Is America Losing its Soul?

It is interesting to look at the things people think Obama's election means for the future of the country. My biggest worry is that something like universal healthcare will pass. People don't like the results of a relatively free market determining who gets medical treatment, but I don't trust the government to do anything better.

The bigger problem is the cultural implications of the nation wanting universal healthcare. What has happened to the American independent spirit which drives people to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps? If healthcare pases this time, it will be because most Americans want it. That is more troubling than the results to the healthcare system.

Looking to government to solve every little problem is a slippery slope to mediocrity. Just look at all the financial bailouts. There is no way passing out money like this will make any of these businesses successful in the long run. Now any business in trouble will come, hat in hand, to Washington asking for money. They will say they are "too big to fail" or "too many jobs are at risk". That is no way to create innovation and economic growth.

Preach On Brother!

This is one of the reasons I wanted Mitt Romney to do better this cycle. No one makes more sense about the economy that Mitt:

Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending — more economic bang for the federal buck. We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. These actions will rapidly expand consumption and investment, and right now, time is of the essence.

The federal government is a black hole. Letting them keep too much money will dampen future economic growth.

Encouraging News From Across the Pond

I found this interesting:

The Tories understand that the only way of reducing the size of the state is to cut the demand for government services by strengthening civil society. They understand, finally, that the Left has lost the war on poverty. And they are rediscovering that conservatism is at its best when politicians support and never supplant the Burkean little platoons of family, voluntary organization, and local school.

Society is only stable when citizens obey the unenforceable. This article seems to indicate that some in Britain are starting to recognize that that can only be cultivated by families.

Senate for Sale and Secret Combinations

I know there is a lot of money in politics, but the governor of Illinois tried to give Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder. Luckily the rule of law still matters here. In corrupt political systems, there is only one way to get ahead: you play the game. When in Rome...

Thinking internationally, no one can get ahead in Pakistan, Bangladesh, or any other place like that without playing the local game. Which is why reform is so difficult. The only way to get power is to play by the rules. If the rules are corruption and conspiracy that is what you do.

Which is what makes Obama's image so interesting. His groupies consider him a messiah figure. Rush made me laugh today:

Jesus walked on water. Obama apparently walks on a cesspool and is untainted by it.

The thing is, Obama got to the top by playing the game. Once out of Chicago, he shed those who helped him rise up as fast as possible: "That's not the _____ I knew."

Obama choosing Gates says to me that he is playing by slightly different rules to get the same goal. He wants as much power as possible, so he will not do anything too crazy right off. The only Democrat presidents in his memory are Clinton and Carter. I wonder which president he will pattern himself after more closely.

Pleasantly Surprised

I have to admit being pleasantly surprised by the picks Obama has made as he as assembled his cabinet. The people mad at him for choosing Robert Gates to continue as the Secretary of Defense are all the people I want mad about foreign policy. Sec. Gates is beloved here in Aggieland from his time as president of Texas A&M University.

My first time on campus was the week President Bush chose Dr. Gates to be the new SecDef. I was attending my first Midnight Yell at Kyle Field just before the Nebraska game in 2006. Dr. Gates spoke to the students for the last time. They have placed a monument on campus honoring the fight against terrorism. This is the plaque on that monument:

Gadiantons All Around

This is a fascinating take on the recent terrorist bloodbath in India. I don't personally think there will be any good solution to the terrorist problem no matter whose strategy is used. Evil men see a way to get power for themselves. The money quote from that article is this:

Violence in Kashmir, the principal bone of contention between India and Pakistan since 1947, is on the decline...

This is precisely what the terrorists don’t want, of course. It’s the fact that tensions over Kashmir are diminishing that prompted them to attack on the November 28 — just as al-Qaeda blew up Samarra’s Golden Mosque in Iraq back in 2006 in order to keep Shias and Sunnis hating and killing each other. The illusion that formal agreements between peoples and governments — whether between India and Pakistan or Israel and the Palestinian Authority — can somehow defuse the terrorist problem was the among the first casualties in Mumbai. Terrorists see it the other way around: the relaxation of tensions is a problem requiring bloodshed.

Islamic terrorists don’t want justice or respect for their beliefs, or restoration of some imaginary homeland. They want violence and death.

The complaints of the terrorist groups sound a lot like Lamanite and Gadianton complaints from the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 10:12-17; Alma 54:16-24; and 3 Nephi 3:2-10). The inclusion of descriptions of modern terrorist tactics is just another witness that Joseph Smith - or anyone else in the 1820's - could not have fabricated the Book of Mormon. The only explanation is that Joseph was inspired to translate the writings of ancient prophets.

Book of Mormon Burning Fascists

I just ran across this editorial at NationalReview.com. I hadn't heard about the Book of Mormon being burned and left at the Denver Temple. The money quotes:

a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

and

They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

Parts of the gay rights movement is quickly approaching modern fascism.

What If Prop 8 Lost?

I was reading this from Orson Scott Card tonight and it prompted the question: What if Prop 8 lost? Citing Helaman 16:20-21, Card had this insight about the "No on 8" crowd:

Their story is that we Mormons somehow oppress them and force them; they claim to be our victims. And yet they are the ones who tried to force us to accept their radical change through judicial edict, rejecting a clear majority vote only a few years before.

How would things look different if Prop 8 were defeated? The first thing would be that the gay movement would be hailing this a huge victory and a repudiation of each member of the coalition for Prop 8. This would be the first electoral victory for the gay movement; all they have now are some court decisions decided by one justice.

With the Prop 8 victory, states are 30/30 in passing marriage amendments for state constitutions. Had this been defeated in California, it would have spread to other states. California has long been a bellwether for laws and regulations soon to be passed in other states.

Another major difference is that the "Yes on 8" crowd would not be illegally protesting in the streets. (Protesting is fine, but most of the early protests were without permits.) There would be no meaningful call to boycott Google and Apple, who both opposed Prop 8. There would be no vandalism against churches who opposed Prop 8. There would not likely be any lawsuits to overturn the democratic process.

Basically, the "No on 8" crowd is doing exactly what they are accusing us of doing. At the same time, they are proving correct the fears of the "Yes on 8" campaign: there have been lots of calls to remove the tax exempt status of churches involved.

Liberty and Security

I have often heard this little quote from Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Many who opposed President Bush's actions in the War on Terror loved that quote. They cite problems with the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and a host of other issues. The thing is, there is another way to consider that quote.

What kinds of liberty will we be giving up if there is nationalized healthcare? What about the massive government bailouts for a host of industries? Are there other problems coming which will cause people to turn to the government for solutions? My observation is that any time the government tries to solve a problem, it causes more.

If there is no incentive to work, there will be no prosperity. Individuals may worry about the cost of healthcare, job security, or anything else, but giving up liberty to get safety is a dangerous path. The intrusion of government into every aspect of life is accelerating at a breakneck pace. If this recession gets too deep, there will be a wave of sentiment to have government bail out more industries, individuals, and then everyone will be on the government dole.

Then we will have neither prosperity nor safety, and Ben Franklin will be proven correct: They who give up liberty to obtain safety, will lose both liberty and safety.

The Real Thanksgiving

Freedom, private property, and personal responsibility work every time they are tried.

Is the Church Being Unfairly Singled Out?

I would have to say probably so. I immediately follow that by asking, "So what?" As I read Church history, every time there has been massive persecution, great blessings have followed. There may be some members of the Church who struggle with the Church choosing to be involved in Prop 8.

My hope is that far more will be strengthened by the opposition they face right now. To see the temple protested against may well help us realize the blessing the temple really is. There will be people attracted to the Church by its unwavering adherence to standards.

Those Who Disagree

I had a realization this morning about the debate over same-sex marriage. There is some portion of the population who opposed Prop 8 who are not gay themselves, but don't think marriage is a moral issue. When marriage is looked at as optional for strait people, then one of the most compelling reasons against gay marriage evaporates.

The moral standard that matters is that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. All kinds of things have attacked that standard over the last 50 years or so: no-fault divorce, the increasing frequency of divorce, the cultural expectation of couples shacking up for a while to try out 'marriage-lite' before making the real commitment, and yes, the push to promote gay marriage as the moral equal of heterosexual marriage.

Society has a vested interest in the success of marriage. There are decades of research studies showing the disastrous effects of divorce on women and children. Poverty, bad behavior in schools, crime, and the likelihood of the children getting divorces all increase when parents separate. Even the divorce of parents of adult children has bad consequences.

This culture needs to push back against more than just gay marriage. There is only one way to accomplish that. Hearts and minds need to be changed - one at a time if necessary.

Alma told us how to do it and it is incredibly difficult:

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God (Alma 31:5).

To change hearts today, after more than a generation of neglect, will require miracles greater than the parting of the Red Sea. Notice that the children of Israel who saw that miracle could not abide the commandments of Moses. They wanted to go back to Egypt when things got tough. They told Moses:

For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness (Exodus 14:12).

The Lord had to raise an entire generation for 40 years in the wilderness before he could take these people to the Promised Land. Has modern society been in the wilderness long enough, or do we need more trouble before we will collectively listen to the commandments of the Lord? Based on the prophesies of the last days, my money is on more trouble coming.

No wonder prophets, seers, and revelators were inspired to give us this document 13 years ago:

We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Defending Our Constitutional Rights

I have been amazed to see the protests against the Church. As a religious body, we have a right and responsibility to speak out on moral issues. Additionally, we need to prevent future erosion of our constitutional rights. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, there will be discrimination suits and some will try to take away to Church's right to solemnize marriages.

Bishops could lose that authority from the state because they will never perform gay marriages and the Temples would no longer hold the legal authority to perform marriages. Luckily, the sealing power is beyond the reach of man. But Mormon couples could be forced to visit the justice of the peace to be legally married before the (eternally more important) sealing took place inside.

The anger of the pro-gay-marriage lobby after passing Prop 8 proves that they would not hesitate to take away our Constitutional rights if the electoral winds had been at their back.

I think it may be a good time for President Monson to have asked the Church to pray that new nations may be opened to the preaching of the Gospel. It kinda feels like the effectiveness of American missionary work is going to sharply decline.

On Prop 8

I know Prop 8 just passed in California, but I just found this webpage supporting the traditional definition of marriage: http://www.preservingmarriage.org/index.html. This is an official webpage of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They had this video which has several important arguments in favor of the constitutional definition of marriage:
The most important reasons in my view are that religious charities might be forced to stop adoption services like the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. Also, public schools would be forced to teach same-sex marriage. To redefine marriage would be a frontal assault on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Without the First Amendment, the whole founding founding of this nation is made meaningless.

I have also heard how some of the fringes who opposed Prop 8 are threatening Mormon Temples and other Christian and Jewish meetinghouses for groups in the coalition that was in favor of Prop 8. That is just sad.

Update: I like this video as well:There are some who claim that opposing same-sex marriage means you are homophobic.

While I am unloading links on the importance of preserving marriage, this is a Forum given October 28, 2008 at BYU by Professor Robert P. George, professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. There is a free MP3 on the linked page.

Is This Creepy?

I just ran across this website: www.change.gov. Notice the .gov ending. This is an official government website.

I just want to ask. Is it more creepy that they (a) have it at all (b) have it so quickly or (c) that it screams cult of personality?

It is as if change were a virtue in and of itself. There are a lot of things in life I would like to see change.

Politically, I would love to see an actual two party system. Other than tax cuts and foreign policy, the Bush administration has seemed a lot like a Democrat administration. No Child Left Behind was written by Ted Kennedy. The farm bills were massively bloated. Congressional earmarks unacceptably ballooned. The prescription drug bill expanded government. The Department of Homeland Security is a massive, new, unmanageable bureaucracy which combined several existing bureaucracies.

The financial bailouts have essentially nationalized the banking and insurance industries. Once government gets its hands in the pot, they rarely have the self control to get out. If they nationalize the auto industry, then that will be one more death knell to the free market. Nationalizing the economy will stifle innovation.

I hope I am wrong about Obama and his policies, but his increased taxes are aimed at where I intend to be within a few years. Increasing capital gains taxes from 15% to 24% will instantly decrease the value of stocks and real estate by 11%.

Change? We'll See

My dad listened to Obama's speech last night and his comment was, "That almost sounded normal." Everyone already knew Obama gives a good speech. I remember actually liking his speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention. The real test will be when the rubber hits the road and he starts proposing legislation and enacting his policies.

No matter who won last night, there has not been an incoming president with the deck so stacked against him in a long time. There are several layers of the financial crisis that have not even started to unravel yet. The world is going crazy around us and it is likely to get worse before it gets better. Obama has a small window to enact his change, but if he doesn't get results quickly, there will be large blocs of his supporters who will be very angry.

As a past and future small business owner, I am not happy about his tax policies aimed at me. As far as Obama standing up to his party, I am not holding my breath - he hasn't done it before.

The New Deal was (and will be) a Raw Deal

It drive me crazy that some people still love the New Deal despite how it will soon bankrupt our society. And an Obama administration will expand it. The only way to "spread the wealth" as Obama claims to want is to encourage massive economic growth. Taxing those companies and entrepreneurs who are the very engine of growth will not accomplish that.

Check this article out:

The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought, to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral...These policies did break the downward spiral. But, as Amity Shlaes points out in The Forgotten Man, they failed to restore growth.

Lower Corporate Taxes!

It's pretty funny. When designing employee incentive packages, you need to reward those things that are good for your business so the employee will want the same things as you. But sometimes, there are unintended consequences.

A software company wanted its programmers to find and fix bugs in the program and they gave them a bonus for each bug they fixed. Sounds good, right? Except the programmers fixing the bugs were the same ones who wrote the software. They purposefully wrote bugs into the software to increase their bonuses on the back end. The result was buggy software and lots of bonuses for the programmers.

The same thing is true in government and taxes. If the government wants to decrease a particular activity, they tax it. Tobacco and alcohol are an example of this. (Except they don't really want these to go away because they are cash cows for the government. They tax enough to maximize revenue without making them go away.)

Companies that make products that have a good substitute and high taxes will go out of business. Just look at when Congress wanted to tax the rich and placed a massive tax on yachts. Over 7000 jobs were lost in New England ship building areas.

The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. The only logical conclusion is that Congress doesn't want new startup businesses, job growth, business expansion, higher wages, or stronger imports and exports. The only thing higher taxes does is increase the size of government. Oh, wait, that is what government wants: bigger government.


(h/t NRO)

From Ezra Taft Benson

I ran across this remarkable discussion on the proper role of government. It is especially important viewing the 2001 interview where Obama said he wants to shred the Constitution. Obama said that

he is frustrated that the Warren Court "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

Here are some of the money quotes from Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture and Mormon Prophet: (This ended up lots longer than I expected. Sorry. It is all worth the read though.)

- Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.

- I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny.

- If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.

- I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything. As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" (The Red Carpet, p.142)

- It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states.

- A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

These two just blew me away after the Obama quote that surfaced this week:

- [O]nce government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.

- [A]s history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone sufffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom.

- [N]o government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth.

This one sounds a lot like where Pelosi, Reid, and Obama will take us:

- The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail.

- As Henry David Thoreau explained:

"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

(Caps in original)

- Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.

Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.

Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

- On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent. "What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice question. Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in.

- In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed.

- The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we have come to accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND POWER SEEKERS.

This republic seems ready to implode economically. I have supported Bush overall when he has done things that I felt were wrong (farm bills, prescription drugs, NCLB, profligate spending, etc.), but these bailouts have set a dangerous precedent. If Obama wins, as it looks like he will, there will be nothing to stop the destruction of the American Entrepreneurial Spirit. It will not die overnight, but the best and brightest will seek greener pastures. At least I don't live in a blue state to be oppressed by the state AND federal governments. And Obama's teacher union controlled educational policy will prevent the development of a new generation of the best and brightest.

Dividing Church and State

I sometimes feel weird ranting about politics and having my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the same page. In order to more appropriately delineate between the sacred and the profane, I have created a new blog to store items of a religious nature: Next Year In Zion.The name comes from a motto Joseph Smith adopted after the Saints were expelled from Jackson County, Missouri.