RULES_AND_BYLAWS_OF_THE_LDS_DEMOCRATIC_CAUCUS_4.10.12F[1]

Post by Joseph M -

Nothing like the back-and-forth, finger-pointing, and grand-standing bluster of John Boehner to throw water on any lingering post-election celebratory feeling.  Yes, the congressional Republicans are the ultimate buzz-kill.  And of course, once again, President Obama is proving himself perfectly diplomatic in the fiscal cliff negotiations.  He is even doing campaign stops, which makes me suprisingly nostalgic for two months ago when the idea of moving forward seemed much more of a possiblity than it does right now.  Also, the President is proposing real compromise (cuts in spending in addition to raising rates on the wealthiest of Americans) while the Republicans are offering a vague proposal to close tax loopholes as a way to generate revenue from the upper 2% and to cut spending on who-knows-what.

A large majority of Americans agree with President Obama's balanced approach to dealing with the fiscal cliff.  In fact, according to Kwame Holman from the PBS Newshour:

...new polls show Americans do want compromise, and it's the Democrats who hold the edge. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday shows a majority, 65 percent, say President Obama has a mandate on both increasing taxes on the wealthy and reducing federal spending.

A similar two-thirds are willing to accept tax increases or cuts in federal government programs to reach a deal. But while public support on taxes is overwhelming, opinion on proposed cuts is less so.

So according to these numbers, even Americans who may not have supported President Obama for reelection acknowledge that his balanced approach to looming fiscal cliff is the way to go.  Presently, Obama's approval rating is at 55%, while the Republicans stand at a 32% approval rating.  See the full report from the PBS Newshour's coverage for more complete "notes" of the going-ons of this debate.

But what does this say about the Republican's digging-their-heels approach to dealing with President Obama's agenda?  Apparently, the Republicans view this as their means of getting what they want, while America sees it as more of the same.  However, President Obama clearly has the upper hand.  The Republicans run the risk of being the party that denied tax cuts to the majority of Americans in order to preserve tax breaks for the wealthy.  And seriously, is $250,000 really the defining cut-off for the middle class?  Many would disagree and believe that Obama's proposal of going back to the pre-Bush tax rates are not enough.  According to Chris Weigant, "If we're going to tax the rich... then let's tax the rich."  See his recommendations on Huffington Post.com.

So hope and change are once again side-stepped by Boehner's need to hold a daily press conference where he says the same thing over and over again with his gravely voice and his blunt affect: "It's clear the president is just not serious about cutting spending!"  Meanwhile, America's economy is inching closer and closer to the edge of some cliff.  (Probably in the Arizona desert somewhere.)  Which causes me to think: while I hope we are spared a Thelma-and-Louise-type ending in 2012, (although there are a few things/people/Boehner I would like to see driven over a cliff,) maybe this is the end the Mayans where predicting?  In lieu of that meteorite colliding with the earth, we get a tumble off of a fiscal cliff instead.  This might be the time we should call our members of congress.

See this inforgraphic from DailyKos.com for more insight into the so-called fiscal cliff.

[caption id="attachment_2970" align="aligncenter" width="540"] Click on the Infographic to link to Daily Kos[/caption]

2013fireside (3)

I just read a book that changed the way I think about both religion and politics. The book is entitled “#Occupy the Bible: What Jesus Really Said (And Did) About Money and Power” by the Rev. Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite. Those who have read the works of Hugh Nibley will find much that is familiar. Dr. Thistlethewaite challenges Christians to #Occupy the Bible by reading the words of Christ from the perspective of those he was preaching to: poor itinerant day laborers and artisans who were suffering under the tyranny of Roman rule, abetted by the Jewish theocracy.

The author finds her inspiration in the Social Gospel movement during the Gilded Age between the Civil War and World War I, and how the movement worked with the leaders of the Progressive movement to fight for social change in America. The problem then, as it is now, are the social ills in America resulting from the ever widening gulf between the rich and poor in our nation.

Dr. Thistlethwaite calls on followers of Christ to #Occupy the Bible by reading it from the street level; when the modern equivalent of Jesus’ original audience dwell today. She promises that if we do so, we will see that the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth was not a prophecy about a future coming of the Kingdom of God, but was an admonition to reject the Kingdom of Caesar to bring about the Kingdom of God in the present. I was led to understand many of the Lord’s parables and much of his preaching in a new light. Foremost is the call from Jesus, in his very first public sermon in Nazareth, to bring about a return of the Old Testament Jubilee; to do a “reset” of the Jewish economic system by forgiving debt, freeing slaves, and returning property taken from the poor. (This is especially reminiscent of Dr. Nibley’s teaching.) And it becomes clear that this call for Jubilee, which threatened the riches and power of the ruling class in Jesus’ day, was the root cause of the fierce anger against the Savior that ultimately cost him his life.

“#Occupy the Bible” is a clarion call for followers of Christ to take upon them the mantle the followers of the Social Gospel fulfilled during the Progressive era. The book challenges us to be on the streets, among the poor, and to speak out bravely and passionately in our communities and churches for social justice. Praying for the poor and dispossessed is important, but must be followed by action. When I closed the last page, I had the feeling that maybe progressive Latter-day Saints need to speak up a little more, to be the disciples on the right hand of the Savior that the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats talks about. Here’s a final quote from Dr. Thistlethwaite: “All Christians, left, right and center, as well as Unitarians, can come together around the simple truth that the biblical message as taught by Jesus of Nazareth was the love of God and neighbor acted out in the Jesus movement. What Jesus and followers did was build up communities of equality and mutual support, economic fairness, gender equality, and live a life of celebration of one another and our love of God. And where those values were not realized in His society, Jesus and his followers protested. That’s real, and that should be the message that the church not only teaches, but also lives.”

You can read more at http://occupythebible.org/

 

Post by Joseph M -

So I am going to put my own spin on this (mostly because I'm an optimist in all things liberal) and make a guess that "Not Affiliated" is the new code word for "Democrat" in the leadership of the Church.  (Unless, as a friend of mine pointed out, it just means they are Libertarian.)  Regardless, we really find no surprises in this article found in the Salt Lake Tribune.  Many of the leaders of the Church are Republican, (even though I always fancied Elder Scott to be a Democrat.  He does that whole thing in General Conference where he asks us to imagine he's talking personally to us, and it seems so caring and warm, I've always thought: "He has to be a Democrat!") And we also learn that all 15 voted in this past election, although Church spokesman Trotter points out, "Party affiliation does not necessarily indicate how an individual votes. As an institution, the church is politically neutral. The purpose of the church is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ."

And also from the Times article: "LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter says party affiliation and voting are personal matters for individuals, even church leaders, and he warned people not to read too much into the voting-registration records."

Regardless of what many Republican Mormons might say, (i.e., how can we follow the prophet if we don't vote like the prophet!?!) I'm not swayed in my political leanings.  I am a Democrat.  It is part of my soul.  But I try not to confuse my politics with the gospel.  This can be difficult for me at times because politics is much more provocative and immediate, while a Sunday School lesson might feel more repetitive and uninteresting.  But I do feel strongly that while being a Democrat reflects my belief in the gospel, I know it's not the same thing as my faith and testimony.  It is much more complex than that - and surely it is much more complex than this graphic might be understood to imply:

Earlier today Buzzfeed blogger (and Mormon) McKay Coppins wrote the following:

In an evolution from its past teachings, the Mormon Church launched a new website Thursday asserting that sexuality is not a personal choice.

Read more

Post by Joseph M -

See Hannah's original post here.

When President Obama won the 2008 election, Seattle took to the streets.  And I also joined the throngs of thousands of people who celebrated downtown and up on Capitol Hill.  I remember feeling encouraged and excited to be a part of the community of Americans who had joined together to make the victory possible.  I felt the energy and motivation of a newly called missionary - all I needed was the rallying call of the President to tell me what needed to be done, and I would be there.  All of us Obama supporters seemed to be of the same mind; tell us what needs to be done - lead us into battle - and we will heed the call.  However, clear direction never came.  The recession hit like a hurricane, and President Obama became entangled in a health care battle with congress that left many of us wondering what our part in this fight might be.

This election, President Obama has the opportunity to continue to engage with his supporters and the electorate in ways that go beyond 2008.  Obama for America is still sending emails - of course not in the volume we saw during the campaign when a request for donations hit the inbox several times a day.   But this new campaign allows each of us to stay involved with the President's agenda during this lame duck session and also during his second term.  We Mormons for Obama may see life as going "back to normal" after the frenzied election season.  Conversations may shift away from the hope and change possible during this second term, and like 2008, we may be unsure of how we can continue to support President Obama.  I am not sure I have all of the answers, but I do know that we can stay involved by responding to the President's requests for support (whether that is writing to congressional leaders or sharing our support for President Obama's policies on Facebook or on our blogs.)

Here are two articles from that discuss the ongoing effort by Obama for America to promote the President's positions on the upcoming fiscal cliff.  The first if from TheHill.com; the second is from NPR.org

This is an excerpt from an email circulating from the Obama campaign this past week:

More than 1 million supporters took our survey last week, sharing feedback on their 2012 campaign experience and how they'd like to see us move forward. While we're still sorting through all of the responses, I wanted to share some initial results:

-- An overwhelming majority of survey respondents reported feeling welcomed and included, that their time was used effectively, and that there was a clear understanding of how their work directly helped re-elect President Obama.
-- Among those of you who volunteered at least a few hours, a majority went into a field office, though many of you got involved instead through the campaign's online tools such as Dashboard and the call tool. 
-- About 1 in 10 survey respondents are interested in running for office at some point, using their organizing skills to continue fighting for real and lasting change. That level of political engagement is inspiring.
-- Almost half of all survey respondents forwarded campaign emails, and more than one-third communicated with friends on Facebook -- both great ways to pass along information about the President's positions and plans, as well as opportunities to get involved.
-- Nearly 80 percent of survey takers want to keep volunteering, primarily around the President's legislative agenda.

Also included was this quotation from a supporter in Texas: "Don't let the energy of the re-election slip through your fingers. This is a very powerful network of people."  And this expresses how I felt in 2008 and how I feel now.  Check out barackobama.com to learn about the issues and tasks at hand and the ways that we can be involved.  I am hopeful that we Mormons can stay engaged in the change we hope to see in our country, whether on a national or local level.  Let's continue to follow the words recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants to stay anxiously engaged in a good cause; let's continue to move forward.

Post by Joseph M -

Surprisingly, I have actually been feeling a bit neglected.  During the election I expected to see several new Mormon-themed articles posted online daily; some of these articles even included references to Mormons for Obama.  So I found myself feeling slightly pleased to hear two NPR stories referencing Mormons this morning.   The first is pretty run of the mill: Mormonism: A Scrutinized, Yet Evolving Faith.  However they do interview Joanna Brooks, and she is always a pleasure to hear.  (And I would also add, anything is better than hearing more about the Petraeus sex scandal.)

But the second article is something to be excited about: In Russia, Pro-Putin Youths Protest Mormons As 'Cult'.  But it's not the subject of the title that's so interesting (or the most absurd.)  The protesters (the Young Guard) have staged a number of protests outside chapels in Russian and "charge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a 'authoritarian sect' with connections to the CIA and FBI."  They cite evidence that Mormon missionaries go on to work for the CIA and FBI in disproportionately high numbers.  This is something that we Mormons have understood to be the natural result of the wide-ranging international experiences and language skills our returning missionaries acquire, but apparently these Russian Young Guard members interpret these (non-validated) statistics differently.

Indeed, the Youth Guard "sees the Mormon Church as an American enterprise, funded from the United States, with missionaries who act as American operatives."  Yes.  They believe that Mormon missionaries are American spies.

As the NPR report ended this morning, I found myself encompassed by a gentle mist of nostalgia for the Cold War.  Not for the Cold War itself, but more for its influence on our popular culture.  I mean, who doesn't miss the days when Red was associated with the words Hunt, October and Dawn (the Patrick Swayze one,) instead of Bull, Box, and Dawn (the Connor Cruise one.)  So thank you Russian Young Guard for hosting 80s-themed dance parties outside our LDS chapels in Russia.  This must be a wonderful history lesson for your young people, and I am sure Sam Mendes will be contacting you for ideas for his next Bond film.

Jeremy Robinson shares his journey on the issue of marriage equality, which he titled: "Who Is My Neighbor? A Straight Mormon's perspective on Same Sex Marriage"  

Read more

[caption id="attachment_364" align="alignright" width="300"] Our Budget is Represented by the Following:[/caption]

The United States budget can be broken into two groups, DISCRETIONARY spending and MANDATORY spending.  About 7% of the budget is interest paid on our debt – which will only increase, but should also be considered mandatory as defaulting is not an option.

As you can probably guess mandatory spending is outside of the President’s control and is regulated by established laws in place.  Mandatory spending includes Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc.  The last major bump in Mandatory spending came in 2003 under Medicare Part D which approved an additional $17 trillion in additional spending across the upcoming 50-60 years. The only change that has been made to mandatory spending under President Obama, is Obamacare.  However, the CBO calculated the program is deficit neutral due to mandate penalties offsetting increased spending. So when you hear that Obama is responsible for the record recipients on welfare and food stamps, it’s a completely bogus claim as this spending is mandated by laws already in place.

[caption id="attachment_365" align="alignleft" width="300"] Here is the breakdown of mandatory spending:[/caption]

Discretionary spending makes up 31% of our total federal spend but represents the majority of our budget conversations (you can sense my frustration).  The discretionary budget is subject to annual appropriations in which the Congress and President have to agree each year.  Have you heard the saying that Congress controls the purse?  They do – but only for bills that have not yet been signed into law.  If a new budget is not passed, continuing resolutions can be approved by congress allowing discretionary spending to continue at historical levels (which is happening currently).  The largest part of discretionary spending is military which makes up 57% of the entire discretionary budget. If you take away military the remaining discretionary spend includes education, international support, governmental employees, transportation (PBS, Planned Parenthood, Big Bird, etc, etc) and make up 13% of our total Federal budget.  This meager 13% is what our President truly controls and can pull annual levers to grow or shrink.

[caption id="attachment_366" align="alignright" width="300"] Here is a breakdown of discretionary spending:[/caption]

Now (here’s where I get on my soap box), when people call President Obama a big spender or big government, I immediately assume they have no idea what drives our budget or do not understand the budgetary process.  Besides the one year spike of stimulus spend (2009 – the vast majority being used to shore up state budgets), President Obama has been remarkable in keeping discretionary spending in check.  Discretionary spending has only grown 10% (it's actually declining if you take into account the sequester cuts) in four years but compared to any president since Eisenhower – this is strong.  Just to give a point of reference, a 10% increase in discretionary spending only attributes to 4% of total federal spending growth. If we want to hold President Obama responsible for 4% spending growth these past four years, this is a reasonable accusation.

Two of the worst presidents controlling total discretionary spending in the past 30 years?  Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

[caption id="attachment_367" align="alignleft" width="300"] Budgetary history of Non-Defense discretionary spending:[/caption]

Now one can make the point that President Obama should be held responsible for not working with Congress to tackle mandatory spending (70% of our total budget) and that’s a fair statement.  However, with such backlash around Obamacare – which used marketplace principles to drive down costs modeled after conservative think-tank ideas of the 90’s – there is no way Republicans were going to let anything pass that would be a political win. To overcome any type of political posturing Democrats would need 60 votes from the Senate to beat any filibuster making any legislative fix to mandatory spending near impossible.

If the fiscal cliff is not solved, and tax revenues increase, we do not need laws in place that regulate the added income.  Any law governing spending would be placed into the mandatory bucket and would be difficult to modify.  Increased revenue will be applied to the total budgetary deficit as any incremental discretionary spending will need to be agreed upon by Congress and the President (which it wont).  Given President Obama’s track record with discretionary spending, I am confident the money will be used to close the budgetary gap.  Now one can argue that legislation could be signed to cap spending and I think that’s a fair conversation.  But once again, the problem is our budget issues are being driven by mandatory spending.

One more thought – history does not necessarily mean more tax revenue equals more spending.  Under President Clinton, tax revenues jumped and spending was kept relatively in check which is why he left office with a budget surplus.  Plus, as I have pointed out our budget problems have more to do with military and mandatory spending and less about the growth of non-defense discretionary spending which the President and Congress control.

Now I know some of these claims fly in the face of widespread perception of President Obama’s fabricated runaway spending habits (and Democrats for that matter).  The beauty of everything claimed in this post is that it can be fact-checked and I encourage all to do so.  Too much miss-information is driven by media outlets which makes budget conversations more about regurgitated talking points than actual numbers.

(I wrote this in email to a friend about what happens to the increased tax receipts if the fiscal cliff is ignored)