The Purpose of the Constitution

In my mind the Constitution was designed to have two conflicting goals: (1) create a strong federal government, (2) create a federal government with very limited powers. That is why Tea Parties and conservatives around the country are angry. There are no longer any limits on the power of the federal government.

The problem is described in the scriptures this way:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. D&C 121:39

"Almost all" is pretty inclusive. Too much power in one place invites the worst in people. That's why I would rather power be decentralized to states, counties, and municipalities.

Why I Can't Be Liberal

A person's true colors are revealed by who they look up to.

Many liberals love to parade around about the wrongs committed by America. President Obama had a whole overseas trip apologizing for President Bush. Did Bush make mistakes? Yes. Does America have glaring faults? Yes. America really is the worst nation in the world...

...except for all the rest.

I am sick of liberals talking about how much they love people when they are friends with or fans of genuinely evil world leaders.

Calling conservatives who favor limited government power neanderthals, racists, butchers, and thugs only works if liberals aren't friends with/fans of the Castros (Cuba), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Che Guevara, Che's daughter Aleida Guevara, or Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). They constitute the real thugs, butchers, racists, and neanderthals of the Americas. (To see why I pick on some of those specific thugs, see here.)

No Thanks for Buying My Health Insurance

I'm someone who has spent half of the past three years without any form of health insurance. I had other personal budget priorities and as a single guy in good health, I didn't think it mattered much. (Now that I'm married I sing a different tune.)

Hypothetically, since I have not paid income taxes in several years (not enough income) and haven't had insurance, I should love government provided health insurance. My question is: Why on earth should the taxpayer pay for something I wasn't willing to buy for myself?

My real opposition to health care and welfare in general comes from first hand experience watching the degradation of a society where a sizable proportion of the people receive welfare benefits and generations never rise out of the slums. If people don't have to work they won't. And if people don't work a spiritual darkness descends and holds them down as long as they continue to let it.

I just want my voice on record as opposed to massive new programs that cover the whole nation when the problem was only 10% to 15% of the population. And everybody knows that government spending makes things cost more, not less. So the problem of increasing prices will not slow down unless quality decreases.

I Have Started A Small Business

I worked as a small business consultant while at Texas A&M University. Nothing is better than working with new businesses and helping them develop great business plans and strategy. I am marketing my services around Arizona, but also have an online component. So my small business is designed to help other small businesses.

Go check out TonyBrownMBA.com and leave some comments to let me know what you think so far. It's a pretty simple blog so far, but I built it myself and am pretty happy with it.

Also, I have a suggested reading tab. Let me know what books you think should be up there.

Response to Militant Atheism

Militant atheists like to use evolution as an argument against religion. It only works as an argument against religions that reject evolution. The faiths that have the most problem with evolution also seem to have the most problem with Latter-day Saint claims of modern revelation.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bible is not the only source of truth about where the world came from. In fact, to me the scriptures address the why, and science addresses the how. I expect science to have new things to say about the origins of life and I expect prophets to have new things to say about how to make it better.

Evolution and revelation both fit the reality of an ever-changing and always progressing world.

Economic Growth

Another problem with big government solutions to economic problems is that ALL economic growth comes from small businesses. Small businesses don't do business with the government. At least not new startups. The only thing government can do to promote the growth of small businesses is to get out of the way. Overmuch bureaucracy stifles the kind of creativity needed to make a more prosperous world.

The government can only cultivate an atmosphere where creativity can work freely. They could not have said to Bill Gates in the 70s, 'We think you have a good idea and will give you money to go forward.' Gates would never have amounted to anything had that happened. He had to earn his success to actually achieve it. (I know that sounds a little circular in my reasoning, but I mean it.)

To cultivate a creative atmosphere, there should be a clear set of rules to play by and a limited scope of government so that it is not perpetually gobbling up everything that moves.

Businesses big enough to deal with the billions the government doles out are no solution for a sluggish economy. The very nature of big businesses is that they seek to do more with less. Job one in big business is to increase productivity. So if a big business can do the same jobs with a 10% smaller workforce, they need to either find new things for that 10% to do or cut the workforce.

Growth is a bottom-up, individual, community centered process. Government spending, massive projects, roads, bridges, etc. will never do anything to increase the hiring of a small business. Not the kind that increases national productivity.

I may carve out one exception, and that is some high tech research. The government has more resources for things like that, but the results need to be made available to entrepreneurs and startups so they can come up with new and innovative uses for the technology. But even that I would rather have funded privately.

Economic Leadership

It is easy to lament the state of the economy. Debt rules households, corporations, and government at all levels. But for some reason, the power brokers who have created the vast corporate and government debt haven't been removed from power.

To borrow money and create a false sense of wealth is blatant dishonesty.

This is really a matter of leadership. But the difficulty is deciding who the leader is. Did the attitude of profligate spending start in Washington and households followed suit, or the other way around? Really, the twin debts are mutually reinforcing. And the solution is the same for households and the government. Stop spending more than you make. But that is a very unpopular solution for both.

Politicians or households would rather just have more income. That can work with households, but not so much with politicians. If politicians go for more income they either tax the economy to death or print money which causes inflation to murder the economy.

Role Reversal

Who knew that the day would come when Democrats were the party of big government and big business? Despite all the branding to the opposite, Republicans have become the party of the little guy - the individual investors, the tea partiers, and the small business owners.

In fact, I would almost rather the Republicans be the party of big business, because having Democrats as the party of big government AND big business is a dangerous invitation for corruption.

In an individual business, it is important to separate responsibilities related to money. For example, one person enters checks into the register, one person signs checks, and two separate people make deposits at the bank. Thus you need the dishonesty of several people with competing interests to get robbed by your employees.

If business and government are controlled by one party, there is a big risk for collusion and corruption. I would be concerned with Republicans taking over half the economy just as I am for Democrats taking over half the economy (when you consider bailouts and healthcare and cap-and-trade).

All the current financial difficulties are a result of individual actors making dishonest or foolish choices. The famous old phrase is that society requires obedience to the unenforceable. If there is a lack of honesty, it does not matter the laws on the books, the regulations, or the enforcement in place. Nothing can keep a corrupt culture from financial ruin.

How do you fight this?

This past week there was a US Army major who went on a murderous rampage killing 13 and injuring 31 others. This was not Afghanistan, but deep in the heart of Texas at Fort Hood. This act was undeniable evil. I have exactly zero ill will toward the Muslim faith. But this man's Muslim faith is what drove him to do murder those soldiers as he shouted Allah Akbar.

Mark Steyn has a typically good article talking about the hole in our strategy for dealing with terrorism. He is long on diagnosing the symptoms of our flawed strategy, but short on prescription. Well, here is the prescription:

For too many in the Muslim world there is no love for anyone they disagree with, including other sects of Muslims. Muslim on Muslim violence is probably worse than Muslim on infidel violence.

There is really only one cure for this problem: to strengthen the family. Recently at a BYU Forum, there was a story of a group in Afghanistan working to strengthen families there. The group is called penniesforpeace.org. The speaker was Greg Mortenson and the mp3 of his talk is here.

One key is to educate the women. They then hold their children close to the family and prevent them from being attracted to the Taliban and their lethal version of Islam.

This gives great meaning to the statement in the Family Proclamation:

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

Thus, the terrorism problem very similar to the gang problem in US inner cities. Gangs and the Taliban thrive on the same principle. They prey on the uneducated, those with weak families, and they promote both problems.

The disconnect is that the 9/11 attacks and this week's attack at Fort Hood were perpetrated by educated individuals. But they take their inspiration from the Muslim people who are oppressed by lack of education. Somehow groups like the Taliban and gangs are able to export their poisoned ideologies even to the educated.

How often do people with education think the gang lifestyle is glamorous and love the music that comes from it? It must be the same thing that the educated who are drawn to terrorism find something glamorous in the terrorist message. I am willing to guess that had Nidal Malik Hasan been married that he would have never gone on that murderous rampage.

One of the things mentioned by Greg Mortenson is that the mother has to give approval before a son goes into jihad. Educated women did not give permission. The lack of love in the world preys on the lack of education.

Shouldn't Spending Cuts Be Common Sense?

The federal government is notorious for inefficient use of funds. Every dollar they tax for their own use is less than a dollar put back into the economy to spur economic growth.  Obviously, there are some things only government can do: police, fire, national defense, etc. (I am not being exhaustive, just giving examples.)

When unemployment is high it leads to other things.  Underemployment, for example.  People who are qualified in terms of experience and education, but can't find as high a paying job as they could be worth.  Also, people take part-time work when they would prefer full time.  All three categories (unemployment, underemployment, and part-timers) lead to lower incomes and lower federal income tax receipts. 

And yet, at this very time, the government is creating money from nothing to stimulate the economy.  Newly created dollars decrease the value of savings and debt.  Thus rewarding the bad behavior that caused the economic downturn and punishing those who were responsible with their money and lived within their means.

For anyone who can't turn on the printing press and get more money, it is time to tighten the belt and cut waste.  If that works for everyone else, why not the government?  I have done a fair amount of construction work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and they cut their building budget by almost 75% this year.  Obviously they are a financially sound organization and the federal government is not, but why not have the feds copy what people, businesses, and churches do? 

Cut spending when times are lean.  Sounds simple, right?  Well, not likely with Democrats (or Republicans - let's be fair) in power.  But we can dream, can't we?

Closing Guantanamo

I remember a conversation I had on a Southwest flight to Houston earlier this year. I mentioned it before. One thing I said to him was that President Obama's announcement that closing the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility was just window dressing. It was merely a cosmetic change. He felt like it was genuine change.

I suppose there is still time left this year, but I just want to gloat a little: I was right. The facility is still open and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Those scoundrels held there are dangerous and nobody wants to release them or transfer them to other prisons or other nations' prisons.

That fellow traveler also didn't believe when I told him about released terrorists landing back on the battlefield. He said it was made up by the vast right wing spin machine. I researched that a little more and was right about that as well.

Blogging My Life

Every once in a while, I include personal items on this blog. At some point, those items will land on another blog with my wife. Speaking of my wife, I'm getting married. Here are some of her blog entries about me:

• EFY 2009 Nauvoo
• Tony
• Ever After

I thought I would give a little of my side of the story. There are all kinds of miracles that led to us meeting at EFY this year. I was recruited by a friend to be an EFY counselor in San Antonio in 2008. He met his wife that year at EFY and moved away from College Station. Had I started my degree at Texas A&M a year earlier or a year later, I would not have known about EFY at the right time.

Friends from San Antonio EFY last year went to Nauvoo at the end of that summer. Once I decided to do EFY again, I knew that I wanted to spend two weeks in Nauvoo this summer. But doing EFY meant that I would have to be away from my regular job. So the slow economy made EFY easier to do.

Once at Nauvoo, I needed to have the right group in order to meet Jeri Lin. The coordinators described struggling more than normal when choosing which counselors would work together. After re-shuffling the deck, they grouped counselors together and the last three to be assigned were me and my two female co-counselors. That put me and Jeri Lin in the same group.

I had made decisions over my years home from my mission that I thought would help me find my wife. Long distance relationships were outlawed. And lately, I had only asked out returned sister missionaries. This did several things for me. One was it gave me a hint about her dedication to the Church. The other was that returned sister missionaries are closer to my age. With personal rules like that, it seems unlikely that I would have a young fiancee in Mesa, Arizona.

But after spending a week with Jeri Lin in my group at EFY, I couldn't help being impressed with her. As we toured Old Nauvoo, I was teaching and telling stories. But she also taught our little group of 6 and was telling Church history stories. So I knew she was smart and well read. But what really started impressing me about Jeri Lin as the week went on was her testimony. She had several opportunities to testify during the week. I'm not sure I know anyone for whom the veil is so thin.

At the end of EFY she wrote me a letter thanking me for the week and encouraging me in some of the struggles I shared with her. After reading that letter, I had this thought of "What if?" in my head. But I figured there was no way anything could happen just because of the 1000 miles that would separate us and the 10 years that do separate us.

We started chatting online after getting home and the rest is history. We were both interested, even if we were both surprised the other was. I met her family in September. She meets mine in October. And we will get married in the Mesa Temple in January. Who says miracles don't happen?

I've Been Away

Here's why: http://nextyearinzion.blogspot.com/2009/09/summer-of-miracles.html

Conservative Community Organizer

With a community organizer-in-chief as President of the United States, I have been thinking about what assumptions need to be changed in order to keep America vibrant and dynamic.

• First, people need to be disabused of the idea that the Federal Government does everything. Ceding that much power to faceless, unelected bureaucrats kills local contol.
• Second, liberal community organizers like ACORN have one purpose - to obtain federal money to support their cause. A real "community" organization eschews outside control.
  

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out how many things were accomplished by voluntary associations in America. If people think the feds will do everything, they won't get involved.

I am convinced the only way to really change the course of the country is to have real community organizations who don't get funding from Washington. Concerned citizens will be informed and involved.

Equality?

As long as it is possible for differences in outcomes (i.e. there are both rich and poor people in society), there will be winners and losers. People have differing skills, talents, work ethics, education, opportunities, and a little luck. Some people are uncomfortable with inequality, and extreme inequality is bad for society; if only a very few control all the profits, then the standard of living for society at large will be harmed,

The only option other than differences in outcomes is that everyone is poor. So guaranteeing similar results would be bad for society. The main role governments should strive to fill is to make sure there is equality of opportunity. Equality on the front end is actually possible, while equality on the back end is impossible without spreading misery equally.

Equality on the front end means people can obtain education, avoid discrimination, and that the broader economy is growing so that there are ample jobs to replace those displaced by economic “creative destruction.”

Poor People Are Good For The Economy

I had a conversation on a Southwest flight a couple of months ago with a liberal fellow who was an environmental consultant for mass transit (as I remember). He had a few interesting points. One was that he spoke well of Jimmy Carter (specifically about solar panels being put on the White House - which Ronald Reagan removed). I had never heard positive words about Carter before.

His other point was about food stamps. He said the math works out to about $4 a day for food. His complaint was that you can't live off that. If I were quicker with words, I would have said, "Good." I don't want foods stamps or welfare to be too comfortable. Otherwise, people will be satisfied with government largesse.

Poverty and hunger can be a strong motivator. Handouts breed laziness. In fact, handouts likely decrease prosperity for those who receive them. In my international economics textbook, I read that the same phenomenon occurs with government aid. International aid has nothing to do with improving economic growth.

Besides, in the United States people are generous and eager to help those around them. Private initiatives to relieve suffering are more important anyway. And private help, unlike government help, is designed to be temporary; when people no longer need help, they will be able to stand on their own two feet.

My grandpa was a branch president for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Dumas, Texas about 45 years ago. He was working with a family facing some economic hard times and was using Church resources to provide work for them so they could earn money. Another member of the branch was employed by the government welfare program, and had the needy family placed on welfare. His reasoning was that if he didn't have enough people on welfare, he would lose funding. Once the family was on welfare, the were not interested in working.

With too much easy money, a generation is raised to believe that they are owed something by society. Nothing could be more dangerous to long-term economic growth than an increasing population not producing anything, but who demands a great deal. So poor people are good for the economy, if, and only if, they are given the motivation to rise from their poverty. In this country, there is plenty of opportunity, so if someone doesn't grab it, it is because they don't try.

What Do Tea Parties Mean?

I heard reports of several of those Tax Day Tea Parties. It sounds like even smaller locations had thousands in attendance. There were certainly hundreds of thousands nationwide who attended. Just one tally of locations had over 134,000 people attending rallies across the country. And just think, ACORN didn't even have to bribe any of the protesters to show up.

Due to work, I was unable to attend the closest tea party, but I was there in spirit. If I was there I might have seen something like this: I have to feel sorry for the reporter. She is likely to become one of the most ridiculed people in the nation.

I think Obama has reawakened an American ideal from the Greatest Generation: hatred of debt. My grandparents were children of the Depression and saved and lived modestly their whole lives. They were not going to take any big trips like Hawaii until "their ship came in." By the time they were both near 80 they had a great retirement fund, but were too old to travel extensively. When my sister and I were both off to college, they moved to Houston to be near more of their grandkids. They paid off their new house in less than 5 years. They were not slaves to debt like most of America seems to be today.

People like the reporter above don't get that taxes are not necessarily the problem with the government today. Taxes are still relatively low because of the Bush tax cuts. But they expire soon. And everyone knows that debt must be repaid. The size of government is the problem. If government expands freedom is curtailed. (Some freedom should be curtailed, like the freedom to do dog fighting or steal identities.)

If government grows now, taxes MUST increase in the future. That is the problem. And that is why so many families were at those protests with their children. Parents want to leave America better than they found it, and profligate debt will make that impossible.

The best protest sign in the pictures says:

OBAMA: CHAINS YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

UPDATE: Apparently CNN has taken down the vidoe that makes them look so bad. Here is another version with that same "reporter" discussing things with another protester: That lady is correct, Republicans and Democrats are dirty, and both are to blame for excessive spending.

Apparently I am an Extremist

Just in case anyone from DHS reads my blog, I am no threat to national security. This report is ridiculous. Check out this footnote:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So lets get it straight, supporting federalism, opposing abortion, or distrusting broadening federal powers makes you an extremist.

Page 3 has a great line:

Anti-Semitic extremists attribute [recent financial] losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”

This report is so broad it means nothing. The so-called rightwing of this country is constantly accused of Israel-loving. And yet now they are anti-Semites.

Even better is this line on the next page:

Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.

Now all Mormons are part of the dangerous rightwing movement. The name of the Church has "Latter-day" in it for crying out loud. We have a long tradition of prophecies about the collapse of corrupt government, and have been counseled to stockpile food since the Great Depression. That proves it. We are a threat to the country.

Holy smokes.

Want a little more? Here:

Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

There goes the First Amendment. I am a little tired of the idea that opposing amnesty makes you anti-immigration or racist. Come here legally and adopt American culture and language and you will be welcomed with open arms. (Oh, and don't just immigrate to fill our welfare roles.) The crimes committed by gangs of illegal immigrants is far more dangerous than anything the rightwing extremist might do. The next section promises to threaten the Second Amendment.

Of course this comes out just in time for the Tax Day Tea Parties tomorrow. Everyone who attends is probably considered a threat by Obama's Administration. The thing is it is a genuine grassroots effort. These things have spontaneously sprung up all across the country. No one person can take credit for this (except perhaps Obama).

The threats of violence need to be taken seriously, but this report is broad enough to label everyone who voted against Obama as a threat to public safety. There is nothing specific enough for law enforcement agencies to act on in this report. Things probably haven't changed a lot, but the safest parts of the country last time I heard tend to be more conservative.

Gay Marriage is No Longer About Gay Marriage

I have come to a realization. The gay marriage debate isn't even about gay marriage. The same is true of other cultural battles going on in the nation today. I don't know when the switch was made. It may have been recently, or I may have just noticed it.

The gay marriage and abortion debate are all about the freedom of religion. In a very real way, those who oppose gay marriage and abortion for religious regions are considered second-class citizens by those in the highest levels of government today.

I have been reading how Obama is working on removing a protection put in place in the last days of the Bush administration. That protection allowed doctors who have moral objections to abortion not to perform that act.

This video is from a group dedicated to defending marriage and highlights a few real examples of the gay marriage debate going much further that gay marriage.

To Continue the Ongoing Discussion:

A fair response.

My favorite of your links was the one on Wartime Prosperity. I now agree that it was not WWII that got us out of the Depression. It really didn't end until after WWII was over in 1945. It makes sense that war would not increase prosperity. It channels goods and production capacity away from the private sector. The prosperity came after war production capacity was shifted to consumer production.

I read a fantastic book last week called The Venturesome Economy. I will probably put my analysis up on this blog at some point. The author gives some strong arguments on what increases the prosperity of a society.

I actually agree with your points 3, 4, and 5. Just to back up your links in point 5, here is a link from 1999 that predicted some of the recent economic bailouts. The social science research shows that home ownership is generally good for society. So the policy gurus (in both parties) naturally tried to increase home ownership. They assumed correlation equaled causality. In other words, because people who owned their own homes commit fewer crimes they wanted to make it easier for more to own homes.

A more appropriate causality would be certain stabilizing decisions (like a steady job, controlling debt, pursuing education, etc.) are the cause of both low crime and home ownership. Lowering the standards of home ownership did nothing to prevent crime.

The only objection I have is you relying on Media Matters to refute the accusations against Barney Frank. They are at least as partisan as Rush Limbaugh.

I do agree that appropriate regulation would have prevented much of this mess, but the idea that Barney Frank is guiltless is almost laughable.

Here are a couple of videos: