Newt Makes a lot of Sense

Here is some of what Newt Gingrich had to say about the current economic mess. Sounds about right to me:

Before D.C. Gets Our Money, It Owes Us Some Answers

Watching Washington rush to throw taxpayer money at Wall Street has been sobering and a little frightening.

We are being told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a plan which will shift $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the taxpayer.

We are being warned that this $700 billion bailout is the only answer to a crisis.

We are being reassured that we can trust Secretary Paulson "because he knows what he is doing".

Congress had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy.

Imagine that the political balance of power in Washington were different.

If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a “no” vote.

If a Democratic administration were proposing this plan, Republicans would realize that having Connecticut Democratic senator Chris Dodd (the largest recipient of political funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as chairman of the Banking Committee guarantees that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Paulson plan that will emerge will be much worse as legislation than it started out as the Paulson proposal.

If this were a Democratic proposal, Republicans would remember that the Democrats wrote a grotesque housing bailout bill this summer that paid off their left-wing allies with taxpayer money, which despite its price tag of $300 billion has apparently failed as of last week, and could expect even more damage in this bill.

But because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.

It’s time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.

Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.

Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.

Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.

Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.

There are four major questions that have to be answered before Congress adopts a new $700 billion burden for the American taxpayer. On each of these questions, I believe Congress’s answer will be “no” if it slows down long enough to examine the facts.

Question One: Is the current financial crisis the only crisis affecting the economy?

Answer: There are actually multiple crises hurting the economy.

There is an immediate crisis of liquidity on Wall Street.

There is a longer time crisis of a bad energy policy transferring $700 billion a year to foreign countries (so foreign sovereign capital funds are now using our energy payments to buy our companies).

There is a longer term crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley (the last "crisis"-inspired congressional disaster) crippling entrepreneurial start ups, driving public companies private, driving smart business people off public boards, and driving offerings from New York to London.

There is a long term crisis of a high corporate tax rate driving business out of the United States.

No solution to the immediate liquidity crisis should further cripple the American economy for the long run. Instead, the liquidity solution should be designed to strengthen the economy for competition in the world market.


Question Two: Is a big bureaucracy solution the only answer?

Answer: There is a non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.

Four reform steps will have capital flowing with no government bureaucracy and no taxpayer burden.

First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market.

Second, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy Mac. It failed with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. I spent three days this week in Silicon Valley. Everyone agreed Sarbanes-Oxley was crippling the economy. One firm told me they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. Its Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

Third, match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax. Private capital will flood into Wall Street with zero capital gains and it will come at no cost to the taxpayer. Even if you believe in a static analytical model in which lower capital gains taxes mean lower revenues for the Treasury, a zero capital gains tax costs much less than the Paulson plan. And if you believe in a historic model (as I do), a zero capital gains tax would lead to a dramatic increase in federal revenue through a larger, more competitive and more prosperous economy.

Fourth, immediately pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income the American economy would boom and government revenues would grow.


Question Three: Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?

Answer: Implementation of the Paulson plan is going to be a mess. It is going to be a great opportunity for lobbyists and lawyers to make a lot of money. Who are the financial magicians Paulson is going to hire? Are they from Wall Street? If they’re from Wall Street, aren't they the very people we are saving? And doesn’t that mean that we’re using the taxpayers’ money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money? Won't this inevitably lead to crony capitalism? Who is going to do oversight? How much transparency is there going to be? We still haven't seen the report which led to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is "secret". Is our $700 billion going to be spent in "secret" too? In practical terms, will a bill be written in public so people can analyze it? Or will it be written in a closed room by the very people who have been collecting money from the institutions they are now going to use our money to bail out?

Question Four: In two months we will have an election and then there will be a new administration. Is this plan something we want to trust to a post-Paulson Treasury?

Answer: We don’t know who will inherit this plan.

The balance of power on election day will shift to either McCain or Obama. Who will they pick for Treasury Secretary? What will their allies want done? We are about to give the next administration a level of detailed control over big companies on a scale even FDR did not exercise during the Great Depression. Is this really wise?

For these reasons I hope Congress will slow down and have an open debate.

And in the course of that debate, I hope someone will introduce an economic recovery act that makes America a better place to grow jobs. I hope the details will be made public before the vote.

For more details on my action plan for getting the American economy back on track and building long-term economic prosperity, you can read this message recorded yesterday to American Solutions members.

This is a very important week for the integrity of the Congress.

This is a very important week for the future of America.

If Washington wants our money, then it owes us some answers.

The Perfect Storm

What an interesting time to live in. I just had Hurricane Ike skirt near me. My neck of the woods just got a little rain and wind. As far as power outages go, the counties all around mine were hit harder. I was very fortunate. It is not far to places that were devastated.

I am inclined to pay the "What if?" game. What if world events combined into the perfect storm? Here is my list off the top of my head, in no particular order, of big problems:

- Mortgage crisis - this thing is just getting started. There are mortgages not as bad as the sub-primes that have not gone sour yet. Lots of mortgages were granted to people who didn't verify their income (or exaggerated their income). Just wait.

- All credit dries up and there is nothing left to stimulate the economy until the mortgage crisis is cleaned up.

- All the sovereign wealth funds and foreign investors lose trust in the US economy and stop investing here. That hurts the economy.

- Pakistan - Musharraf is gone and crazies may be have closer ties to the power (and nukes).

- Iran - Mahmoud Ahmidenijad is nuts.

- Venezuela - Chavez is also nuts.

- Russia, loaded with petro-wealth, is looking to become a bear again. With a dying population, they know they need to make a move now to regain old power.

- The US Dollar weakens because the American consumer has nothing extra for anything other than oil.

- Food shortages caused by commodity price inflation.

- Disease running rampant across Africa and other places.

Now, what if all these things blew up - literally and figuratively - at once? I think John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden should all be sent to the loony bin and tested for insanity for seeking the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. No wonder so few actually want that job. It is entirely possible that things will work out well in the end (if the time horizon is long enough, it always works out). I could just be worried because I graduate soon and need to find my way through murky water.

I have my preference on the winner of the next election, but I pray that God helps whoever wins to use the power of the Presidency well. We can't afford to have a president chasing windmills.

This From My Favorite Writer

OK, at least one of my favorites, Jay Nordlinger:

Loved something a senior politician told us in Minnesota: It’s hard to run against the Democrats. Because they’re the party that proposes to give people free stuff. And it’s very, very hard to run against people promising free stuff. You have to say, “We, by contrast, will give you the opportunity to make your own way, while keeping a net under you lest you fall too far.”

A Fascinating Article

Camille Pagila has written a fascinating article about Sarah Palin as McCain's VP pick. She may be the most honest liberal writer I have read.

My favorite excerpt:

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism -- one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

From the rest of the article, it is apparent that I would agree with Camille Pagila on very little in the political world. But (as least in this one article) she seems like the kind of opponent where you can state policy preferences, disagree, and let the people decide.

Obama's Speech Last Week

I figured I would listen to Obama's speech from the DNC last week. I knew it would make me crazy.

A few thoughts: Obama says privatizing Social Security is gambling your retirement. That is ridiculous. People of my generation will never see Social Security unless it gets privatized. The real gamble is to think there will be any Social Security to support retirement at all. No thanks. I am not going to rely on the government for my retirement.

Obama cites the fundamental belief that "I am my brother's keeper." Sounds nice, but the government is notoriously poor at helping anyone. The more that is left in private citizens' hands, the more generous they are. As Reagan said, "The most frightening words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I am here to help.'"

Obama thinks we can end dependency on foreign oil in 10 years. I will call a big BS on that. It will take 20 to 25 years to pull that off. The technology is not even close to viable.

I like the idea of going through the federal budget and slashing programs. The problem with Obama is the people he keeps near him who will influence what he slashes. I bet it will not be deep enough.

Kudos to Obama about what he said about parenthood and fatherhood.

"If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from." Sounds like what Obama's supporters do to McCain and Palin.

Obama correctly chides Republicans about the deficit and spending, but the problem is that they have been acting like Democrats. Obama's proposals will do nothing but expand government and raise taxes on corporations. I wonder what they will do under a higher tax burden. Oh, wait. They will move overseas, raise prices, and cut their workforce.

"Republicans who never thought they would pick up a Democrat ballot, but did." Thank you Operation Chaos. Hehehe.

Overall, a well delivered speech, but I still have no idea what Obama has actually accomplished. He talks a lot about change, but I have no clue about his ability to deliver on it. Besides that, the change he talks about sounds pretty scary.

Faith to Stand Fast

I had the chance to speak at Church today. Here is the text:

Brothers and sisters, I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But I have no idea why some of the things I pray for most earnestly are not granted. On some things it seems like Heaven is silent. It could be that I ask the wrong questions. There is a story from the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. Parley was one of the early missionaries in the Church and faced severe persecution in some areas where he labored. In one location, he was unjustly imprisoned. He prayed and prayed to know when he would get out of prison. Eventually, Parley reduced his prayer to: “Will I get out of prison?” That night an angel visited Parley and said, “Yes, you will be freed.” Parley responded: “When?”

Faith in God also includes faith in His timing. That is why it requires faith to stand fast. Faith is trust that God will keep his promises. In Alma’s classic definition, faith is “hope for things which are not seen, which are true” (Alma 32:17).

The Father of the Faithful
Abraham is such an example of faith in God’s ability to fulfill His promises that he is known as the father of the faithful. God had promised Abraham something impossible. At 100 years old, Abraham was as good as dead. His wife, Sara, was only 10 years younger. For them to have a son was impossible. Abraham essentially said, ‘so what?’ The scriptural phrase is, “he staggered not… through unbelief.” God promises impossible things and delivers. In Abraham’s mind, having the promise of God was as good as the promise already being fulfilled. Abraham was “fully persuaded that, what [God] had promised, he was able also to perform” (Romans 4:18-21).

Joseph Smith had the kind of faith we are talking about from his earliest days. When he found James 1:5 – which reads: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” – he had no doubt that God would answer his prayer.

Developing Faith
Faith like Abraham or Joseph Smith does not come by accident. There are some specific things we can do to help nurture our own faith. In the Book of Mormon, Alma compares the word of God to a seed and shows that if faith is nourished, it can grow until it brings forth fruit.

One of the first requirements Alma cites for the nourishment of faith is humility. Anyone who is not teachable will not develop faith. Next, Alma instructs us to “give place” in our hearts for the seed to be planted (Alma 32:28). There are several things we can do to give place for the word of God: read the scriptures, attend church and participate in the class discussions, and attend Institute. I am amazed at how the lessons at Institute are so often exactly what I have needed to hear to strengthen my faith. By placing myself in settings where the Spirit can speak to me, I have been reminded that God knows me and loves me.

When nourished, the fruit from the seed of the word of God will begin to “enlarge my soul” and “enlighten my understanding” (Alma 32:28). The fruit is the gifts of the Spirit: charity, testimony, miracles, prophecy, revelation, visions, and healing. These gifts teach us that God loves us and how we can show our love for Him – by serving others. Eventually, Alma describes the fruit as “the fruit of the tree of life” (Alma 32:40). So the ultimate fruit is to live again with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Remember the Covenants: Past, Present, and Future
We often sing of the Lord: “We’ve proved Him in days that are past” (Hymns 19). God’s kept promises give us reason for hope. Our individual and collective experiences give us ample reason to trust in the Lord.

One of THE purposes of the Book of Mormon is to show all Israel “the covenants (or promises) of the Lord” (Title Page). Alma taught: “For he will fulfil all his promises which he shall make unto you, for he has fulfilled his promises which he has made unto our fathers” (Alma 37:17, emphasis added). Alma helps us have faith in God’s promises to us by reminding us of the promises already fulfilled to ancient Israel.

Nephi had to constantly remind his wayward brothers of the great things the Lord had done for their fathers in delivering them from Egypt. He says: “And now, if the Lord has such great power, and has wrought so many miracles among the children of men, how is it that he cannot instruct me, that I should build a ship?” (1 Nephi 17:51). We need to constantly ask that same question: ‘how is it that the Lord cannot instruct me?’

Faith in the Promises
The problem that led Joseph Smith to pray in 1820 was “they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS-H 1:19). They didn’t believe the promises. If we don’t believe the promises, we are no different. The Lord has made tremendous promises to us – in the scriptures, through modern prophets, but also in our patriarchal blessings. Do we believe what the Lord has promised us there? Of all people, we should have faith in God’s promises.

Luke asked, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). In the Lord’s preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, he said one purpose of the Restoration was “that faith may increase in the earth” (D&C 1:21). Without the gospel context of promises and covenants, there would be no faith - or at least not much faith – on the earth.

I served my mission in Philadelphia. One of the most heartrending things I saw was the lack of intact families. It seemed that very few had fathers in the whole city. The missing fathers imply broken promises, or at least promises that should have been made but never were. The phrase from the parable of the sheep and goats: “As ye have done it unto one of the least of these… ye have done it unto me” certainly applies to breaking or keeping promises to our families (Matthew 25:40).

Broken promises are like wrecking balls leaving individuals, families, communities, and nations in shambles. Rightly did modern prophets warn that the disintegration of the family would bring destruction (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World).

Mortal life is specifically structured so that we may learn to be like our Heavenly Father. We learn firsthand the disastrous consequences of un-kept promises, infidelity, and the lack of faith. We also have the opportunity to make the most important kinds of promises: sacred covenants, the keeping of which will activate the power of the atonement in our lives.

Joseph Smith taught that “Being born again comes by the spirit of God through ordinances” (TPJS 162). Or, in other words, being born again comes by the Spirit through making and keeping promises.

Faith to Anchor the Souls of Men
Our faith in Jesus Christ allows the possibility of hope strong enough to anchor the souls of men (see Ether 12:4). When God makes a promise, He delivers. Ultimate hope, hope in the resurrection through Jesus Christ, is what Moroni calls “a more excellent hope” (Ether 12:32). Proximate, short-term hopes – like getting to date a particular girl or getting a particular job offer – are often disappointed. But these need not diminish our faithfulness to eternal promises. Neal A. Maxwell reminds us not to mistake local cloud cover for general darkness (see Lord, Increase Our Faith, 43-44).

In a masterpiece of a talk, Elder Holland points out just one more promise we have: “Mine angels shall go before you, and also my presence, and in time ye shall possess the goodly land” (D&C 103:20). Elder Holland continues, “What goodly land? Your goodly land. Your promised land. Your New Jerusalem. Your own little acre flowing with milk and honey. Your future. Your dreams. Your destiny” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence” BYU Speeches 98-99).

Faith and hope centered in Jesus Christ allow us to be “steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works” (Mosiah 5:15). We can see the promise of the resurrection, when we will be united forever with our families. We can see past difficulty and disappointment, and hold on to our faith. We can know that the Atonement of Jesus Christ covers not just our sins, but our sicknesses, our sorrows, our heartaches, and our trials (see Alma 7:11-13).

In evaluating your own faith, the best questions would be: Do you keep your baptismal covenants? Do you keep your temple covenants? Do you renew all your covenants regularly? Or, to borrow some grammar from the 19th century: Does you, or does you not keep your promise?

Dispelling Myths

I was streaming the BYU radio station, Classical 89, and they had a fascinating discussion on Thinking Aloud.

There were several points I was shocked to hear given the modern day political rhetoric. All I hear from Liberals is that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The historical economist said some of these things:

In the last 200 years in the US, the income gap between the rich and poor is virtually unchanged.

Some gaps have changed drastically. The gap between the rich and poor's education is vastly smaller: the top 20% of the highly educated have only 25% of the total education; the bottom 20% of the educated have 15% of the total education.

Consumption of leisure time gives an advantage to the poor. The difference in life span between the rich and poor had decreased drastically in the last 200 years.

I wish that the wealthy did not have more access than the poor to the political process, but the only way to change that is to curtail freedom.

The government is not successful at changing the income distribution, see the New Deal and Great Society.

An Important Document on the Family

I haven't posted much in a while, but this article from the Church is important. The conclusion states:

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

There are so many things in the world undermining morality. Protecting the sanctity of the family will insulate children from those degrading influences.

I <3 EFY

I have been away for most of July doing something great. I took two weeks to be a counselor at Especially For Youth in San Antonio. Each week at EFY, I was responsible for 12 boys, ages 16 - 18. I have never had an experience like that in my life. EFY is incredibly fun, but also intensely spiritual.

My goal each week was to get my boys excited to serve a mission. I had several boys who were already excited, and a few who became excited by the end of their week at EFY. A couple of stories:

They ask new EFY counselors to show up for training the weekend before the kids arrive. On Sunday night, we had a fireside with the session director - the main teacher and instructor of the week. For the opening hymn before the first session, we sang I am a Child of God. I have never been struck by that simple song in that way. The Spirit was powerful as it washed over me and really taught me that I am a Child of God.

I have been taught the Gospel my whole life, but lately I have noticed my most powerful spiritual experiences are tied to the most simple and basic principles of the Gospel - things I have been taught since Primary. I attribute the special power of the Spirit at that Sunday night fireside to two things: the quality of the people I was working with - the group who takes time out of their lives to work with those kids are consecrating their time to the work of the Lord, and that the work of that next week would have a transforming power for some of those kids we served.

The next story also involves that same song. For the second San Antonio session, they brought a couple of hundred of Hispanic kids from Houston. EFY had not previously been heavily promoted to the two Spanish stakes, so most of these kids had never been to EFY before. There was a special Spirit the whole week and on Thursday, they have a musical program in preparation for the testimony meetings later that night.

One of the young sisters from those Spanish stakes sang a verse of I am a Child of God as a solo in Spanish. When the week started, the white kids and the Hispanic kids didn't really know how to interact. Their taste in music at the dances was different. The Spanish kids were all bilingual, and there were barriers between the groups of kids.

That familiar song, sung in Spanish, combined with other things that week to unify the groups despite different cultural backgrounds. It taught us all in a special way that we are all children of God.

Why I Love BYU

There are lots of reasons, but this is on the list: #1 Stone-Cold Sober for the 11th year in a row.

Here is an article from a couple of years ago that says the most popular drink on campus is milk (338,000 gallons that year), followed by chocolate milk (75,000 gallons).

Solving the Energy Crisis

I don't pretend to believe that any one thing will fix the high cost of energy, but this (http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php) combined with this (http://www.americansolutions.com/) seem like two parts of a rational solution.

The thing is, we have lots of solutions here at home that, if we just do them, would make a dent in the price of oil and gas. Sending so much money overseas for oil is increasing inflation because of international exchange rates. Each part of this solution will help the US consumer, and really the world.

UPDATE: I for got this one: http://www.americaspower.org/

Teaching Things I Did Not Previously Know

One of the great benefits of teaching in the Church is that when you have prepared diligently and under the influence of the Spirit, the lesson will improve in the delivery. I was teaching from this talk on service last Sunday in Elders Quorum. The sermon of Brigham Young where the handcart companies were out on the plains was brought up. Brigham's message was to bring those Saints in or your faith is vain.

As we discussed that I made a connection I hadn't thought of before. In the Old Testament, Naaman was told to wash in the River Jordan seven times to be cleansed from leprosy. He walked away angry. Naaman's wise servant asked, "My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it?" (2 Kings 5:13). I think it is easier to do some of the big stuff, like saving the Saints on the plains, than to wash in the Jordan seven times.

Serving a mission is a big deal. It is one of the big sacrifices the Church asks us to do. But, how often after a mission do we get lazy and fat, spiritually speaking? I think it is much easier to go on a mission than to do home teaching every month. I do terrible at home teaching. I do other things better, but that one area of my ministry is weak. It is the modern equivalent of washing seven times in the Jordan.

Why I Love Jeb Hensarling

It is not just because he is a fellow Aggie. This just showed up in my inbox:

Recently, the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reported that two senators allegedly received preferential treatment on multiple mortgage loans through an elite V.I.P. program at Countrywide Financial. Reports indicate that the program was designed to give unique perks for government officials who were deemed “friends” of Countrywide's chairman and chief executive office, Angelo Mozilo.

According to these same news reports, the preferential treatment resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in savings for some of the most powerful lawmakers in Congress. It is extremely troubling that these sweetheart deals have emerged shortly before the Senate was scheduled to consider a $300 billion bail out bill for mortgage lenders that would place the burden to finance this bill on the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

Although these reports are still merely allegations, it is disconcerting to think members of Congress might be receiving sweetheart deals on their mortgages, while millions of hardworking Americans struggle to repay their mortgage debts and cope with $4 per gallon gasoline and soaring foods prices.

That is why I have demanded that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi convene a congressional investigation into whether the Senators received preferential treatment from the nation's largest loan provider, simply because they are a member of Congress.

If Congress has time to investigate the thoroughbred horse racing industry or sewage treatment in San Diego, surely Congress has time to determine the facts surrounding this matter and what must be done to prevent other Members of Congress from seeking or receiving sweetheart deals.

When we see this much smoke, it is time to look for fire.

From Larry Kudlow

On the Corner.

McCain’s Drilling Flip-Flop Is a Good First Step [Larry Kudlow]


Warts and all, John McCain’s flip-flop on offshore drilling is a very welcome development. When circumstances change, political leaders should change their policies. And $4 at the pump and $140 in the open market is certainly enough changing circumstances to warrant McCain’s constructive shift on offshore drilling. Regrettably, McCain still talks about the “pristine” ANWR patch. But he’s just not gonna move on that.

Obama, meanwhile, is repeating the tired old Democratic response that there’s no way offshore drilling will lower prices now. But he is wrong. And McCain has an opening here if he’d only stop his silly attacks on “reckless speculators.”

The Arizona senator doesn’t know anything about speculators or investors or commodity trading or any of that stuff. The reality is, should Congress overturn its offshore-drilling moratorium, those very same speculators are gonna start selling crude-oil futures contracts and price declines will filter backwards from the longer-term contracts to the cash market. In other words, what can be bought will be sold. If drilling expectations change on the hope that future oil supplies will rise, prices will adjust lower and it will happen fast.

This is what Obama doesn’t understand. It’s also what McCain doesn’t understand. Price changes are pulled forward in response to shifting oil-supply policies. Ironically, one of McCain’s senior economic advisors, Kevin Hassett of the AEI think-tank, has just written a column on this very subject. So I don’t know who McCain is talking to, but he ought to talk to Kevin Hassett, who is a very smart guy.

Regarding the investigation of commodity futures undertaken by the CFTC, acting chairman Walter Lukken has said they have not found a smoking gun. And this whole exercise in investigating traders reminds me of the nonsensical investigations of so-called price gouging, which for decades have come to nothing.

In addition, McCain should get off this “obscene profits” song about oil-company earnings. Obscene profits are the near cousin of the windfall profits tax. Once again that puts McCain on the liberal-Democratic side of the issue. What you don’t want is to deter oil drillers and producers from going into new fields offshore and onshore if Congress lets them.

One reason for all this is economic growth and jobs. A Wharton Econometrics study (hat tip to Mark Perry at Carpe Diem) shows that total employment at full production in ANWR would come to 735,000 new jobs created across the country, not just in Alaska. So not only would offshore drilling and ANWR and other domestic sources of energy reduce prices, they would also be huge job creators to spur the economy. This is something McCain should push.

Finally, President Bush made a very strong statement today to lift the moratorium on domestic and offshore production. In his statement he emphasized the oil-shale fields in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. There is the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in this area, more than three-times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Now get this: Bush charged that in last year’s budget bill Democrats inserted a provision blocking oil-shale leasing on federal lands. That’s unbelievable. McCain should pick up on that point, too. That oil shale could create another million jobs, bringing oil prices back down to about $75 a barrel and pushing gas pump prices way down as well.

Onshore, offshore, oil shale. The mantra here is drill, drill, drill. Oil, jobs, and the economy may determine this year’s election. Sen. McCain has made a very good start but he has much more work to do.

More On Gay Marriage

This is a pretty level headed critique of the problems with the gay marriage movement. The money paragraph:

[Gay marriage] is about inserting into the law the principle that “gay is the new black” — that sexual orientation should be treated exactly the same way we treat race in law and culture.

Gay-marriage advocates say it all the time: People who think marriage is the union of husband and wife are like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Believe them. They say it because they mean it.

The architects of this strategy have targeted marriage because it stands in the way of the America they want to create: They hope to use the law to reshape the culture in exactly the same way that the law was used to reshape the culture of the old racist south.

High Taxes and Inflation

From the Texas A&M University Real Estate Center, I found this interesting presentation.

Slide 31 asks when the last time we had high taxes and inflation. From 1966 to 1982 the US had higher taxes, inflation, and regulation with a lower level of globalization an lower profit growth. The presentation then reports the Dow as almost unchanged for 16 years: in January 1966, the Dow was 924; in July 1974, the Dow was 607; in July 1982, the Dow was 896. Now the political pendulum is swinging back that way (sadly, both parties are guilty).

Populism of the sort advocated by Naomi Klein and Thom Hartman would increase regulations and taxes and increase trade barriers. Some of the things they say make sense on the surface, but they only highlight the part of arguments that they agree with. Prosperity and quality of life come from free trade. Of course, free trade should be fair trade. Currency manipulation and inadequate quality inspection (China is guilty of both) should not be tolerated.

That is what has me worried about the upcoming election. McObama both have bought into some of the populist message on trade and taxes. Sure, McCain says some good things on taxes, but then he promotes cap 'n trade - a massive tax on businesses. Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second term. He wants to do all the stuff that created a stagnant economy from 1966 to 1982.

Powerful - This Day in History

(h/t the Corner)

A Little Perspective

Every once in a while, I find something that reminds me how sweet life is and can be. This talk, given at BYU-Idaho, was very touching to me. The speaker, Ann M. Dibb, is a daughter of President Monson. Several stories she shares brought tears to my eyes. Some remind me of my grandpa, who has always been one of my best friends.

How grateful I am to have a prophet named Thomas S. Monson! Few men have been able to live with such love and faith in all their actions. The example he sets is worthy of emulation, and if I can do a better job, it will bring me closer to Christ.

Happy D-Day Anniversary

I almost forgot that 64 years ago today was D-Day. My paternal grandpa was part of the group that landed D-Day plus 1 (64 years ago tomorrow). I barely knew him, but I honor his service daily with his belt buckle to remind me where I come from. The insignia is from the 2nd Infantry Division - the Indian Head division.
The plate on the wall in the background of the picture is from when he and Grannie lived in Japan during reconstruction.

Update:

And,


(H/t the Corner)

For the Record

This is worth quoting in full instead of just linking in my shared items to the right. James Robbins reports:

Today's release of the remaining sections of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on prewar intelligence, and especially the statements of some committee members, are generating some headlines that there were no operational links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I'd just like to quote from an article on the topic published on NRO in 2003::

Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group. Hamsiraji Sali, an Abu Sayyaf leader on the U.S. most-wanted terrorist list, stated that his gang received about one million pesos (around $20,000) each year from Iraq, for chemicals to make bombs. The link was substantiated immediately after a bombing in Zamboanga City in October 2002 (in which three people were killed including an American Green Beret), when Abu Sayyaf leaders called up the deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Husham Hussain. Six days later, the cell phone used to call Hussain was employed as the timer on a bomb set to go off near the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters. Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the phone yielded various contact numbers, including Hussain's and Sali's. This evidence, coupled with other intelligence the Philippine government would not release, led to Hussain's expulsion in February 2003. In March, ten Iraqi nationals, some with direct links to al Qaeda, were rounded up in the Philippines and deported as undesirable aliens. In addition, two more consulate officials were expelled for spying.

These events were widely reported in the Philippine press at the time. They were not mentioned by the Bush Administration. They don't seem to have made it into the recent Institute for Defense Analysis report on the topic. But they certainly seem to demonstrate substantial, direct links between an al-Qaeda franchise and Saddam's regime.

Me: Just to be clear, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But they had plenty to do with terrorism. Now they don't. Tell me how that doesn't make America safer.

Question:

How many times can Obama say "That's not the (pick unsavory character's name) I knew"?

A Republican would have been slaughtered in the media by now if they had even been in the same room as a guy like Rezco. Not that Rezco makes Obama dirty, but how many dirty people has Obama been continually associated with? Wasn't the 2006 election about a "culture of corruption?" Didn't all Republicans need to be thrown out of office because a few were corrupt?

One last thing. Change doesn't mean improvement. (That thought comes from here.)

Robin Hood - Conservative

I seem to remember Democrats several years ago idealizing Robin Hood as a justification for redistributing wealth and taxing the rich. There is a problem with that analogy. Robin Hood didn't rob the rich to feed the poor. Some of the rich were already working hard to feed the poor. Robin Hood stole from the government to return the money back to the people who had been taxed into poverty and starvation.

Obama's Speech Last Night

For all the rhetorical flair of Obama, his ideas are old hat liberalism. His nomination is the first time he, his wife, and his supporters have had faith in America? That is sure what his speeches sound like. So what if he loses the election in November? Does that suddenly mean that America has sold out its dream?

I don't buy it. From Reagan to now, we have created the most prosperous economy ever. I even give Clinton some credit there. Once the Contract with America came in, he signed some responsible bills and had a pro-growth policy. Bush has been OK on economic issues, but his weakness comes when he acts like a Democrat.

I guarantee that if Gore had been president and had done the exact things Bush has (I know, Gore wouldn't have been smart enough to do what Bush has done), the moonbats would love him. The main reason they hate Bush is the (R) after his name.

The problem if Obama wins is that it will reshape America to something more like Europe. Their fuel prices are twice ours. Taxes are half of income. Unassimilated immigration is an even bigger problem. Unemployment is twice as high. And Family breakdown has reached epidemic levels. Have all these liberal blow-hards paid any attention to Europe? Europe has started looking more to us. From Italy to France to Germany the pro-American, pro-growth candidate has been winning elections.

I hope McCain wins, because otherwise there will be no opposition party. Democrat majorities in Congress will probably be too big for Republicans to slow down without the White House. Democrats sometimes talk about moving to Canada or Europe if Bush and now McCain win. I wish some would. The problem for conservatives is that there isn't anywhere else to go. The United States really is the last best hope of mankind.

Only in DC

I liked this and took a picture when I was in DC in March. Alas, most people in DC only turn left.

No Comment

(h/t NRO)

Random Comment

I can't read blogs with black backgrounds. It hurts my eyes.

Where do we find oil?

People criticized the last Republican Congress as a do nothing congress. The current Democrat Congress has done even less.

Article Dump

Here are a few articles I liked:

This is just good satire.

Here are two articles from Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite writers. The first relates to a police shooting trial from New York. Several officers had killed an unarmed man driving a car. All I heard in the news about the case was Al Sharpton was angry that the officers were found not guilty of murder. Only after reading this Sowell piece did I learn that the dude was trying to run down a cop.

The second Sowell piece is about the symbolism behind racial quotas. Administrations like having different color skins because it makes them feel good. Nevermind the fact that many students are ill-served by being admitted to schools they are not otherwise qualified for. I am a fairly smart guy, but I would probably not have that great an experience at Harvard.

This last article is from the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, who would like to debate Al Gore on global warming. Klaus is an economist. Gore so far has been unwilling to look at the merits of any argument that discredits his Nobel Prize or Academy Award (I'm not sure what meaningless award Gore actually got for Inconvenient Truth). Klaus compares climate alarmists the the Communists who had run Czechoslovakia. Let's face it, calling someone a Communist is my favorite insult.

I Laughed At This

More details here. I know this is a little late, but happy tax freedom day.

(H/t NRO)

World Upside Down.. Again

Let me get this straight. Obama wants to talk with Chavez, Castro, Il, and Ahmadinejad, but doesn't want to trade with Colombia and South Korea. Right. We talk to the bad guys but don't trade with the good guys.

Today's politicians always get things upside down. They protect free speech around a stripper pole (forgive the tawdry example, but it fits), but stifle political free speech near election season with their campaign finance laws. What kind of speech deserves protecting!? What was the First amendment written to protect?

Bring Back King Dollar

Another friend has entered the blogosphere. I had a long and thorough answer to this post and it never showed up. Instead I will try to recreate my thoughts here.

He is absolutely right that the weakness of the dollar is related to the increase in the price of oil. Whichever came first, the weak dollar and high commodity prices (don't forget the more critical prices of wheat, corn, and rice) are related. All these other commodities are priced in dollars, so as the dollar weakens, all the prices increase.

I will have to disagree about the cause of the fall of the dollar. Iraq has nothing to do with it. Congress has been spending like drunken idiots, but the largest growth of spending is entitlement spending. There is no excuse for that, especially under a Republican Congress. There is no home for conservatives in either party right now. (As a side note, several Democrats have won special House elections by running CONSERVATIVE candidates. Guess what? Conservatism wins.) The Republicans probably deserve the trouncing they will receive in November for diluting their brand of fiscal responsibility.

Another cause of the fall of the dollar is the household debt. (Surprise, the prophets are right about something else. We should live within our means.) The household debt is mirrored by the trade deficit. If we want to improve the trade deficit, we should encourage more savings and investment. Sorry to break it to the liberal-left, but that means lower capital gains taxes. Improving the trade deficit will strengthen the dollar. Otherwise, the dollar will continue to weaken to approach a trade equilibrium.

Here's how that works: dollar decreases, American goods become cheaper internationally. Cheaper American goods sell more. Exports increase. Weak dollar buys less imports. Imports decrease. Trade deficit balances. I like the other solution more. We need high investment to increase US productivity so we increase output for higher salaries. Thus, household income increases and so do exports.

The key to all of this is an economy that is not too hot and not too cold. When the economy is just right, it is called Goldilocks. Too much growth will result in inflation. Too little growth, on the other hand, yields unemployment. Other than after Gulf War I and the dot-com bust and 9/11, the US economy has been growing at the perfect rate. Those two recessions lasted about 9 months each. The recent slow down has resulted in media stories of soup-line-America.

Much to their chagrin, the recent quarter showed positive growth. It was about 0.6%, but it was still growth. Shouldn't the economy actually shrink in a recession? All the economic indicators seem to say that the economy is about to get back to Goldilocks status. Of course Congress could wreck this by hiking taxes. (Especially if they double the price of fuel. The "solutions" to global warming are the same as tax increases; they just hit the poor most. Global warming nuts love high fuel prices.)

Another threat to the current economy is high tariffs. Despite what Lou Dobbs says, outsourcing is good for the economy. No one talks much about the amount of insourcing that happens. Ever noticed how many Toyota plants are in North America? The purpose of the free market is to put the factors of production (land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurial skill) where they are most economical. One of the reasons for the strength of the Euro is that those factors of production move across Europe more efficiently that when they all had separate currencies.

Before someone gets in a tizzy about my "outsourcing is good" statement, let me elaborate. I want the high skill, high paying jobs to stay here. If we raise all these artificial trade barriers, that won't happen. It is good when simple jobs are sent overseas. That frees us up to do the more lucrative stuff. But it also has the benefit of increasing the standard of living overseas.

We need the innovation and capital to stay here. That increases productivity. Increased productivity makes foreign investors want to invest here. That increases demand for the dollar, increases its value, and solves the international price inflation of oil and food. Again, that requires low taxes.

Ethanol Kills People

This is a papar I wrote for my Washington Campus class. It draws on some things I have posted previously. The resources I used are below:

“Guns don’t kill people, ethanol kills people.” That is my slogan for a broad campaign to change the way the government of the United States approaches energy demands in the 21st century. It is an intentionally bold statement to raise awareness of how the US energy policy has had impact around the globe. Rapid economic growth in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRIC countries) has combined with only slowly energy increasing supply, environmental concerns, and instability in the Middle East to make energy important to the security of the world. My purpose is to lay out a plan which will address the energy crisis as well as the emerging food crisis which has its roots in energy policy.

The most difficult part of the path forward is that no single solution or combination thereof will solve the problem immediately. It may take 20 years to fully address the energy and food problems the world faces right now. Without doubt, measures can be taken to help, but they are more likely to address the symptoms than the disease. Maintaining a political movement over a generation will prove extremely difficult. In the mean time, political parties will change power several times, a new cause célèbre will emerge annually – demanding “emergency” action, and new and real dangers will emerge to threaten the free world.

The Problem

Two obvious solutions to the high cost of energy exist: to increase the supply or decrease demand. The first is difficult but possible, and the second is unlikely without changing much of the way the modern world operates. There is more than one way to increase the energy supply, but current efforts, subsidized by the Federal Government, have had disastrous effects internationally. Corn based ethanol – and $8 billion in federal subsidies – has directly increased the demand for corn while decreasing the supply of other food crops as farmers rush to plant corn over their usual crops. The World Bank reports: “Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for bio-fuels production in the U.S., while existing stocks were depleted by an increase in global consumption for other uses” (The World Bank, 2008).

Table 1. Index of projected real food crop prices, 2004=100
Real Prices. 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 2015
Maize ........ 141 ... 179 ... 186 ... 176 ... 155
Wheat ........ 157 ... 219 ... 211 ... 204 ... 157
Rice ........... 132 ... 201 ... 207 ... 213 ... 192
Soybeans ..... 121 ... 156 ... 150 ... 144 ... 127
Soybean oil .. 138 ... 170 ... 162 ... 153 ... 119
Sugar .......... 135 ... 169 ... 180 ... 190 ... 185
Source: DECPG. (The World Bank, 2008)

Table 1 shows the massive price increases that have hit the worldwide food market since 2004. These price increases have lead to rioting and protests in Haiti (Murdock, 2008), Egypt, and Pakistan, among other places (Hassett, 2008). For example, the price of wheat has increased over 100% since 2004. This has been compounded by a poor wheat harvest in Australia. Fear of shortages has led to one third of wheat exports being sealed behind the borders of the largest exporting countries (Blas, Gorst, & Whipp, 2008).

Admittedly, not all evidence points to corn ethanol as the source of increased commodity food prices. A study recently released by the Agriculture and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University shows that most of the inflation of food prices has been caused by the increase in the price of oil (Anderson & Outlaw, 2008). This is why a comprehensive energy policy to address all facets of the problem is necessary.

The Solution

To attack energy and food price problems will take a multi-front assault. In the short term, the United States must increase the availability of oil. There are several sources that remain untapped. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has the potential to match Prudhoe Bay as the largest domestic oil find. Offshore drilling has become more technically feasible, but Florida and California (among others) have blocked new platforms. These local solutions can yield results over the next 5 to 10 years, but other steps must be taken to look more long term.

The United States has some of the largest coal reserves in the world. As much as 50% of US electricity supply comes from coal. The coal industry claims to have enough reserves to supply the US with energy for 200 years (America's Power). To make coal power more acceptable to environmentalists, technology needs to be further developed to eliminate the pollution from coal powered generation plants. This technology could greatly benefit the world because China has become a large user of coal, completing a new power plant every week to ten days. Any advances in US clean burning coal technology should be given to China to improve their pollution problems while still allowing them to expand their energy supply for a rapidly growing economy.

For electricity generation, the US should build more nuclear power plants. French electricity is 75% nuclear, while the US is only 20% nuclear. Problems exist here, though, because, as MIT news reports there has been a 20 year underinvestment in the nuclear fuel supply (MIT News Office, 2008). Renewable energy such as wind and hydroelectric power generation are attractive where possible, but not every region has the natural resources necessary for these power sources.

Every summer, the news reports that seasonal and regional gasoline blends cause prices to increase. To provide over 20 different boutique fuels each summer is hard on the supply chain. Instead of 20 mixtures, the federal and state regulatory agencies should come together and consolidate into 5 summer fuels. If refineries could phase these fuels in over a month it would lessen some pressure on the supply chain. As reported on Slate.com, these summer blends are necessary to limit evaporation in hot weather, but cause trouble in the winter because of the difficulty of starting engines (Schechner, 2004).

The refining of oil into gasoline has become a problem as well. It is widely reported that a new oil refinery has not been built in 30 years. The only growth in refining capacity has come from expanding existing refineries. Hurricane Katrina damaged several refineries and the remaining facilities were running at 100% of capacity to make up for the damaged refineries in the Gulf Coast. The EPA should approve the construction of new, technically advanced refineries to assist in protecting against natural disasters crippling the refining capacity of the country.

Ethanol mandates should be ended immediately. As discussed above, they have played a role in disrupting the world supply of food. Ending ethanol subsidies and mandates could cut corn prices by 20 % (Borenstein, 2008). The energy required to distill corn into fuel offsets the energy created by ethanol. The World Bank reports: “The grain required to fill the tank of a Sports utility vehicle with ethanol (240 kg of maize for 100 liter ethanol) could feed one person for a year, so competition between food and fuel is real” (The World Bank, 2007). If technology improves such that biofuel production no longer consumes large amounts of energy, it could become more feasible, but no one should starve for the sake of fuel production.
This is a broad solution and will have broad opposition. To implement any or all of these proposals will require addressing the concerns of a wide assortment of interest groups.

Opposition

Environmentalists will be the first group to oppose most of these measures because of the fear of global warming. The only way to resolve their concerns will be to show that the above proposals are actually better for the environment than the current policies. Unbiased research will be vital to obtain persuasive results.
One argument for biofuels is that they will reduce the usage of fossil fuels and lower greenhouse gasses and the threat of global warming. The problem is that rainforests are being cleared to supply acreage for fuel crops. Researchers from Princeton and Iowa State found that instead of lowering CO2 emissions, the actual result is a carbon debt that will take 167 years to repay. Tim Searchinger, the Princeton researcher said, “We can't get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits” (Eilperin, 2008). Farm lobbyists will also provide serious opposition to ending corn ethanol subsidies because they benefit from higher commodity food prices.

Other solutions – like nuclear energy, cleaner coal plants, and wind generation – face the opposition of localized groups. It is the NIMBY phenomenon – people like the idea of cleaner energy sources, but “not in my back yard.” High energy and food prices may be the only thing able to persuade these people to accept local power plants and wind farms.

Supporters

In a way, environmentalists, energy consumers, and people more concerned with national security issues want the same thing. Environmentalists want fewer fossil fuels, energy consumers want cheap fuel, and national security hawks want to avoid sending money to the Middle East. These desires can be aligned with clean, cheap, local energy supplies that could be developed through nuclear power, clean coal, and renewable energy sources. A technological gap exists between where the United States is and wants to be. It will require a Manhattan Project-type investment to obtain the best mix of new energy sources.

Protecting the worldwide food supply will take a similar focus because of the current tendency of large exporters to seal their borders in the face of shortages in foreign countries.

Improved fuel and energy efficiency will not come quickly. The requisite investments in technology will require time to develop. New industries will need to emerge to clean current coal burning facilities. Nuclear power supplies will need to be increased.

Legislature

Leading the opposition to many of these initiatives will be allies of interest groups within both houses of Congress. It almost seems that both ends of the political spectrum benefit from the high price of energy. Democrats and liberals apparently want to increase prices of fuel so people will drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has gone so far as to propose a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax (The Hill, 2007). The problem is that people with larger families are harmed because they can’t easily switch to smaller vehicles.

Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, probably want to use higher prices to push for more drilling, more power generation facilities, and new technological development. Admittedly, this paper falls more on the conservative side of these issues. However, the best way to accomplish these proposals is to address the concerns of the Democrats. Energy independence must be paired with energy efficiency. This will increase the local supply while decreasing the demand. Cheaper fuel must be paired with less pollution. Only with both will the quality of life remain the same for current and future generations.

In the House of Representatives, difficulty will emerge because of Democrat majorities. It is expected that the 2008 elections will tilt the balance of power further to the left. If energy prices and food prices continue to rise, the public outcry may force action that would normally be opposed by the Democrats.
The Senate may be more conservative than the House because of slimmer margins between the left and right. However, this makes progress even more difficult because of the inability of most issues to pass a 60 vote threshold to obtain a floor vote. Even issues that have broad public support face difficulty in the Senate.

The important thing is to frame the debate so stopping corn ethanol is a humanitarian effort, increasing nuclear energy is a national security effort, and clean coal is a way to help rapidly expanding international coal plants to improve their emissions. In reality, there is nothing the United States can do to address CO2 emissions without helping the BRIC countries have cleaner, more efficient power supplies.

The only way to get Congress behind these efforts is to get the American people behind this group of proposals. If elections can be framed around energy and food supply issues, elected officials will listen. Big issues change the political landscape. If the ethanol debate and decisions get out of back rooms and into the public discourse, things may change. Ethanol needs to become a national scandal. Al Gore made global warming his signature issue by dramatizing what he claimed to be the real world effects of climate change. To combat his efforts, the human suffering behind ethanol must be made as widely known as global warming issues. It is a real issue as worldwide food prices increase and fields are diverted to heavily subsidized corn ethanol production.

Regulatory Approval

The regulatory issues to address will be building new nuclear power plants, new oil refineries, and changing the standards on summer gasoline blends. Even if support can be found within Congress for the proposals to address energy supply and demand, there will be a concerted effort to stop them through regulatory agencies that have responsibility for the environment.

Any proposed refinery or nuclear power plant will face legal challenges (Davenport, 2008). The last refinery built within the United States was completed in 1976. Gasoline imports increased by almost 100% from 1995 to 2005 because of a lack in refinery capacity (Hargreaves, 2007). Nuclear plants face the same issues.
Changing the summer blends will also require the coordinating of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Having more than 20 summer blends is taxing on refinery operations each June. Even if the boutique fuels were reduced to 5 custom blends, and higher standards were adopted, the refining process would be more reliable and the summer price hike would be alleviated.

The only way to force regulatory progress in these three areas will be to get congressional and presidential pressure on them.

Presidential Backing

For numerous reasons, the implementation of most of these policies will not be possible in the remaining time of George W. Bush’s presidency. Therefore, the changes proposed in this paper are partly dependent on the next presidential election. With John McCain as president, it will be easier because many of these proposals are aligned with conservative, free market principles. He also has enough of a reputation of bucking Republican orthodoxy to implement the needed checks and balances to address environmental concerns.

The election of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama poses a different problem. They are much more in tune with the environmentalist viewpoint and will stand in the way of expanded oil drilling or refining. The best way to reach them and their supporters is to show that the US cannot impact the environment as less regulated countries expand coal and other technologies. The humanitarian effort to decrease ethanol production will change some liberal’s opinions, and the promise of energy efficiency should persuade more of them.

Conclusion

It has been said that “great causes are not won in a single generation” (Smith, 1939). It may be easier to address one issue at a time, but that will result in slow progress for problems that have immediate threats to the standard of living of people across the world. People everywhere need access to energy. That energy needs to be clean to keep a clean environment for future generations.

Works Cited

America's Power. (n.d.). Factoids: America's Power. Retrieved may 1, 2008, from America's Power: http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts/Factoids

Anderson, D. P., & Outlaw, J. L. (2008, april 10). The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed. Retrieved april 30, 2008, from Agricultural Food and Policy Center: http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf

Blas, J., Gorst, I., & Whipp, L. (2008, april 15). Biggest Grain Exporters Halt Foreign Sales. Retrieved april 30, 2008, from Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38cd4d58-0b15-11dd-8ccf-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Borenstein, S. (2008, april 30). Food scientists say stop biofuels to fight world hunger. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from Associate Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6hbT75_thXF6CITBPcgoFsLSvlAD90BP6RG0

Davenport, P. (2008, february 4). Arizona oil refinery proponents change location for plant. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from Fox 11 Arizona: http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/KMSB-20080204-apbp-refinery.8de370f6.html

Eilperin, J. (2008, february 8). Studies Say Clearing Land for Biofuels Will Aid Warming. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020704230.html

Hargreaves, S. (2007, april 17). Behind high gas prices: The refinery crunch. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm

Hassett, K. (2008, april 21). Bloomberg. Retrieved april 30, 2008, from Bloomberg Commentary: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=arSRWU0yDL7M&refer=columnist_hassett

MIT News Office. (2008, march 21). Lack of fuel may limit U.S. nuclear power expansion. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from MIT News Office: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html

Murdock, D. (2008, april 21). Global Food Riots. Retrieved april 30, 2008, from National Review Online: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTBiOTY2ZTAyMWQwYTJkMDIwMmFiZGY4YzAxM2VkNjc=&w=MA

Schechner, S. (2004, april 12). What is Summer-Blend Gas? Retrieved may 2, 2008, from Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2098672/

Smith, J. F. (1939). Gospel Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.

The Hill. (2007, july 7). Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from The Hill: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html

The World Bank. (2007, october 19). Biofuels: The promise and the risks. Retrieved may 2, 2008, from The World Bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087-1192112387976/WDR08_05_Focus_B.pdf

The World Bank. (2008, April). Rising food prices: Policy options and World Bank Response. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from The World Bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/risingfoodprices_backgroundnote_apr08.pdf

This is Outrageous

Those tolerant and culturally informed liberals are at it again. Check this out. Newly minted Obama superdelegate, Pete Stark, has lovely things to say about the Mormons:

I wonder what they're going to do with the Mormons. I'd like to put polygamy up if they want to fight this battle. Let's go into Utah and have it out. I mean, I don't have any quarrel with polygamy, as long as they leave little kids alone, which is child abuse.

This lovely tidbit comes in a discussion of the recent California Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is a constitutional right. The truth is so far from Stark's world view. Not only are Mormons going to largely fight the gay marriage ruling, we will also be among the quickest to fight polygamy.

Gay marriage opponents cite polygamy as the next domino after gay marriage is legalized. (After all, Muslim men in Britain get welfare benefits for multiple wives now.) But gay marriage proponents say the "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy. Well, looky here. Now a gay marriage proponent has said polygamy and polyandry are a-okay.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

The Declaration of Independence promises the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This post from Mark Levin gave me a thought. We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but no right to happiness.

After arriving in Nauvoo, Heber C. Kimball said, "this is a beautiful place, but not a long resting place for the Saints." Sidney Rigdon, angry, said, "Heber, can't you prophecy anything good?" Heber replied, "I prophecy good for you, if you can get it."

Happiness is out there for each of us, if we will go get it. The problem is when people start acting like it is the government's job to guarantee it.

"Raised the bar for transparency"

This article is very good on the Democrat messiah.

One comment amused me: "the Obama campaign has raised the bar for transparency." This is true if by transparency the person means people can see what they want to see in Obama. (They probably didn't mean that.) I am afraid there is nothing there. And people project him to be the next president. Welcome back to Jimmy Carter.

(H/t NRO)

ACME catalog

Here is a terrific resource. I especially like this item.

Obama Economics

I watched the North Carolina victory speech from Barack Obama tonight and it was rather interesting. Obama is making the move away from primary mode into general election mode. He spent more time going after McCain (admittedly easy to do, but I would go after McCain on different things) than Hillary.

His "bring America together" portions of his speech are very good. He even had a paragraph or two about the nobility of hard work and the vast opportunity that lies within this country. Anyone can lift themselves up if they will put forth the effort. Those are the types of things that need to be said from the political stage.

The problem is that his policies go against the things he claims to promote. He talks about taxing the very people who have lifted themselves out of humble beginnings. He wants to take money from the oil companies and force them to invest in clean energy. He blames destroying the planet on big oil. His health care proposals will cause prices to skyrocket even more. Every item the federal government starts paying for gets more expensive.

It is as if he wants the US to follow the European economies into oblivion. Don't get me wrong, I am all for clean energy. I would love not to send my $3.45 a gallon to the Middle East. The only way to lower energy usage in the near term is to shrink the size of the US economy. That will cost jobs, force more outsourcing, further weaken the dollar, and result in economic disaster.

I don't really want to vote for McCain. He is not all that much better on energy or immigration or health care, but Obama is intent on policies that will make the American economy weak.

Running with the Wind

Here is an amazing story:

This is the kind of creativity that needs to be unleashed in the world. How many lives could be improved if they could implement simple solutions like this!

(h/t NRO)

Elder Ballard in DC

This was interesting. Elder Ballard spoke to the BYU Management Society in Washington DC on April 21. Here are a few highlights:

Overall, I personally think the interest in the Church over the past year and a half was a plus. I’d much rather have people talking about us than ignoring us. The biggest problem we face is apathy.

We need people of goodwill to unite because a tide of filth and immorality is sweeping over the world.

I support the call of the Pope that all who believe in God unite in an effort to stem the tide of evil that is flooding the earth.

As an MBA student at Texas A&M over the last 8 months, I have had an opportunity to work with people who are not Mormon far more closely than at other times in my life. I am convinced of two things; that there are serious problems facing the world that require Latter-day Saint intervention, and that we will need the help of everyone we can get on our side, Mormon or not.

My time as a student has shown me that there are a large number of people who are natural allies. The trick will be mobilizing people on issues we can agree on and having a voice others will listen to.

Here is my new bumper sticker:

Guns don't kill people, ethanol kills people.

Religion vs. Athiesm

Every once in a while, the argument comes up about how religious people believe in God and that makes them better. The irreligious retorts, 'but do you think I am a bad person because I do not believe in God?' Often the irreligious will provide many examples of evil things done in the name of religion, but there are also many examples of evil done against religion.

After Mitt Romney gave his "Faith in America" speech, there were complaints that he essentially gave the shaft to atheists in the United States. I have thought since his withdrawal from the presidential race about his speech at CPAC. He very subtly addressed the accusations against his Faith speech. He said, "Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves."

That is the key to everyone. If the religionist or atheist is a good person, it is because they believe in something. Many who claim to be religious really believe in satisfying themselves (or as we sometimes say - pride), and many who are atheist have a strong sense of right and wrong which leads them to live exemplary lives. So really, everyone has guiding principles no matter the belief system.

But then that gets back to faith. What is it good for? Why bother with all these rules, the guilt of sin, and the impossibility of a God who is the Father of all nations hearing and answering each prayer?

Well, we have already seen that everyone believes in something. For some it is no deeper than themselves. For others it expands to their families, communities, or nations. For others still, they believe in God.

Truth matters. Each person has a responsibility to find and accept and live by as much truth as possible. The danger lies in feeling you have all the truth. The faithful and faithless who have nothing to learn are the most intolerant people on the planet. Joseph Smith asked, "Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain?" (TPJS 320).

It is easy to turn religion into a club. Someone could quote John 3:16 and say, God loves the world... therefore you should do such and such. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi warns that "many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible" (2 Nephi 29:3). (I was a little too fond of that verse as a missionary. I don't know that I read it to anyone, but when I read it to myself, I only saw others not accepting more scripture.)

If God were really concerned with the Gentiles hearing this warning, the Book of Mormon was a terrible place to hide it! I think we in the Church sometimes forget that whatever Israelite blood we have from the lost tribes, we are still Gentiles from Nephi's perspective. His warning was directed more towards the Latter-day Saints. We can feel we have the Book of Mormon and don't need any more, or that the Doctrine and Covenants has all we need.

The Restoration came to give us continuous revelation. Joseph Smith lamented, "there has been a great difficulty in getting anything in the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand" (TPJS 331). How much more could we have revealed to us if we were ready to recieve it?

The whole point of Nephi's warning is that we can never become complacent about our knowledge of the truth. If we are satisfied that we have all the truth, we will begin to use it as a weapon to beat others into the image we think they should conform to. The truth gives us no right to treat others with anything other than love and respect. Instead, we "are without affection, and [we] hate [our] own blood" (Moses 7:33).

To address some of my questions from earlier: the rules of the Gospel are revealed from heaven and are given to provide us with safety. Guilt serves a purpose: "when conscience calls to us from the next ridge, it is not solely to scold but also to beckon" (Neal A. Maxwell, October 1976 Conference). Perhaps I will take up faith and prayers some other day.

More on the Ethanol Boondoggle

This is too important not to post in full. David Freddoso Reports in NRO:

Saving the world is cheaper than free

I'm not the first to comment on Deroy's Murdock's piece today, but it is just such a devastating and sad story that it cannot be repeated too often. Our government's negligence and perhaps even malicious misdirection of societal resources toward a worthless, unwanted product — ethanol — will cause millions of people to go hungry tonight.

This anecdote from today's editorial is truly eye-catching:

Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club has started limiting sales of rice because immigrants are buying all the rice they can and sending it to relatives in countries suffering from food shortages.

Deroy sums up:

If scientists can develop ethanol that neither starves people nor rapes the Earth, splendid. However, this enterprise must not rest upon morally repugnant, ecologically counterproductive, economically devastating, government-ordered distortions.

The way things are going, this could become the worst chapter yet in the sad, ruinous history of our bipartisan agricultural welfare programs. For those who write in and protest that free-market capitalism is an uncompassionate, un-Christian economic system, I submit that you are currently witnessing the alternative.

A simple repeal of the ethanol mandate would cost nothing, and it would benefit everyone everywhere except for a farm lobby that is currently profiting from the kind of human suffering that most Americans have never experienced. Read Deroy's piece for several poignant examples.

The Deroy Murdock piece is incredibly important. He links to a Financial Times peice that says that due to shortages, wheat exporting countries have sealed their borders and 1/3 of the worldwide market is closed. Another tidbit from Murdock:

As farmers turn forests into corn fields, they expend energy uprooting trees that produce oxygen, absorb CO2, and store carbon. Princeton University researchers calculate that this ethanol-driven arboricide has spawned a “carbon debt” that already will take 167 years to reverse.

and

As Princeton’s Tim Searchinger said in the February 8 Washington Post, “We can’t get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits.”

Government ethanol subsidies are going to kill people.

I Knew It!

Last spring I attended the coldest game ever played at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington on Opening Day. Now this proves it! Global cooling is the greatest threat to humanity!

Saints Indeed

I heard a terrific story tonight at institute. There is a little ward in our stake (I don't think I should share the exact location). At the local university, a Christian fraternity decided they needed to call those crazy Mormons to repentance. A group of them decided to attend the sacrament meeting.

Halfway through the meeting, they stood up and started making a scene while trying to save the Mormons. These good Saints responded in an inspired way. They began singing "Come, Come Ye Saints." What a good example of Christlike response to what could have been an ugly situation!

(This has always been one of my favorite Hymns, so here is MoTab singing it. Enjoy:)


Admittedly, the sequel is pretty satisfying as well. The provost of the unmentioned university was a member of the bishopric and had the fraternity disbanded and removed from the campus.

Give Me Food or Give Me Death!

I just noticed this item about ethanol and food prices. Ethanol would not exist if it were not for government subsidies. Producing ethanol consumes at least as much energy as it saves in fuel usage. It is interesting that the same people who "care" co much about the poor of the world are turning their food into fuel.

Any time the government wants to get involved in anything I start getting scared.

(h/t NRO)

Ever Been Bowfishing?

Not like this, I bet.

(h/t NRO)

God and Guns, What Liberals and Europeans Don't Understand

This is quite the article, which I will quote extensively.

Our lesson today comes from the songwriter Frank Loesser:
"Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition."

In the book "America Alone," Mark Steyn

...note[s] a global survey on optimism: 61 percent of Americans were optimistic about the future, 29 percent of the French, 15 percent of Germans. Take it from a foreigner: In my experience, Americans are the least "bitter" people in the developed world. Secular, gun-free big-government Europe doesn't seem to have done anything for people's happiness.

I sometimes hear politicians - even ones I generally agree with - talking about restoring Americans' trust in the government. I think it is part of American DNA to distrust the government. The further removed it is from me and my control, the less I want it involved in my life. On the other hand...

Europeans did "vote for their own best interests" – i.e., cradle-to-grave welfare, 35-hour workweeks, six weeks of paid vacation, etc. – and as a result they now face a perfect storm of unsustainable entitlements, economic stagnation and declining human capital that's left them so demographically beholden to unassimilable levels of immigration that they're being remorselessly Islamized with every passing day.

Europeans voted away their personal responsibility in favor of security and leisure and in the process have given away their very identity. We are a generation away from the Germans and the French being minorities in their own countries.

In stark contrast to Europe

...large numbers of Americans tote guns because they're assertive, self-reliant citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. The Second Amendment is philosophically consistent with the First Amendment...

The Second Amendment provides the citizenry with the means to protect themselves from government infringement of the rights in the First Amendment.

Baracky Balboa

Due to my Philadelphia connection, I had a good laugh at this clever YouTube clip.

Of course Rocky lost, so what is this saying?
(h/t NRO)

Obama has become a spectacle

I haven't said much about Barack Obama since I decided I couldn't support him, but this is bad. He straight up lied about what John McCain said about the economy. So much for change and a new way of operating.

The Greatest Play in Baseball

I have seen this before, but wanted to pass it on.
(h/t NRO)

On Marriage And Divorce

I think people intuitively realize that divorce is bad, certainly for the pain it brings into children's lives. It is not always easy to find things quantified. Here is a great interview that does just that. Being interviewed is Michael McManus, coauthor of Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers.

Some of the key points are that cohabitation and premarital sex greatly increase the likelihood of divorce and abuse. A key quote

:...even though most people see nothing wrong with premarital sex, research shows they are wrong. Those couples who married in the 1960s who were virgins were much less likely to divorce than the sexually active — only 30 percent of virgins divorced, while 50 percent of the sexually active divorced. The same pattern can be seen of those who married in the early 1980s. By 1988, 14 percent of virgins had divorced, but 24 percent of the sexually active. That’s 71 percent higher. St. Paul wrote, “Flee fornication.”

I have been taught this all my life, but is is nice to see others who teach and believe the same things. I especially appreciate the empirical evidence. Of course, empirical evidence should not be why someone lives a chaste life. We should just live our lives with real love, because real love never uses another person for physical enjoyment without genuine lifelong commitment.

Romney's Top Ten

I hope everyone saw this: http://www.latimes.com/video/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=2394799. I tried to embed the video, but the best I could do was a link.

Update: Here is the embed:

Debt, Consecration, and Freedom

I try to find connections between different parts of the Gospel. One that I have noticed is that personal debt is related to consecration. The scriptures tell us to sacrifice all we have for the Kingdom of God. Modern Chruch leaders constantly tell us to avoid debt for everything except a house and an education.

It is self evident that personal debt, especially consumer debt, places us in a kind of bondage. We become slaves to our creditors. Because we are not free, we are unable to consecrate all things to the Lord. There may come a time when more couples will be called to serve as missionaries and their personal finances will prevent them from serving, despite a high income or nice lifestyle.

Being a slave steals our agency. When we don't choose our life's path, we will never become the son or daughter of God that we should. It is the same with the Word of Wisdom; addictions steal our agency. God wants us to be free, even at the cost of bumping our heads - severely sometimes. That explains His commandments. They really offer protection.