The Problem With Third Parties

The problem with a third party is that the whole job description for incumbents of either party is to get reelected. Let me illustrate this in a different way. In the soft drink industry, Coke and Pepsi dominate sales. Their high sales allow for massive advertising campaigns. Other than small regional powers, no one can compete with Coke and Pepsi. They have a rivalry with each other, but they completely destroy any smaller competition.

It is the same for Democrats and Republicans. They want to defeat the other party, but most vital is to eliminate all other competition. That way, there are only two real contenders for each seat. Each election, less than 100 House seats are competitive. That allows massive advertising in a few places. No third party could dream of competing with that.

A third party president would be the quickest way to unify Congress. They would destroy any chances that president would have of accomplishing anything.

I can only think of a few ways to lower the polarization of the House of Representatives. They need to eliminate the gerrymandered districts because they just protect the incumbent. Protecting the incumbent keeps the house full of the fringes of both parties. Anyone trying to run from the middle would be wiped out by the more "ideologically pure" candidates.

Coupled with redistricting could be to lower the number of representatives in the House. That would give larger districts and make them harder to gerrymander.

Mark Steyn on the Bailout

Despite a few convincing arguments for the bailout, implementation will be a bear. For this thing not to cause worse problems 10 years from now is highly improbable. Mark Steyn has an observation about he bailout and political elites telling us of impending crisis.

As a general proposition, when told by unanimous elites that a particular course of action is urgent and necessary to avoid disaster, there's a lot to be said for going fishing.

Just look at the recent results on global temperatures:

The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

Global warming hype was far overblown. It was only useful insofar as people and businesses increased their energy efficiency in cost effective ways.

It is problematic about the bailout that people are declaring with glee that the free markets have failed. This is not a free market failure; it is a failure of government being too generous with other people's money. Had the free markets been allowed to assess risk normally without government intervention, there would have been no subprime or alt-a loans. In turn there would have been no real estate bubble.

Jim DeMint: New Senate Hero

I am now a fan of Jim DeMint. This video lays out the whole subprime debacle in chronological order:

Federal regulations were set up to encourage banks to encourage people to live beyond their means. Debt is killer. "Predatory lending" as Obama's people like to call it now was done in order to meet federal requirements and avoid lawsuits from firms like the one Obama worked at in Chicago.

(H/T NRO)

A Case For The Bailout?

I am pretty susceptible to arguments against the federal government bailing out Wall Street. Part of my rationale is that federal regulations are very much to blame for the problems on Wall Street. Investors Business Daily has a pretty good diagnosis of the cause of the current financial crisis here.

Basically, banks were told to lend to uncreditworthy people in order to boost home ownership. As usually happens, when the government subsidizes something, it becomes more expensive and a real estate boom followed. The worst part is that the government's efforts to boost home ownership among certain minority groups didn't work. So the only solution was to throw more money at the problem.

Larry Kudlow, at NRO, has a convincing argument here for the bailout (and keeping Congress's hands out of the pot).

When the assets are worked out over time — as they will be once housing and the economy recover — taxpayers will actually make money on the deal.

This isn't some speculative venture either. It has been done before.

This is similar to the RTC story twenty years ago, when Bill Seidman presided over similar asset sales from bankrupt S&Ls and wound up making money for Uncle Sam and his taxpayers.

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.