funny, idiotic, or inspiring clips of people. These montages always end with a shrill “Power to the peeeeeeople!” at the end. The screamer is a leftist human rights activist named Efia Nwangaza and the clip sounds like she’s being dragged away by security as she’s screaming.
Now you know where the title of the book comes from.
The book was an easy read, maybe too easy for me. Power To The People can be summarized as follows: Conservative talk-radio listeners should be aware of the following problems with our society. As talk-radio listeners, you have the power, collectively, to make a difference and influence action on these problems.
I fear Glenn Beck’s book coming out in November may be a similar set of recipes. We’ll see.
Laura begins by talking about the attack on the family. This was one of the more interesting chapters in the book. Laura — not married and not a parent — talks about how mainstream society looks down on large families and families in general. She discusses the value of the traditional (and natural) family model and how it must be defended. She touches on other topics that resurface later in the book, like sexualization of children and government usurping the authority of parents.
Next, illegal immigration. Who saw that coming? This section was just another dose of common sense solutions all of the talk radio world is screaming about while Washington collectively holds its fingers in its ears and says, “La la la la la.”
After that: national security. Laura talks about terror, terrorist states, and China.
Chapter four is about the courts and I thought it was the standout chapter in the book. Laura has a lot more perspective when it comes to judicial issues because she spent time working as a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this chapter she uses the nomination of Harriet Miers to argue who should and should not be a judge. I learned a lot more about the judiciary and its modern issues and controversies than I expected to.
The next chapter covers smaller government, or putting the power closer to the people. Another typical dose of conservative common sense.
Then: Porn. Laura explores just how explicit news, popular culture, and society has become and what we can do to squelch it. It’s not clear what we can do about it, to really make a difference, but Laura has several ideas.
Other chapters include topics such as schools and science. It was a little embarrassing to see Laura mention Utah twice in her book as a state that’s got it right by passing a school choice voucher law. Maybe she didn’t know about the legal appeals and the referendum when she wrote about it.
Finally, Laura spends a chapter talking about her fight with breast cancer. This was a stark deviation from the rest of her book, but it definitely humanizes the author a great deal. I found that chapter quite moving.
So, all in all, it’s an okay book. I’ll give it a 6/10 for what it is, basically a political propoganda book. It’s good reading if you’re a fan of Laura Ingraham. If you’re not (and I’m kind of in between), it may or may not be your cup of tea.
Jesse Stay has blogged about the school voucher issue here in Utah. It’s good to see some social and poliical responsibility action on the part of our blogging community!
I’m still torn on the school voucher issue. The referendum is a joke, in my opinion. The original legislative bill passed both the state House of Representatives and the Senate and was signed into law by the governor. The state educators refused to implement the policies of the law and filed legal action. A very long and twisted story short: Voters of Utah get to decide.
In theory, I’m very pro-voucher. Unfortunately, the Utah state legislature had to make some compromises and concessions on this bill to get it passed. Rather than making the voucher system equally available to all, they designed the system to be need-based — based on family income. This, I think, is the flaw.
Public schools get about $6,000 per year per student. The voucher system would give parents who want to send their kids to a private school a voucher worth up to $3,000 for private school tuition. The upside here for public schools is that (a) they get to keep the $3,000 or so left over and (b) they have one fewer child in the classroom. The result, in theory: smaller classes and more money, per student, for the school.
As I mentioned before, my problem is that voucher amount is to be based on family income. This is just flat-out bad policy. The maximum value for a voucher is about $3,000. The only way a family could qualify for this amount is if they’re relatively low-income. Considering the annual tuition for a private schcool is $10-15,000, the family that receives a voucher worth $3,000 is also the family least likely to be able to make up the difference to go toward tuition.
The amount for a school voucher should be be equal for all who qualify.
So, I don’t know which way I will vote on this. The intent of the voucher program is good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging more privatization of education... or anything else the government does.
Now, the other side of this issue has some compelling arguements as well. For example, there are some who say the voucher will be abused by home schoolers. I’ve heard some people say polygamist families will abuse the voucher system to “steal” public funds.
Others say it will be costly for the state to monitor and regulate the private education system to prevent abuse, thereby erasing any cost savings.
Some educators believe vouchers will take all the “good” students out of public schools, making the schools a cesspool for poor-performing students. This would, thereby, make it more difficult for public schools to meet their quotas for No Child Left Behind and other funding metrics. I’m not sure I think this is a bad thing. I don’t think the problem would be as stark as some would want you to believe, but these poor-performing students would be more likely to get the extra attention they need if there were fewer students in a class, right?
The pro-voucher lobby cites studies showing that Utah is on the cusp of a huge student population increase and if we don’t do something to take the pressure off the state public school system, we’ll be facing substantial tax increases to fund the public education system in the near future.
