I've come to wonder how, in recent years, such a concept as hope has managed to become a polarizing buzzword in the modern political landscape. How a basic human and Christian virtue has become the subject of mockery.

In Ether 12:4, Moroni wrote that those who believe in God may with surety hope for a better world. Sure and hope are not words that are often thrown together, but is there any greater promise that we can hope for in this life than a better world?

Read more

Most Americans claim they are tired of bitter partisanship and Congressional gridlock in Washington. The non-stop manufactured crises, including the show-downs over the federal budget and debt ceiling, the more than 40 House votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and the unprecedented use of the filibuster in the Senate to block even routine executive and judicial appointments, are just some of the ways politicians have log-jammed our democracy. Last October’s unpopular government shut down led to the furlough of nearly 1 million workers, while another million were compelled to work without pay. Any astute observer of American politics knows that one of the primary reasons for this Congressional dissonance is hyper-partisan redistricting, or gerrymandering.

Most Americans support raising the minimum wage, comprehensive immigration reform, and universal background checks on gun buyers. Americans do not want subsidies for oil companies and tax breaks for corporate jet owners. And Americans are in favor of balanced deficit reduction that includes both new revenues and spending cuts. Yet, partisan gerrymandering is why these and many other highly popular proposed reforms have no chance of passing in the current Congress.

Read more

12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

1 Timothy 4:12

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can depend on left-leaning members to draw a growing demographic, which would otherwise be repulsed by organized religion, to learn about and even accept the Restored Gospel.

Read more

Several months ago, when a friend invited me to join the “Mormon Liberals” Facebook group, my wife asked me, "Are you going to join?"   I looked at her and said, “I’m not a liberal.”  She looked at me and said, “Yes, you are.”  And I was at a loss for words.  They say your wife knows you better than you know yourself, but I didn’t think this was actually the case until I realized -- she was absolutely correct.

Read more

LDS Dems-Idaho recently interviewed Holli Woodings about her current run for Idaho Secretary of State. Holli currently serves in the Idaho House of Representatives from District 19, Seat B.  We encourage you to learn more about her at www.woodingsforidaho.com.

This interview was conducted by Jon Young, an LDS Democrat living in Boise, ID.

JON:  Holli, Thank you so much; it's an honor to speak with you. You've recently announced your run for Idaho secretary of state. Many people may not be very familiar with the position.  I honestly never heard of it until a bright orange card came in the mail asking me to send an annual report to the Secretary of State, Ben Ysursa for a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) I used for technology contracting. That was probably the easiest report I ever sent: just go online and let Idaho know I'm still in business. What other responsibilities fall under the Idaho secretary of state?

HOLLI:  Hi Jon, thank you for thinking to include me! I'm excited for your caucus as I have many LDS friends who think they're the only ones who identify politically as a Democrat rather than a Republican, so it's great to have an active, visible group to show them otherwise.

Your question is great because a lot of us respond to our orange card each year, and it's so easy to keep our business status up-to-date with the secretary of state's office. In addition to business filings, the secretary of state administers elections, a position that I see as one of the most important functions of the office - to keep voting in Idaho open and accessible to all eligible voters. The secretary also holds a seat on the Land Board, which oversees the management of our state endowment lands in order to fund education. Administratively, the office oversees use of the Great Seal of Idaho, licenses notaries public, administers the Idaho Health Care Directive Registry, issues trademarks, and enforces the campaign finance reporting.

JON:  You said “keep voting in Idaho open and accessible.” Do you see any current or future problems to correct with our voting system in Idaho?

HOLLI:  I see the key word as "keep." We actually have a great elections system here in Idaho and it's important that we keep it that way. There are opportunities to allow greater opportunities to register to vote, such as DMV registration or online registration that will help the homebound or those serving overseas.

JON:  Concerning campaign finance, when we voted on Propositions 1, 2, & 3, aka "The Luna Laws," a few years back, I was disturbed to hear New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had donated $200,000 to a group supporting those measures. What, if anything, can you do to discourage or expose external donors whose interests likely do not align with the needs of Idahoans?

HOLLI:  The thing to remember is we wouldn't have even known about that contribution had our current secretary of state, Ben Ysursa, not been even handed in enforcing our campaign finance laws. The Sunshine Law was enacted by voter initiative in 1974 because Idahoans want to know where the money is coming from for campaigns and lobbyist expenditures. It's up to the secretary of state to enforce that law and is something I take seriously.

JON:  Since the secretary of state oversees both voting and campaign finance in Idaho, we need someone who can avoid picking a side in partisan battles. How might you ensure your efforts are equal or fair?

HOLLI:  By enforcing the law equally, regardless of which side of the issue an organization or individual represents, we can ensure fairness and accountability for all parties.

JON:  Please relate a few experiences that have prepared you to serve as the Idaho secretary of state?

HOLLI:  One of the best experiences to prepare me has been my position on the House State Affairs committee. This is where all legislation and rules put forth by the secretary of state's office are reviewed and either voted up or down. This role has given me the opportunity to become well versed in state election law, and allowed me to interact with our county elections officials in a meaningful way. Additionally, we review the rules of the office, such as records keeping and the Sunshine Law.

Outside of the legislature, I've registered both nonprofit organizations and LLCs, complied with Sunshine Law as a political candidate and as a lobbyist, and volunteered to help college students register to vote, all of which interface with the Secretary of State's office. The office has a fairly modest staff whose size is comparable to that of MetaGeek, the company my husband founded and we've grown over the past several years, so management of that size of office is something I'm very familiar with.

JON:  You have some great experience that we need in a Secretary of State. To wrap up this interview, do you have any additional l thoughts to share with voters?

HOLLI:  I want to thank you for the opportunity, Jon. The Secretary of State is such an important position in keeping our elections open and accessible for all eligible voters and promoting investment in our schools. It would be my honor to continue the legacy of fairness and serve as Idaho's next Secretary of State.

Now that Utah State Senator Curt Bramble’s negotiated compromise with the Count My Vote proponents appears to be headed for a vote in the Legislature, cries of dismay from the extremist wing of the GOP have become deafening. A complaint by Rep. Mike Noel especially caught my eye (especially combined with his cry that Mitt Romney had – gasp! – hurt his feelings!):

“To me, the scariest voter is the uninformed voter.”

I can think of a few things more scary, Mike.

To me, the scariest voter is the voter that believes he deserves more say in how our country is run than his fellow citizens. They have a name for that: oligarchy. It sure ain’t democracy. One of the things that pushed me into being a Utah Democrat was hearing Republican delegates in 2005 call in to the Doug Wright show one afternoon explaining why they deserved more say in how the state was run than their clueless fellow citizens (especially if those citizens were registered Democrats). The arrogance of those people really shocked me. Rep. Noel makes it clear they haven’t repented.

These folks argue that it’s none of the public’s business how the Republican Party chooses their candidates. What arrogance. The taxpayer foots the bill for our elections; our system of electing our representatives belongs to the people, not to any political party.

While we’re talking uninformed voters, Mike: Which voter is more uninformed? The voter who is maybe a little superficial in how she investigates the candidates and issues, but remains open minded – or the voter who is so rigid in his ideology that his mind is completely closed to facts, evidence or any sort of rational argument that disagrees with his cherished beliefs? Neither of the above is ideal – but if I had to choose, I think we would be much better off with the first. Modern Republicans remind me of the old Mark Twain quote: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that ain’t so.”

The Utah Legislature in general, and the fact that we sent John Swallow to the AG’s office and Mike Lee to the US Senate, are irrefutable examples that the current system is not working for Utah.

Kudos to Senator Bramble for bucking the extremists in his party and trying to find a workable compromise that maybe, just maybe, will be a good solution that balances the rights of the public with the concerns of political activists.

The complexities and drivers of the federal budget are vast and intimidating to understand. However, it is very difficult to have discussions about our federal deficits and national debt unless the process is first understood. I want to initiate this discussion to help readers understand our nation’s budgetary process and to foster more informed dialogue. Hopefully this explanation will dispel partisan rhetoric and break down unfounded talking points.

The Federal Budget: Our nation’s budget can be divided into two major segments; mandatory and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is authorized by law and not subject to annual review or appropriations. This falls outside of the Executive Branch’s control as the President cannot unilaterally change laws and is incapable of creating spending bills per the Constitution. Mandatory spending is the largest part of our nation’s budget composed of entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, and welfare.  Mandatory spending is also incredibly difficult to alter given complexities and integration with society.

Discretionary spending is subject to the budgetary process and controlled by the Executive Branch.  Over half of our discretionary spending is allocated to the military and the other half is divided according to department need. Since the President maintains control of the discretionary budget he should be held accountable for increasing or decreasing spending.  The current discretionary budget today is $1.1 trillion, slightly less than in 2008.

The Calendar: The federal government reports on a fiscal year outside of the calendar year. This is common for many corporations as fiscal years can be planned around inventory fluctuations or revenue patterns.  Regardless of the reason, our national budget runs annually from October 1^st to September 30^th.  All accounting procedures are completed shortly after the fiscal year closes and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) compiles reports made available to the public.

The Basic Process: At the beginning of the year the President initiates the process by submitting a budget to Congress. The budget is typically provided the first week of February. Once Congress receives the budget they send it to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan organization, to evaluate assumptions and quantify changes. Once the CBO evaluates the budget a report is published for the public and Congress (typically in March). The House of Representatives then adds any additional amendments, and begins confirmation with the Senate.

The Senate also receives the federal budget and may pass as submitted or add additional amendments. Discrepancies between chambers are typically worked in committee and once aligned the budget is voted on and sent back to the President’s desk. If the President aligns with the changes he signs the budget and it is implemented for the upcoming fiscal year.  If the President is not aligned the budget is sent back to Congress for revision.

Continuing Resolutions: As we have seen in previous years the Senate, House, and Executive Branch might not agree on the budget. This lack of cooperation is typically pinned on the Chief Executive unfairly. However, there is a critical secondary process to keep the government operating without an annual budget; continuing resolutions (CR). A CR is passed by Congress and the President to continue operations at the same levels already agreed upon by a previous budget (a de facto budget). There are several CRs that need to pass to sustain spending in the Executive Branch.  Simplified, there is a CR for every cabinet department (Defense, Homeland Security, Education, State, etc).

Do you remember when government shutdown in October of 2013? The beginning of the fiscal year (October 1^st) came and our government did not have a completed budget or CR to authorize spending. With no authorization workers were furloughed and major departments of the Executive Branch closed. Again this only impacted the discretionary portion of total budget; mandatory spending is not reviewed annually and continued to be spent.

Avoid the Political Spin: No government branch has more control than another when it comes to passing the annual budget. I have often heard explanations arguing either the House or President controls the budget when results are favorable. For instance, when Clinton was president and the Republicans controlled the House, arguments were made justifying either branch's impact on the budget. Once the process is understood, it becomes clear that both branches need to work together to pass a budget.

This explanation might prompt readers to question the House’s role in spending per the Constitution. As directed by our founding document all spending bills must originate in the House. Bills are prelininary laws so new spending is first passed by the lower chamber. Once the bill becomes a mandatory law spending falls outside of the annual budgetary process.

A great example of the House’s constitutional power was witnessed when the Immigration Bill passed by the Senate in 2013. Once passed the bill was retained, waiting for the House to pass their own version and use reconciliation to put the bills together. If the Senate had sent their bill to the House, it would be immediately stamped unconstitutional and discarded.

My last admonishment for readers who have made it this far – know the actual budget and what is driving the annual deficit and the national debt. Although it seems easy to blame any one individual or party, it requires significant compromise and bipartisanship to change either mandatory or discretionary spending.  Office of Management and Budget

This opinion is just that, an opinion from a member of the Idaho LDS Dems Caucus. LDS Dems is a big tent where opposing views are found often and those differences welcomed.

Guns on campus? What's the rush?

Idaho Senate Bill 1254 relieves Universities of a right currently granted to them, usurping the right and responsibility Universities have to establish gun free zones on their campuses. We implore you to analyze stakeholder concerns, consider the state of safety currently afforded at our institutions of higher education and the costs and benefits of changing policies currently in place.

We encourage you to seek broad spread support from stakeholders, including central stakeholders in school administrators and students. No matter the outcome, these are folks that will need to live a majority of their days with the decisions made and anxieties that could come from them. There is absolutely no reason this bill needs to be rushed through the legislative process and doing so will only lead to the lack of support from central stakeholders. If this is such a constitutional travesty, perhaps legal action should have been pursued years ago rather than beating this drum each session, waiting for the stars to align and get it passed.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we’re proud to support a great Brigham Young University system of which one campus is located in Rexburg, Idaho. This school system, like our current public institutions of higher education in Idaho, does not feel that gun carrying students are conducive to the academic environment on their campus or needed for improved campus safety.

10 years ago, BYU President Merrill Bateman (1996-2003) filed a sworn affidavit in support of the University of Utah's campus gun ban that was challenged by the State of Utah. Utah did not have a provision of state code allowing institutions of higher education to regulate firearms on campus like Idaho does. Bateman said, “I am aware of no situation or incident that has occurred on BYU’s campus that could have been alleviated by the intervention of citizens armed with concealed weapons. On the other hand, there have been situations where the presence of firearms, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens, would have complicated, escalated and ultimately aggravated the situation or conflict,” Bateman said.

This session, Boise State University President Bob Kustra almost quoted President Bateman verbatim saying, “In fact, we can find no recorded incident in which a victim—or a spectator—of a violent crime on a campus has prevented a crime by brandishing a weapon. In fact, professional law enforcement officials claim that increasing the number of guns on a campus would increase police problems and make it difficult for police officers in a shooting situation to tell the good shooter from the bad shooter and inadvertently shoot an innocent person. Weapons on campus may, in fact, lead to an acceleration of conflict in stressful situations.”

There’s a considerable lack of data regarding the effectiveness of gun carrying on campus, which should really be provided if this is truly a campus safety bill. Until the claims that allowing concealed weapons on campus will make Idaho’s campuses safer can be quantitatively estimated and relied upon, we recommend that you let the decision rest on those who run these institutions and are responsible for their safety. We hope you’ll work together to enact reforms that continue to benefit higher learning in the great State of Idaho.

Jordan Morales
LDS Democrats of Idaho
Chair

Lately I have been engaged in several debates and discussions with my conservative friends. I am often entertained with how they use words or phrases to exemplify a position or undercut my arguments. Since I find many of these tactics somewhat humorous, I decided to share some of the user's perceived definitions and place them against the litmus test of reality. Enjoy!

2^nd Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Reality: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The Framers were opposed to standing armies and felt it was the people’s role to defend the Free State (which is ironic given our current military structure).  There was purpose in gun ownership and the Founding Brothers always supported moderation in all things.

Birthers: Those who oppose any presidential nominee born outside of the United States as per the Constitution. Reality: This view really only applies to Democrat nominees. Currently one of the GOP presidential front-runners is Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz who was born in Canada. John McCain was born in Panama and George Romney was born in Mexico.

Communist: (also see Socialist) Conservatives are not really sure of the difference between a Socialist and Communist. Reality: Communism is COMPLETE governmental control of capital and resources. Nobody supports this, not liberals, not even Hitler.

Constitution: Our nation's founding document that can only be correctly interpreted by conservatives. Reality: The Constitution is cherry picked by conservatives to fit their agenda. Appointing judges, nominating cabinet positions, controlling the executive branch, and conducting foreign policy fall squarely under the President’s command but is undermined by conservatives on a regular basis.  Advice and Consent by the Senate is being abused and the House of Representatives does not represent the majority of the people due to gerrymandering.

Gun Control: The belief that government is coming for your guns and undermining your rights. Reality: Gun control is common sense solutions to help curb the rampant violence being experienced in our country. Ideas such as the Brady Bill, background checks, concealed carry permits, resources for the ATF to enforce current laws, and gun dealer inventory requirements are all solutions that can help prevent a portion of our 30,000 gun related deaths each year.

Entitlements: The giving out of free handouts to the lazy and parasitic by the government. Reality: 60% of all entitlements go to seniors, 20% go to the disabled, 10% go to working families, and another 10% go to non-working individuals and families (including college students).  It should also be noted that red states take more entitlements per capita than blue states.

Executive Orders: A power grab by the President of the United States as a way to circumvent the Constitution. Reality: The President of the United States has the authority to regulate how the executive branch functions.

Family Values: The basis for America’s greatness and the aspiration of how we should live as a society. Reality: Conservatives use family values as an ambiguous argument trying to suppress any diversity in social norms.

Food Stamps: Free handouts to the lazy. Reality: 50% of all food stamps go to children, and another 15% to seniors. 1 in 5 veterans are also recipients of food stamps.

Liberal: Any person that expresses a difference of opinion with a conservative. Reality: A liberal is any person who fights for individual liberties. The definition has been twisted by conservatives and misused to represent any person offering a difference of opinion. Being labeled a liberal brings full discredit in any political conversation or debate with a conservative.

Liberal Media: Any media outside of conservative news sources. Reality: This term is used when conservatives lack a coherent response to any data being sourced.  This could be viewed as the ultimate debate cop-out which, by disregarding the source, immediately invalidates all arguments.

National Debt: The amount of money we have to borrow due to the President’s budget. Reality: The Debt is a function of multiple administrations impacting mandatory expenditures that cannot be changed unless reversed by the House, Senate, and President working together.

National Deficit: The same as the National Debt (really – I hear this all the time). Reality: The National Deficit is the annual (not total) gap in spending vs. receipts.

Pro-Choice: A liberal position that encourage woman to seek abortions for their poor choices. Reality: Pro-Choice does not mean pro-abortion. Abortion is a complicated choice and the decision cannot be lumped into one generic stereotype. Pro-Choice should be left up to the individual’s doctor, religious authority, family and not directed by government influence. It should also be noted that 30% of all abortions are by married women and the abortion rate has been declining rapidly since 1980.

Pro-Life: A position that believes the embryo is a living person, and the sanctity must be protected at all costs. Reality: Pro-life arguments typically end at conception.

Ronald Reagan: The ultimate conservative and the gold standard for Republicans. Reality: Ronald Reagan supported gun legislation, signed pro-choice legislation, passed two of the largest tax hikes in American history, tripled the National Debt, passed full access for the uninsured to use emergency rooms, provided amnesty for three million undocumented workers, and signed several pieces of social reform legislation into law.  I’m pretty sure he would be kicked out of the Republican party today.

RINO: Republican In Name Only Reality: Name given to any Republican that does not maintain total loyalty to party ideas and platforms. I have seen Republican legislators who vote with the party 95% of the time and still be labeled a RINO.

Science: A selective explanation of data and theory that can be opposed for political justification. Reality: Public opinion does not trump scientific data.

Socialist: (also see Communist) Any person who supports government programs, fair taxation policies, or pretty much anything that is associated with the Democratic Party. Reality: Socialism is governmental control of capital and resources. The police, fire department, public schools, libraries, national parks, roads and bridges, judicial system, and the military are all socialist organizations.  Our country has always been a mixed-market economic system balancing socialism and capitalism.

Tea Party: A political movement that is holding our leaders responsible both fiscally and conservatively. Reality: A political movement that brings little to no ideas to the table and uses opposition as its only weapon.  The Tea Party takes extreme stances on every conservative issue and has been detrimental to the party when it comes to elections (Republicans would have control of the Senate today if it wasn't for Tea Party candidates).  The Tea Party creates gridlock and then points to the same gridlock as to why government doesn't work.

Tyrannical Government: Our nation’s leadership making obsessive power grabs to suppress the ideas of the majority. Reality: A conservative narcissist phrase used as fear-mongering to generate divide among our citizens.  Simply refuted, ask any believer why a tyrannical government would willingly submit to public elections.

The conservatives are screaming bloody murder over President Obama’s stated plan this year to use his executive power to bypass Congress when necessary in solving some of the nation’s most pressing problems. And I have to admit: I’m a little uncomfortable myself. Like most Americans, I revere the Constitution and the concept of separation of powers.

The question is: Who is at fault for this problem?

To answer that, a few case studies from history might be instructive.

In the late Middle Ages, the largest and most powerful nation in Europe was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from Germany and Austria almost to Moscow. Almost all of what we know as Eastern Europe, include much of today’s Russia, was contained within its borders.

Except for avid students of European history, the above paragraph is probably mildly surprising. Most of you have probably never heard of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Where did this large, powerful nation go? We have Poland and Lithuania today, but these nations are hardly world powers. What happened?

The Commonwealth was ruled by an elected king and by the Sejm, a legislative body consisting of the nobles of the country. In the late 1600’s the concept of the liberum veto was introduced in the Sejm. This change allowed any member of the Sejm to veto any legislation, essentially requiring a unanimous vote to pass. About the same time, the members of the Sejm started to be more concerned about their own little fiefdoms rather than the overall good of the nation. The result was that the Commonwealth became ungovernable. Her neighbors took advantage of the situation, and during the latter half of the 18^th century, she was literally carved up and partitioned amongst her neighbors; Russia, Prussia and Austria. The American Revolutionary War hero Tadeusz Kościuszko returned to his native Poland and led a revolution to try to save his country, but by then it was too late.

More recently, we have the example of the depression-era Weimar Republic in Germany, where a bickering, divisive Reichstag resulted in paralyzed government and paved the way for Adolf Hitler to assume power.

There are many more examples, but the lesson is clear: The path to tyranny is paved by dysfunctional government, especially in the legislature, which is the branch most closely tied to the people.

The parallel to the United States in 2014 is clear. One of the major political parties has a curious, perverse incentive: Their ideology claims that the government can’t do anything right, so they have the incentive to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, the government has to function. We can have honest debates over what the government should do, but once the decision has been made, we must work together to make government function.

My message to congressional Republicans couldn’t be more clear: Are you upset about President Obama trying to do your job? Then why don’t you do your job.