Tag: issues

Categories
culture National politics

Unalienable Rights

On the issues of gay rights, abortion rights, or womens rights I think that Ron Paul captures the truth with his repeated assertion that there is only one kind of rights – individual rights. These are the rights that were called unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. When individual rights are properly protected many of the issues related to gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights fall away so that the central issues can be approached from their proper perspective.

For example, if individual rights are fairly enforced we do not need hate-crimes legislation because hate crimes are, first and foremost, crimes against individuals which should be dealt with in a manner to protect and defend the rights of those individuals. No amount of legislation will make a racist like a minority against which they hold a prejudice. If individual rights are properly enforced that will serve as a deterrent against racially inspired crimes as any hate-crimes law (this is not to imply that it will stop the crimes completely, but an admission that hate-crimes laws won’t either).

On issues such as abortion we can stop asking about whether a woman has “a right to control her own body” and focus the discussion on defining where individual rights begin – in other words, if the pre-born infant is an individual then the woman cannot blithely infringe upon the rights of that individual, but appropriate decisions can be made when the well-being of the mother and the well-being of the child are at odds.

The more I think about this the more I am convinced that it is difficult to  help people understand individual rights when we have ceded responsibility to the government to ensure that nobody is hungry, sick, uneducated, or poor and we have allowed the government to own everything although it generously allows us to keep part of the money we earn through our economic contributions.

Categories
National politics

Platform of the American People

Newt Gingrich chose not to run for President because it would conflict with his movement, American Solutions (a good choice in my opinion). American Solutions has now published the Platform of the American People. They claim that the positions in this platform are supported by majorities from both major parties as well as a majority of independents. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at that platform. I have not come to any complete conclusions on the platform yet, but I have discovered that some of their majorities are closer to even than others. I did some objective, numerical analysis – taking all their data for granted – and here are the issues that appear to be the most widely supported.

    • It is important for the President and Congress to address the issue of Social Security in the next few years.
    • We have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation for future generations.
    • Children should be allowed a moment of silence to pray for themselves in public school if they desire.
    • Al Qaeda poses a very serious threat for the United States.
    • Our goal should be to provide long-term solutions instead of short-term fixes.
    • We should hold city governments to the same standards for cleaning waste water as are applied to private industry.
    • It is important to acknowledge today that the references to God in the Declaration of Independence – that we are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    • When applying for a temporary worker visa each worker should take an oath to obey American law and be deported if they commit a crime while in the United States.
    • We approve of a Christmas tree or a Menorah being placed on public property during the holiday season.
    • Therefore we should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education.
    • There will be incredible possibilities to meet our country’s challenges in a variety of fields because in the next 25 years there will be 4 to 7 times the amount of new science and technology in the world as in the last 25 years.
    • We should give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy systems in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy.
    • We must rely on innovation and new technology if we are going to compete successfully with India and China.

Each of these is supposed to be supported by a ratio of at least 11 to 1. Does this look like part of an agenda that will help the country? Does it look like an agenda that we could pass? Are there any candidates or members of congress that would want to push these things through?

I’d love to get feedback from others as I look more closely at this.

To see my full spreadsheet where I sorted these issues out by popularity download it here.

Categories
politics State

Merit Pay and Other Ideas

With Governor Huntsman seeking more money to raise pay levels for public school teachers the Daily Herald calls for something better than a pay-raise across the board. They suggest using the money for merit-based pay increases. I agree completely as I had already suggested that merit-pay might be a good first step to build momentum and consensus in improving our public schools.

Devising an effective merit pay system for a job as subjective as teaching is a challenge, but not impossible. Business managers evaluate subjective factors all the time when reviewing employee performance. What is needed in the public schools is performance evaluation based on some combination of elements, with an accounting for differences in groups of students. The teacher’s job is to drive progress, regardless of the starting point of students. . .

Principals, the front-line managers, should have greater latitude to evaluate performance. They know who their best people are. An evaluation of a teacher might include such things as creating a positive environment for children (perhaps including feedback from parents), innovation, creativity, knowledge of subject matter and communication. If a principal is also subject to merit pay based on overall performance of the school, fears of favoritism should be minimized.

The only group that would oppose merit pay would be the NEA because merit pay could have a negative effect on below average teachers (which would likely be a positive effect on our public schools).

Unfortunately our current system is not set up to encourage teachers to excel. Many teachers come in with high hopes of making a difference in the lives of students only to be worn down within a few years until they quit teaching in public schools. Others may soon abandon their high ideals and rely instead on the job security of a perpetual teacher shortage combined with a large union protecting them from being fired for mediocrity. Few people have the mental and emotional reserves to continue to perform at a high level for an extended number of years in a system that does not reward outstanding achievement. An across-the-board pay raise would not improve that aspect of our school system.

In addition to promoting merit-pay, the Daily Herald suggested some other changes that are worth consideration:

But merit pay is not the only innovation that ought to be evaluated. What would have happened this year, for instance, if the $349 million that went to teachers had been poured into lower-priced staff support? If teachers could be freed from the time-consuming routine of grading and other rote work, perhaps they would have more time to plan, more time to energize, more time to inspire.

Nor should teachers be drawn exclusively from education programs at universities. A great candidate for a teacher is one who is alive with the excitement of a subject and wants to transmit that to others. A wide range of graduates is needed to populate the teaching ranks in Utah’s future schools, and barriers to entry should be minimized.

Those suggestions are too broad to really support without some specifics, but we need to get creative about improving our system. The problems are not going to just go away nor is the cost going to go down over time unless we abandon our ideals or else make some significant changes.

Categories
National politics

A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

Apparently the New York Times would like to have a public debate about taxes. The editorial board expresses their despair that none of the presidential candidates talk about taxes. I think that they are completely right that such a debate is necessary. Beyond that it seems that there is hardly anything that we agree about on this subject. When they turn to discussing their views as opposed to the positions and rhetoric of the candidates they start by saying:

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I consider it to be a very safe bet that they mean that on an perpetual basis. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility I could be sold on the idea that we need more revenue for the time being (meaning the next few decades) to help us dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are in (as a result of our spending in the last few decades). But I think that part of the solution will have to include reducing the spending on some government programs this should include increased efficiency in such programs, but wisdom dictates that it also include a reduction in some programs or services.

The editorial board suggests three opportunities that we can address in the necessary tax debate. Of those three, only one really strikes me as a real opportunity rather than empty dialog:

  • To create a system that does not disproportionately favor investment income over income from work.

I think we agree that the idea that the Democrats gave lip-service to when they gained the majority of both houses of Congress – paying for new programs with reductions elsewhere or new taxes – is a nice idea. The problem is that it really makes little difference if they do that without also making sure that they are actually paying for existing services as well, rather than allowing for deficit spending where it already exists.

The bias of the New York Times is irrefutable when they make statements such as:

. . . the exorbitant cost of the flat tax would likely be paid by cutting Medicare, Social Security and other bedrock government services.

If Medicare and Social Security are “bedrock government services” then I wonder how our nation survived its first 150 years without those services. Though I may easily be accused of being willing to punish poor people for being poor by cutting these government programs, I promise that I would happily support any such program if we did not have debts in the Trillions and if Congress were not deficit spending to implement the programs. Though I believe that these programs are not necessary for government, I am not one to believe that government can never do any good with such programs. The problem I see is in allowing our federal government to use illusory tricks such as deficit spending that even state governments (let alone private individuals) are not allowed to do. The fact is that if a business operated like the government the leaders of that business would be prosecuted and jailed in a truly just society.

More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them.

There is a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly about our budget problems – his name is Ron Paul. They might decide to argue that he lacks the leadership skills to solve the problem but nobody can credibly argue that he lacks the political courage to speak frankly about it. I think that this is a debate we should have. Perhaps the New York Times could start it by hosting a debate or forum in which they could invite Dr. Paul to participate. They could also invite David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who is also anything but timid in speaking about this subject. They can invite whoever they want to defend their positions where they obviously differ from these two men, but with their influence the debate would be hard to ignore once they got the ball rolling. We might even get all the candidates talking about it like they should be.

Categories
National politics

A Lame Duck Can Bite Harder

As illustrated by the current budget standoff, an unpopular lame duck president has powers that often elude presidents earlier in their tenure. Prior to 2006 Bush never vetoed anything. Now he has no re-election to worry about so he has nothing to lose by vetoing every bill Congress sends that is not in line with what he wants. Eventually they have to override the veto or fall in line with his request.

Because his popularity is already low he does not have to worry about disappointing anyone by sticking to his favored position. By standing firm he takes the chance of raising his popularity. If that fails the other members of his party are already prepared to keep their distance from him. The odds are highly against this coming out good for the Democrats.

Categories
politics State

This Should Tell Us Something

The idea that the government should be involved in my health care has always been disconcerting to me. When I read Health care: You can’t give it away I was not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Apparently the state CHIP program is losing more families than they are adding even as they expand their budget to cover more kids. So we’re paying more for a program that is covering fewer kids because people are actively opting out faster than they are opting in. I think that should be a big red flag.

That’s the part that made me want to laugh. The part that made me want to cry was:

Judi Hilman, director of the Utah Health Policy Project, said it’s going to take a “Herculean” effort to combat the stigma that has equated subsidized health care with welfare in Utah. . .

“We need a whole strategic marketing campaign to put these programs in a more positive light,” Hilman said.

If the programs are so good for people why do the people they are designed to help choose not to participate? Secondly, and more importantly, what gives anyone the right to insist that those who are leaving or choosing not to partake should be choosing differently?

Another sentence from Ms. Hilman leads to one more question:

“These programs are absolutely essential if they [low-income families] are going to become permanently self-sufficient.”

The question is – where’s your proof?

I have been uninsured with a family of 5 to take care of and I didn’t use CHIP nor would it have helped me become “permanently self-sufficient.” I don’t mean to say that the program is useless, but I do think her statement is based on a whole range of unfounded assumptions – the kind of assumptions that lead to larger and less efficient government dragging our society towards fiscal slavery.

Categories
National politics

The FairTax

I began to take a closer look at the FairTax proposal because Mike Huckabee (currently the most visible supporter of the FairTax) is rising quickly in the polls and also because I have had some co-workers ask my opinion on the proposal. My immediate answer was, “I want more details.” I read two articles on the same day, one for and one against the FairTax, that helped me to clarify my position.

From Responding to still more absurd attacks on the FairTax I gathered the following:

Lambro is right in asserting that some people actually spend all of their earnings just buying the basic necessities of life. What Lambro obviously doesn’t understand is that under the FairTax every single legal household in this country would receive a check (probably in the form of a credit to a charge account or a debit card) every month equal to the amount of the FairTax which that family would be expected to pay on those necessities during the ensuing month. By way of example, using current poverty statistics the “prebate” for a household of four people would be $506.00 per month. Add that $506.00 to the fact that no household will see anything deducted from their checks for income taxes or for Social Security or Medicare taxes … and you see a substantial rise in real income for the very families that Donald Lambro was so concerned about; the poor and middle income. The president’s own tax reform commission stated that the FairTax was the only tax reform plan out there that would completely untax the poor (at the federal level). How does that square with Lambro’s dire warnings on the effect of the FairTax?

That is what immediately sounds appealing about the FairTax. There would be no taxing people and then giving money back (vouchers, credits, or deductions) based on activities we decide to subsidize. I’m not sure how it works out that, “You don’t pay any more for your toilet paper and milk than you do now,” if the government is still taking the same amount of money and we are getting more in our paycheck. I guess they expect that your toilet paper and milk type necessities will only cost as much in taxes as the prebate you receive each month.
Huck’s Daft Tax Plan made these points:

To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good luck. Huckabee’s magic wand will come in handy.

Then, there’s the rate of the sales tax. FairTaxers say that a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What they really are talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar — what most people would consider a 30 percent rate. The government would pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick “done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are,” writes economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to go as high as 57 percent.

The tax would apply to everything, even medical expenses, so it would amount to an incredibly regressive tax on even the most necessary purchases of low- and middle-income taxpayers. The home mortgage deduction would be gone, and instead buyers would pay a 30 percent (at least) tax on their homes. To make up for this burden, the government would send monthly “prebate” checks to all Americans based on income. (And you thought our current tax scheme was complex?)

The addition of a sales tax and an income tax would be unwanted and I agree that repealing the 16th Amendment would not be easy, but if people were willing to pass the FairTax they would probably do so by setting income tax rates to 0% across the board. If the plan were successful for a few years I would think it would be easy to convince people to repeal the 16th Amendment.

The funny think about whatever rate the taxes would be set at is that the amount of money is not changing. If we are talking about replacing current revenues with the same level of revenue then whatever rate they establish is the same rate we are paying now, either by ourselves, or through increased costs for the goods we purchase. The only difference is who pays and when. The same holds true for the mortgage argument. If I am taxed at 30% on the interest of my mortgage payment that sounds bad, but right now I get taxed on my savings instead of my debt. The current system encourages debt. It appears that the FairTax would encourage savings (which would not be taxed). That seems to be a better system to me.

I like the idea of the FairTax, but I am under no illusions that it will make me wealthy overnight.

Categories
Local politics

Citizen Reactions

I would love to be able to contact Mike Wylie and Amiee Christensen and help them recognize why Lehi is doing things that make them feel “less desirable.” Their reactions to the idea of raising prices on non-residents for Lehi programs were published today in the Daily Herald. I’m not saying that their reactions were completely wrong, but they can’t honestly expect to have Lehi sit like a doormat while others take advantage of city programs.

“Lehi is now trying to push us out,” Wylie said of Lehi’s proposal. “It is one city trying to act like a grown-up and spank the child… I did not do anything wrong. Having lived in the South, and having lived in areas of prejudice, that is almost how I feel I am being treated now.”

Communities should work together to ensure children have access to sports and recreation programs, and when they don’t, it leaves children to roam the streets, and everyone pays a price, he said.

In an e-mail to the Daily Herald and Lehi Council members, Amiee Christensen said she grew up in Lehi but high home prices had forced her move to Eagle Mountain. She said that while she agreed with the sentiment that Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs need to “grow up, I am outraged that there is a proposal to even make it difficult for me to be buried with my family in Lehi. I am living in Eagle Mountain only because I cannot afford to live in Lehi. The low cost of living in Eagle Mountain has forced me and my family to move from the city that my family helped build.”

If Lehi is angry about traffic, the city “should punish the one that is making the problem, the state,” she said. “They are the one that is slow to act and quick to point fingers. I am sad to say that I am from a city that will throw temper tantrums that rival a 2-year-old to get their way… Maybe we should realize that the people of the cities west of Lehi are good people who are sometimes not completely in control of their destiny and they just might need a helping hand from the closest big brother — Lehi.”

Ms. Christensen appears to be unaware of the fact that the mayor of Saratoga Springs has just finished opposing Lehi’s position on the traffic problem, which was directed at the state, in a very public manner. I have a hard time believing that she would expect “a helping hand from the closest big brother” while they are poking big brother in the eye.

I agree with her that the people west of Lehi are generally good people, just as the people of Lehi are generally good people. What needs to happen right now between these cities is a conference of residents and city officials between the cities to talk about their different perspectives on problems such as overcrowding in Lehi programs and Lehi streets and the problems with the solutions proposed by UDOT and now endorsed by Saratoga Springs. If the cities want to cooperate on one issue they should be cooperating on all of them. Lehi want’s to cooperation on the traffic/MVC issue and I think they would be very willing to cooperate on the community programs issue if they felt that they would not be ignored on the traffic issue.

So let’s all stop acting like children (as each side has accused the other of acting) and sit down like adults to discuss our different perspectives and find solutions that are mutually beneficial.

Categories
Local politics State

Biting the Subsidizing Hand

A local example of the negative effect of subsidies is playing out right now. Lehi citizens have been paying taxes to support services that benefit people in Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain. The result is that the people in those cities are unaware of the real costs of the services that many of them take for granted in Lehi. It sounds like they are about to find out what those costs really are.

Saratoga Springs’s commitment to a proposed freeway through Lehi appears to have cost its residents access to Lehi community programs.

Call it retaliation or tough love, Lehi is moving to make it expensive and harder for Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs residents to join community programs, or even be buried, in Lehi.

Lehi Councilman Johnny Barnes gave a letter to Lehi Council members on Tuesday asking that beginning Jan. 1, participation in all community programs “be restricted to Lehi citizens first.”

Residents from nearby communities may be invited to participate if there is space, but “the costs to those participants will reflect the actual cost of the programs,” said Barnes.

Council members instructed staff to begin figuring new fees and participation rules for the council to consider.

Councilman Stephen Holbrook said the day has come for Lehi to make recreation fees for nonresidents “extremely higher, so our citizens can have first choice” and that increase should extend not only to sports programs but library use, senior citizen programs, park rentals, the literacy center, and burial fees.

“Two weeks ago in a pre-council meeting there were comments made concerning a letter sent out by Mayor Tim Parker of Saratoga Springs indicating their strong support of UDOT’s (freeway) plan for 2100 North,” Barnes wrote in his letter to council members. “I stated that in my opinion, this was a clear demonstration of Saratoga coming of age as a city, and felt that if they want to be a city, they need to act like a city.

“In making this statement, I hold firmly to the opinion that along with having the right to take a strong aggressive position comes the right and obligation to provide services to their citizens. This would include all services, not just the ones that are convenient to them or are able to be funded.”

How did this all come about?

Well Lehi has been very accommodating of the burgeoning cities to the west and now that because of that our city council is very aware of the costs of the services that they are virtually giving away. Though this act may be seen as retaliation by some, it makes sense that we should not be too concerned about the costs of restricting access to our programs for people who are apparently uninterested in the costs we will suffer as a result of their preferred freeway.

It’s all a matter of perspective but Saratoga Springs does not appear to care about the Lehi perspective on this project. I recognize that there are aspects of the Mountain View Corridor project that Saratoga would have a perspective that would be lacking in Lehi, but if those cities want to leech off of the programs that have matured here in Lehi then they should be willing to work with us.

The mayor of Saratoga could not be ignorant of Lehi’s vocal concern over the 2100 North alignment preferred by UDOT. If he cared about them then he should have made a better case for why Lehi’s 4800 North proposal was inferior. Everything I have seen suggests that 2100 North is marginally better for anyone who is just passing through Lehi than the plan proposed by Lehi, but it is substantially worse for residents of Lehi.

Categories
culture

SEP Subsidies

A story this morning instantly made me think about the discussion that followed when I wrote about Funding Mass Transit back in July. This story is about a driver who chose to use biofuel in his vehicle:

Bob Teixeira decided it was time to take a stand against U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

So last fall the Charlotte musician and guitar instructor spent $1,200 to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He bought soybean oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30 percent more than diesel would cost.

His reward, from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels: a $1,000 fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes. He has been told to expect another $1,000 fine from the federal government.

To legally use veggie oil, state officials told him, he would have to first post a $2,500 bond.

SEP stands for somebody else’s problem. It refers to things that are in plain sight but we rarely (if ever) think about them. (from Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) Fuel taxes are one of those things. Because of their SEP nature we rarely think about the cost of maintaining roads. Most people drive their cars everywhere without a single thought for the wear they are putting on public infrastructure. They blithely fill their vehicle without thinking about the silent tax that they pay without question. The only time people think about gas taxes is when their is a proposal to increase them. They never think about them otherwise no matter how underfunded the roads become.

I’m not saying that this unconscious approach is necessarily bad, but it is not unlike our health care problem where we fail to recognize the actual costs associated with the types of care we partake of and thus we don’t consider whether that cost is worth the benefit that we receive. (In most cases it is, but how often do people run to the pharmacy or the operating room when a lifestyle change would be a better – though harder – solution?)

Because it is so easy to pay the fuel taxes it is difficult to accurately compare the costs of using cars vs mass transit. Until that comparison can be made we can only guess at the best approach to hit the moving target that is our traffic problem. Right now we usually only hit on a solution when traffic comes to a standstill.