Why I support the Affordable Care Act
Author: Josh Hogan
As an LDS Democrat I support the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Here are my reasons:
1. It is the law of the land, duly passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. As such I think Utah should participate. There is “no need to break the law of the land" (D&C 58:21).
2. People need access to healthcare, even if they are poor. Healthcare is expensive, so if we can help millions of people get care we should. I believe in helping people who are in need.
Some people say it will be too expensive. Congress doesn’t think so. It is yet to be seen. Let’s make sure we do all we can to help as many people possible in a fiscally responsible way.
Some people say it takes away agency by "forcing" people to pay more taxes. Our government is representative. When you are out voted it may feel that you are being forced to do something you don’t want to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt that way. But, “[I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (12th Article of Faith) Thankfully, we have civil means whereby we can challenge, and even change, laws. If we can’t do that we have the freedom to leave, not as states, but as individuals. Let’s consider everyone’s point of view and improve the ACA to address our concerns.
One thing I think should be changed is obliging people to adhere to the law by going against their religion. I believe in freedom of religion. I think we can make sufficient changes so religious-sponsored health institutions are comfortable participating in this new way of doing things.
Josh Hogan
Executive Committee, Utah County LDS Democrats
As an LDS Democrat I support the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Here are my reasons:
1. It is the law of the land, duly passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. As such I think Utah should participate. There is “no need to break the law of the land" (D&C 58:21).
2. People need access to healthcare, even if they are poor. Healthcare is expensive, so if we can help millions of people get care we should. I believe in helping people who are in need.
Some people say it will be too expensive. Congress doesn’t think so. It is yet to be seen. Let’s make sure we do all we can to help as many people possible in a fiscally responsible way.
Some people say it takes away agency by "forcing" people to pay more taxes. Our government is representative. When you are out voted it may feel that you are being forced to do something you don’t want to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt that way. But, “[I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (12th Article of Faith) Thankfully, we have civil means whereby we can challenge, and even change, laws. If we can’t do that we have the freedom to leave, not as states, but as individuals. Let’s consider everyone’s point of view and improve the ACA to address our concerns.
One thing I think should be changed is obliging people to adhere to the law by going against their religion. I believe in freedom of religion. I think we can make sufficient changes so religious-sponsored health institutions are comfortable participating in this new way of doing things.
Josh Hogan
Executive Committee, Utah County LDS Democrats
Saving the traditional family
We don’t yet know the Supreme Court decisions on California’s Prop 8 and DOMA, but it appears the general consensus is correct on this subject: No matter what the Court does, same-sex marriage is coming to America. The tide of public opinion is moving so fast in that direction that nothing can stop it.
Here’s my own personal opinion: I had hoped that civil rights could be guaranteed for non-traditional families without changing the definition of marriage. I believe gay rights activists would have been open to that kind of solution early on, and it could have avoided some of the hard feelings between the two camps. But the march of history has eliminated it as a subject for negotiation. News reports this week indicate Orrin Hatch may be finally supporting the concept of civil unions, but he’s a little late to the party. The horse is out of the barn.
So, for those of us who are concerned about the health of the traditional family, what do we do now? To hear some talk, the apparent victory of same-sex marriage proponents is a sign of the Apocalypse; the Messiah will surely come and destroy the world for its wickedness. All there is left is to barricade ourselves in our homes and wait for the fire and brimstone to start falling.
I am rather of the same mindset as Gordon B. Hinckley in his book “Standing for Something”: I am an optimist. I think we misread the teachings of the Brethren if we think that gay marriage is the only threat to traditional families, or even the worst threat. I think you will hear that subject discussed much more in your average High Priest group meeting than in General Conference. You will hear many more sermons on pornography, tender love and care to spouses and children, keeping debt levels manageable, boring old-fashioned heterosexual adultery, the importance of education and marketable skills etc. For those who truly care about the family, there is much that can be done – and should be done.
Speaking of President Hinckley, one of the most prophetic sermons given on the family was his October 2006 address in the Priesthood session. Here is a memorable quote:
“I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. In revelation the Lord has mandated that this people get all the education they can. He has been very clear about this. But there is a troubling trend taking place. Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.
“Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.
“In 1950, 70 percent of those enrolled in college were males, and 30 percent were females; by 2010 projections estimate 40 percent will be males, and 60 percent will be females.
“Women have earned more bachelor’s degrees than men every year since 1982 and more master’s degrees since 1986.
“It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs.”
This problem of young men in America falling behind in achieving marketable skills, so prophetically proclaimed in President Hinckley’s talk, is getting a lot of attention among academics and political leaders recently. In his recent article “Straight Marriage Is The Real Issue”, respected conservative commentator David Frum took on this subject of young men being left out of the nation’s economy. One quote from sociologist Michael Greenstone is thought provoking: “"I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out 'You need more education' and have been able to respond to that, and men have not. And it's very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It's a fact in need of an explanation."
Frum goes on to say, “As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners. As Harvard's Christopher Jencks -- a left-leaning academic, it should be stressed -- said: ‘Single-parent families tend to emerge in places where the men already are a mess…. But how do we make men without a college education less of a mess? This is the master problem of American society’. (There is) a widening divergence between the family patterns of the college-educated top one-third, where family life is increasingly stable, and those of the non-college-educated bottom two-thirds, where family life is increasingly disrupted. It's the family life of the bottom two-thirds that is the family policy challenge of the 21st century. The debate over same-sex marriage is yesteryear's issue. It's settled, whether the Supreme Court knows it or not. But how to ensure that the next generation of American children enjoys the more equal chance and the wider opportunities from a more universal commitment to marriage -- that debate needs to begin.”
(Frum also makes an interesting point in his piece: In pushing for the right to make their relationships more legally binding, gay rights activists are asking for less freedom for themselves, not more. Whether we agree with gay marriage or not, the debate should serve as a call for us heterosexuals that we should take our own marriage covenants more seriously.)
Stop and think for a moment: For all of human history until just a few decades ago, the vast majority of men provided for their families by “the sweat of their brow”; in other words, through manual labor. Not only that; until a century ago, the vast majority of that manual labor was farming. Males of the human species have millennia of social and genetic conditioning that leads the majority of them to manual work. It has always been a tiny minority of men who have worked with their minds instead of their muscles. However, in a period of time equal to the blink of an eye in human history, that paradigm was violently turned on its head. Modern technology and global capitalism have largely eliminated the means by which the vast majority of men historically provided for their families.
Many things threaten traditional marriage and families in our society. But maybe the most important thing we can do to save the family hinges on this question: How can we provide opportunities for men who don’t have the talent or inclination to be doctors, scientists or Wall Street bankers to contribute to our economy, and to be sufficiently compensated for their contributions to allow them to support a family? The Church’s inspired Perpetual Education Fund is one model for solving this problem. We also shouldn’t be shy about looking elsewhere in the world for examples. The northern European countries have actually been successful in reversing this trend the last decade. The result should be shocking to Americans: A teenage girl has a greater probability of living with her biological father in Sweden than in the United States. I don’t know about you, but I find that fact extremely embarrassing. I certainly don’t believe we should copy their policies verbatim, but there seems to be something to learn here. Since this new world, where manual labor has little economic value, is so revolutionary, by definition old ideologies will not be up to the challenge.
Unless we find a practical solution to this question, those well-known alarming statistics on the health of the traditional family in America will continue.
Here’s my own personal opinion: I had hoped that civil rights could be guaranteed for non-traditional families without changing the definition of marriage. I believe gay rights activists would have been open to that kind of solution early on, and it could have avoided some of the hard feelings between the two camps. But the march of history has eliminated it as a subject for negotiation. News reports this week indicate Orrin Hatch may be finally supporting the concept of civil unions, but he’s a little late to the party. The horse is out of the barn.
So, for those of us who are concerned about the health of the traditional family, what do we do now? To hear some talk, the apparent victory of same-sex marriage proponents is a sign of the Apocalypse; the Messiah will surely come and destroy the world for its wickedness. All there is left is to barricade ourselves in our homes and wait for the fire and brimstone to start falling.
I am rather of the same mindset as Gordon B. Hinckley in his book “Standing for Something”: I am an optimist. I think we misread the teachings of the Brethren if we think that gay marriage is the only threat to traditional families, or even the worst threat. I think you will hear that subject discussed much more in your average High Priest group meeting than in General Conference. You will hear many more sermons on pornography, tender love and care to spouses and children, keeping debt levels manageable, boring old-fashioned heterosexual adultery, the importance of education and marketable skills etc. For those who truly care about the family, there is much that can be done – and should be done.
Speaking of President Hinckley, one of the most prophetic sermons given on the family was his October 2006 address in the Priesthood session. Here is a memorable quote:
“I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. In revelation the Lord has mandated that this people get all the education they can. He has been very clear about this. But there is a troubling trend taking place. Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.
“Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.
“In 1950, 70 percent of those enrolled in college were males, and 30 percent were females; by 2010 projections estimate 40 percent will be males, and 60 percent will be females.
“Women have earned more bachelor’s degrees than men every year since 1982 and more master’s degrees since 1986.
“It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs.”
This problem of young men in America falling behind in achieving marketable skills, so prophetically proclaimed in President Hinckley’s talk, is getting a lot of attention among academics and political leaders recently. In his recent article “Straight Marriage Is The Real Issue”, respected conservative commentator David Frum took on this subject of young men being left out of the nation’s economy. One quote from sociologist Michael Greenstone is thought provoking: “"I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out 'You need more education' and have been able to respond to that, and men have not. And it's very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It's a fact in need of an explanation."
Frum goes on to say, “As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners. As Harvard's Christopher Jencks -- a left-leaning academic, it should be stressed -- said: ‘Single-parent families tend to emerge in places where the men already are a mess…. But how do we make men without a college education less of a mess? This is the master problem of American society’. (There is) a widening divergence between the family patterns of the college-educated top one-third, where family life is increasingly stable, and those of the non-college-educated bottom two-thirds, where family life is increasingly disrupted. It's the family life of the bottom two-thirds that is the family policy challenge of the 21st century. The debate over same-sex marriage is yesteryear's issue. It's settled, whether the Supreme Court knows it or not. But how to ensure that the next generation of American children enjoys the more equal chance and the wider opportunities from a more universal commitment to marriage -- that debate needs to begin.”
(Frum also makes an interesting point in his piece: In pushing for the right to make their relationships more legally binding, gay rights activists are asking for less freedom for themselves, not more. Whether we agree with gay marriage or not, the debate should serve as a call for us heterosexuals that we should take our own marriage covenants more seriously.)
Stop and think for a moment: For all of human history until just a few decades ago, the vast majority of men provided for their families by “the sweat of their brow”; in other words, through manual labor. Not only that; until a century ago, the vast majority of that manual labor was farming. Males of the human species have millennia of social and genetic conditioning that leads the majority of them to manual work. It has always been a tiny minority of men who have worked with their minds instead of their muscles. However, in a period of time equal to the blink of an eye in human history, that paradigm was violently turned on its head. Modern technology and global capitalism have largely eliminated the means by which the vast majority of men historically provided for their families.
Many things threaten traditional marriage and families in our society. But maybe the most important thing we can do to save the family hinges on this question: How can we provide opportunities for men who don’t have the talent or inclination to be doctors, scientists or Wall Street bankers to contribute to our economy, and to be sufficiently compensated for their contributions to allow them to support a family? The Church’s inspired Perpetual Education Fund is one model for solving this problem. We also shouldn’t be shy about looking elsewhere in the world for examples. The northern European countries have actually been successful in reversing this trend the last decade. The result should be shocking to Americans: A teenage girl has a greater probability of living with her biological father in Sweden than in the United States. I don’t know about you, but I find that fact extremely embarrassing. I certainly don’t believe we should copy their policies verbatim, but there seems to be something to learn here. Since this new world, where manual labor has little economic value, is so revolutionary, by definition old ideologies will not be up to the challenge.
Unless we find a practical solution to this question, those well-known alarming statistics on the health of the traditional family in America will continue.
Family Home Evening
LDS Dems Family Home Evening Program
LDS Dems and the Democratic Party have created a program to enrich the spiritual and political lives of members, encourage deep conversation, and invite others to participate in civic and Democratic activities. This program is based on the family home evening planning guides provided by the Church, and does not attempt to deviate, translate, or infer party politics on gospel truths. The LDS Dems FHE program is a tool for us to open up our homes to our communities, provide answers, understanding, and opportunity to participate in the great democratic process in Utah and our country.
These guides will be monthly. Invite friends, family members and neighbors to come over for a relaxing, informative, and uplifting gospel lesson. Feel free to use these guides and adapt them as you see fit.
March
Family Home Evening: Citizenship
12th Article of Faith: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Scriptures: Doctrine and Covenants 134; Mosiah 2:17
Gospel Truth
Being a good citizen means more than just obeying the laws of the land. It also means being actively involved in making our community the best possible place for all to live. As we become good citizens of our community, we are doing the will of Heavenly Father in that regard.
What are ways that we can become active in our community?
Have family members find examples of good citizens in the newspaper or magazines or think of someone in your city, at work, or in school who would qualify as a good citizen. Have them explain why the person they chose is a good citizen.
Challenge: List ways for each person in your family to become more active in the next month. Complete one of those suggestions as an individual or as a family.
What's important, America
The following quote by Robert F. Kennedy (click here for recording and video) is a sobering indictment of how far we have strayed from our values, and is more true today than in 1968.
"Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
"Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
It's been ten years since we invaded Iraq
Ten years ago, in March 2003, our country went to war with Iraq. There were two reasons given: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. The mistake about the weapons claim is now history; less discussed is how ridiculous the second claim was. America was Bin Laden's enemy only by association; his real target was secular leaders in the Arab world like Hussein and the Saudi family.
I voted for Bush in 2000, and during the buildup to the war, I was telling everyone who would listen: Look, the man's a Texan. He's a born poker player. He's got to make the bluff look credible to get Saddam to buckle under, but there ain't no way the man is crazy enough to actually send in the troops. Surely his dad has informed him what a quagmire that would turn into.
Boy, did I ever get that wrong. You just read one of the significant reasons I became a Democrat (and a big fan of Andrew Bachevich, who has the clearest vision of what our foreign policy should be in the current century).
One of the unfortunate outcomes of that war is that, unlike Vietnam, we still have people in power and with influence that didn't learn their lesson. During the next month, you will be hearing a lot of revisionist history from these folks. This article by Peter Van Buren sets the record straight, and this post warns us to keep our guard up. Let's make sure no one forgets how much that unnecessary war has damaged America and the world.
I voted for Bush in 2000, and during the buildup to the war, I was telling everyone who would listen: Look, the man's a Texan. He's a born poker player. He's got to make the bluff look credible to get Saddam to buckle under, but there ain't no way the man is crazy enough to actually send in the troops. Surely his dad has informed him what a quagmire that would turn into.
Boy, did I ever get that wrong. You just read one of the significant reasons I became a Democrat (and a big fan of Andrew Bachevich, who has the clearest vision of what our foreign policy should be in the current century).
One of the unfortunate outcomes of that war is that, unlike Vietnam, we still have people in power and with influence that didn't learn their lesson. During the next month, you will be hearing a lot of revisionist history from these folks. This article by Peter Van Buren sets the record straight, and this post warns us to keep our guard up. Let's make sure no one forgets how much that unnecessary war has damaged America and the world.
Stop Talking Crap About the BYU Democrats
“I heard that all five of you BYU Democrats have been pretty active this year! *wink wink*”
“You’re a member of the BYU Democrats? Have they taken away your temple recommend yet?”
“They let you guys exist?!?!”
If you have ever thought about saying one of these things (or maybe you continue to say them)- please, in the wise words of our beloved President Uchtdorf: STOP IT.
As the current Co-President of this group, let me share with you a few things.
Did you know that we have about 30-35 people regularly attend our weekly meetings? Did you know that we have close to 700 BYU students on our emailing list and about 400 in our Facebook group? Did you know that the advisor for our club is the Chair of the Political Science Department? Did you know that none of us have gotten our temple recommends taken away for being a member of the club?
Did you know that every time you crack a joke about the BYU Democrats being lame or too inconsequential to make any difference, you diminish the possibility for recognizing their achievements and prominence, and by extension liberal Mormons as a whole?
The BYU Democrats is the largest College Democrats chapter in Utah. Dozens of us participated in campaigning for President Obama, with many of us taking weekend trips to canvass in Colorado and participate in weekly phone banks. Several BYU Democrats are currently serving internships with the Utah legislature, including as interns to two of the five Democrats in the State Senate (which are difficult spots to achieve). We have weekly club meetings with speakers, debates, and other activities like field trips to the state capitol, all of which have been well attended.
So please, stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. We’re not the largest club on campus, and we haven’t single-handedly influenced any elections. But every time you jokingly (or not jokingly) spread these incorrect assumptions about the BYU Democrats, you disparage liberal Mormons and the possibility for the Church to be politically neutral. You send the message that liberal Mormons are still a joke, it is some feat of enormous courage and threat for excommunication to admit that you are a Democrat, and it is okay to diminish the successes of a minority simply for being a minority.
We deserve better, you deserve better, and the greater community of Mormons and people outside the church watching this dialogue unfold deserve better. So stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. Instead, think about speaking about us favorably once in a while. Consider supporting our club, monetarily or by offering your professional services as a speaker at one of our club meetings if you’re ever in Utah. Let us know if there are any job openings or conferences in your respective fields that members of our club might be interested in. Instead of talking down about us, reach out a hand and help us be better- among us are members of the next generation of LDS Dems.
Feel free to contact Hannah at [email protected]
“You’re a member of the BYU Democrats? Have they taken away your temple recommend yet?”
“They let you guys exist?!?!”
If you have ever thought about saying one of these things (or maybe you continue to say them)- please, in the wise words of our beloved President Uchtdorf: STOP IT.
As the current Co-President of this group, let me share with you a few things.
Did you know that we have about 30-35 people regularly attend our weekly meetings? Did you know that we have close to 700 BYU students on our emailing list and about 400 in our Facebook group? Did you know that the advisor for our club is the Chair of the Political Science Department? Did you know that none of us have gotten our temple recommends taken away for being a member of the club?
Did you know that every time you crack a joke about the BYU Democrats being lame or too inconsequential to make any difference, you diminish the possibility for recognizing their achievements and prominence, and by extension liberal Mormons as a whole?
The BYU Democrats is the largest College Democrats chapter in Utah. Dozens of us participated in campaigning for President Obama, with many of us taking weekend trips to canvass in Colorado and participate in weekly phone banks. Several BYU Democrats are currently serving internships with the Utah legislature, including as interns to two of the five Democrats in the State Senate (which are difficult spots to achieve). We have weekly club meetings with speakers, debates, and other activities like field trips to the state capitol, all of which have been well attended.
So please, stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. We’re not the largest club on campus, and we haven’t single-handedly influenced any elections. But every time you jokingly (or not jokingly) spread these incorrect assumptions about the BYU Democrats, you disparage liberal Mormons and the possibility for the Church to be politically neutral. You send the message that liberal Mormons are still a joke, it is some feat of enormous courage and threat for excommunication to admit that you are a Democrat, and it is okay to diminish the successes of a minority simply for being a minority.
We deserve better, you deserve better, and the greater community of Mormons and people outside the church watching this dialogue unfold deserve better. So stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. Instead, think about speaking about us favorably once in a while. Consider supporting our club, monetarily or by offering your professional services as a speaker at one of our club meetings if you’re ever in Utah. Let us know if there are any job openings or conferences in your respective fields that members of our club might be interested in. Instead of talking down about us, reach out a hand and help us be better- among us are members of the next generation of LDS Dems.
Feel free to contact Hannah at [email protected]
Is an “entitlement mentality” a sign of evil in our nation?
The recent politically-charged stake conference address in Sandy, combined with the Medicaid expansion debate on Utah’s Capitol Hill, has re-ignited the following debate: Is an “entitlement mentality” a sign of evil in our nation?
Let me be clear: I would like nothing better than to live in a society where hard working young family fathers and struggling single mothers had the ability to provide for their families, without help from the government. We actually used to be closer to that ideal than we are now. When I was a young teenager back in the late sixties and early seventies, all the families I knew, even those whose fathers had humble occupations, were able to provide at least a modest home and the basic needs for their families, including health care.
Thanks to collective decisions we have made in our democracy, two things have changed since then. We have created a health care delivery system so expensive that no family can afford health care on their own. If your employer or the government doesn’t provide basic health insurance, it’s simply too expensive for any but the most wealthy to afford. The other change we’ve created is an economic system that has resulted in the largest disparity between the rich and the poor than any other developed nation on earth. Related to this, and supported by multiple international studies, is the fact that poor children in the United States have the lowest chance of improving their lot in life than any other developed country.
There will always be a tiny minority of people in any society who fit the description of “takers”. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about good, hardworking people who can’t provide for their families – especially when it comes to basic health care - no matter how hard they try. The cost is simply out of reach.
We, as a democratic society, have collectively created the society that produces suffering among good people whose only sin is not having an employer willing to pay for basic health care, and where hard working folks not blessed by God with the skills to be an investment banker can’t earn enough to provide for their families. We, as a democratic society, need to collectively step up to the plate and give those hard working people a hand up (not a handout) to achieve self-sufficiency. That’s what the Church teaches, and based on my training as a new bishop several years ago, the Church thinks it’s okay to make wise use of government programs to accomplish this. We also must fix the broken system we have all created and are all responsible for. Although not perfect, the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act is a good place to start.
Brigham Young once said, “I have seen many cases… where the young lady would have to take her clothing on a Saturday night and wash it, in order that she might go to meeting on the Sunday with a clean dress on. Who is she laboring for? For those who, many of them, are living in luxury. And, to serve the classes that are living on them, the poor, the laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life in them. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth.”
Do we have a problem with an “entitlement mentality” among the Latter-day Saints? I believe we do. The really evil entitlement mentality in our midst exists with those who have been deluded into believing that they are entitled to complete enjoyment of all the material goods they have acquired through the talents and privileges the good Lord has given them, their “gold, silver, silks and fine-twined linens”, without feeling the need to take any thought toward the poor other than to toss a twenty dollar bill to the bishop every Fast Sunday.
Now that would make an appropriate subject for a stake conference talk.
Let me be clear: I would like nothing better than to live in a society where hard working young family fathers and struggling single mothers had the ability to provide for their families, without help from the government. We actually used to be closer to that ideal than we are now. When I was a young teenager back in the late sixties and early seventies, all the families I knew, even those whose fathers had humble occupations, were able to provide at least a modest home and the basic needs for their families, including health care.
Thanks to collective decisions we have made in our democracy, two things have changed since then. We have created a health care delivery system so expensive that no family can afford health care on their own. If your employer or the government doesn’t provide basic health insurance, it’s simply too expensive for any but the most wealthy to afford. The other change we’ve created is an economic system that has resulted in the largest disparity between the rich and the poor than any other developed nation on earth. Related to this, and supported by multiple international studies, is the fact that poor children in the United States have the lowest chance of improving their lot in life than any other developed country.
There will always be a tiny minority of people in any society who fit the description of “takers”. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about good, hardworking people who can’t provide for their families – especially when it comes to basic health care - no matter how hard they try. The cost is simply out of reach.
We, as a democratic society, have collectively created the society that produces suffering among good people whose only sin is not having an employer willing to pay for basic health care, and where hard working folks not blessed by God with the skills to be an investment banker can’t earn enough to provide for their families. We, as a democratic society, need to collectively step up to the plate and give those hard working people a hand up (not a handout) to achieve self-sufficiency. That’s what the Church teaches, and based on my training as a new bishop several years ago, the Church thinks it’s okay to make wise use of government programs to accomplish this. We also must fix the broken system we have all created and are all responsible for. Although not perfect, the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act is a good place to start.
Brigham Young once said, “I have seen many cases… where the young lady would have to take her clothing on a Saturday night and wash it, in order that she might go to meeting on the Sunday with a clean dress on. Who is she laboring for? For those who, many of them, are living in luxury. And, to serve the classes that are living on them, the poor, the laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life in them. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth.”
Do we have a problem with an “entitlement mentality” among the Latter-day Saints? I believe we do. The really evil entitlement mentality in our midst exists with those who have been deluded into believing that they are entitled to complete enjoyment of all the material goods they have acquired through the talents and privileges the good Lord has given them, their “gold, silver, silks and fine-twined linens”, without feeling the need to take any thought toward the poor other than to toss a twenty dollar bill to the bishop every Fast Sunday.
Now that would make an appropriate subject for a stake conference talk.
Is Hill Air Force Base doomed?
Is there really a possibility that Hill Air Force Base might close?
Consider the following very plausible scenario, consisting of several parts:
First, that Congress ends up solidly in Democratic hands after the 2014 election, with the House swinging to the Democrats and the Senate achieving a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority. Impossible, you say? It appears we’re going off the fiscal cliff in March. After all, your average Tea Party Republican thinks going off the cliff will be a good thing. Most economists predict that will send us back into a recession. You can argue all you want which side deserves the blame for this, but we’ve been down this road already during the Clinton administration. The Republicans took a beating at the polls then, and they will this time. The nation’s perception of the Tea Party has tanked since the 2010 election anyway; this would seal the deal. Demographic changes will simply add to the margin.
Second, the West becomes a collection of blue and purple states by 2015 – except for the two bright red holdouts, Utah and Idaho. Adding to the West Coast states, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are well on their way from purple to blue, and the projected switch in Arizona, driven by the Latino demographic changes is well underway (as demonstrated by popular Republican congressman Jeff Flake winning the Senate seat there by the slimmest of margins). Both Montana’s senators are Democrats, and Wyoming has a history of electing Democratic governors, the most recent leaving office only two years ago.
Third, the ongoing fiscal imbalance (made worse by the upcoming Tea Party Recession of 2013) will force the nation into deep cuts in the defense budget, possibly without BRAC as a buffer this time.
Finally, we have to factor in the incessant negative political grandstanding of Hatch, Lee and Bishop against President Obama and the Democrats, including pot shots at Hatch’s old Republican Senate colleague, soon-to-be new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
You may or may not agree that the above will happen – but it’s hard to argue it isn’t possible.
If the this scenario comes true, picture President Obama, Defense Secretary Hagel and the rest of the national security team facing a decision in 2015: For cost reasons, Congress decrees we need to close an Air Force base in the West. Should we close Nellis, just up the road from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home in what will be a solidly Democratic state by then? Or do we close Hill? It’s hard to see how we win that argument, despite the obvious merits in favor of Hill. Anyone who thinks these decisions are made in the absence of politics is loony.
It would be tempting to lay the blame for this on the aforementioned Utah Republicans in Congress, but let’s face it – it’s our own fault. By demonstrating our collective willingness to elect the Republican candidate even if it’s the devil himself, we have taken a tremendous risk. In our current environment, purple states like Nevada and Colorado get wooed by the nation’s leadership like the head cheerleader in high school. Utah gets ignored; she has relegated herself to being the shy wallflower who never gets asked to dance. It’s hilarious how some in the Legislature have contributed to the partisan rhetoric that will certainly bias the nation’s future decision makers against us, and then support raising a measly couple hundred grand to support keeping Hill open.
For the sake of my neighbors and family members who would be decimated by this, I surely hope it never comes to pass. Whatever happens, it may be too late to change events. But we surely need to try.
Utah’s elected leaders, especially Hatch, need to tone down the rhetoric. Despite the anti-government harping, Utah benefits from federal government spending more than almost any other state, Weber and Davis Counties especially. But most of all, Utah’s citizens need to show that elections can be competitive here. Otherwise, the nation’s leaders and major political parties, both Democratic and Republican, will ignore our state and we will be left defenseless in Washington.
Consider the following very plausible scenario, consisting of several parts:
First, that Congress ends up solidly in Democratic hands after the 2014 election, with the House swinging to the Democrats and the Senate achieving a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority. Impossible, you say? It appears we’re going off the fiscal cliff in March. After all, your average Tea Party Republican thinks going off the cliff will be a good thing. Most economists predict that will send us back into a recession. You can argue all you want which side deserves the blame for this, but we’ve been down this road already during the Clinton administration. The Republicans took a beating at the polls then, and they will this time. The nation’s perception of the Tea Party has tanked since the 2010 election anyway; this would seal the deal. Demographic changes will simply add to the margin.
Second, the West becomes a collection of blue and purple states by 2015 – except for the two bright red holdouts, Utah and Idaho. Adding to the West Coast states, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are well on their way from purple to blue, and the projected switch in Arizona, driven by the Latino demographic changes is well underway (as demonstrated by popular Republican congressman Jeff Flake winning the Senate seat there by the slimmest of margins). Both Montana’s senators are Democrats, and Wyoming has a history of electing Democratic governors, the most recent leaving office only two years ago.
Third, the ongoing fiscal imbalance (made worse by the upcoming Tea Party Recession of 2013) will force the nation into deep cuts in the defense budget, possibly without BRAC as a buffer this time.
Finally, we have to factor in the incessant negative political grandstanding of Hatch, Lee and Bishop against President Obama and the Democrats, including pot shots at Hatch’s old Republican Senate colleague, soon-to-be new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
You may or may not agree that the above will happen – but it’s hard to argue it isn’t possible.
If the this scenario comes true, picture President Obama, Defense Secretary Hagel and the rest of the national security team facing a decision in 2015: For cost reasons, Congress decrees we need to close an Air Force base in the West. Should we close Nellis, just up the road from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home in what will be a solidly Democratic state by then? Or do we close Hill? It’s hard to see how we win that argument, despite the obvious merits in favor of Hill. Anyone who thinks these decisions are made in the absence of politics is loony.
It would be tempting to lay the blame for this on the aforementioned Utah Republicans in Congress, but let’s face it – it’s our own fault. By demonstrating our collective willingness to elect the Republican candidate even if it’s the devil himself, we have taken a tremendous risk. In our current environment, purple states like Nevada and Colorado get wooed by the nation’s leadership like the head cheerleader in high school. Utah gets ignored; she has relegated herself to being the shy wallflower who never gets asked to dance. It’s hilarious how some in the Legislature have contributed to the partisan rhetoric that will certainly bias the nation’s future decision makers against us, and then support raising a measly couple hundred grand to support keeping Hill open.
For the sake of my neighbors and family members who would be decimated by this, I surely hope it never comes to pass. Whatever happens, it may be too late to change events. But we surely need to try.
Utah’s elected leaders, especially Hatch, need to tone down the rhetoric. Despite the anti-government harping, Utah benefits from federal government spending more than almost any other state, Weber and Davis Counties especially. But most of all, Utah’s citizens need to show that elections can be competitive here. Otherwise, the nation’s leaders and major political parties, both Democratic and Republican, will ignore our state and we will be left defenseless in Washington.
Does the Second Amendment legalize taking up arms against the government?
In the renewed debate over the Second Amendment since Sandy Hook, one argument continues to pop up: The right to keep and bear arms was written into the Constitution as defense against government tyranny.
Given the pervasive nature of this claim, it is important to dig a little deeper to understand what it means. What specifically was the feared tyranny of the national government the Second Amendment was intended to defend against, and what does the Second Amendment mean in our day?
To quote self-proclaimed constitutionalists: We need to find out what was in the mind of the Framers. In the case of the Second Amendment, there is no mystery on this subject. We know from the writings of southerners like James Madison, George Mason and Patrick Henry that they were worried the Constitution could give the federal government authority to take over state-run slave patrols in the South. Maintaining peace in the South required a police state to keep slaves from revolting, and Southern states had laws drafting whites to take part in these militias. Substitute the phrase “slave patrol” for “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment and the somewhat strange wording immediately makes perfect sense. One habit conservatives can’t seem to shake, while encouraging us to hold exactly to the original intent of the Framers, is their tendency to conveniently forget those same Framers institutionalized human bondage into those original documents.
Given that the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments rendered the original intent of the Founders obsolete, what does the Second Amendment mean today? Recent court decisions have upheld the right of individual citizens to possess firearms, while also upholding certain restrictions on that right. But it is ludicrous to claim that these court decisions have included the legal right of citizens to take up arms against the government.
Let’s call a spade a spade. When one hears of “Second Amendment remedies” if the ballot box does not deliver the required outcome, we are speaking of armed terrorism against the United States. And what would these terrorists be fighting against? Despite the appropriation of the Tea Party label, I see no taxation without representation here. Every member of Congress and the President was chosen in free elections by a majority of their constituents. If anything, it’s Tea Party politicians who have suppressed the right of equal representation in recent years, through gerrymandering and six hour waiting lines at the polls. Political arguments in America are to be settled at the ballot box and in the courts, not at the point of a gun.
There will always be a small minority of ignorant extremists who fantasize about taking up arms against the government. However, there is no excuse for Latter-day Saints to hold these views. In addition to Matthew 5:44, which all Christians are bound to obey, we have modern revelation to give us clear guidance. “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.” (D&C 134:5).
I would also remind these wannabe terrorists that armed struggle does not work in today’s world. Change against tyranny is wrought following the model of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. My favorite example happened in January 1991, when thousands of unarmed Lithuanians stood arm in arm in Vilnius and faced down Soviet tanks and machine guns by singing folk songs. Thirteen were killed and over a hundred injured, but in an eerie resemblance to the account of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in the Book of Mormon, the bravery of these unarmed Lithuanians so stung the Soviet troops that they stopped firing. Eight months later, the toppling of this domino by a tiny Baltic nation led to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Conservatives love to quote the White Horse Prophecy, which states the Constitution will hang by a thread and be saved by Latter-day Saint priesthood holders. Church authorities have never authenticated this prophecy, but even if it is true, wouldn’t one possible scenario be the Church standing up to armed right-wing terrorists?
I hope that day never arrives, but if it does, I pray I will have the courage to follow the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the Lithuanians, standing beside my fellow Latter-day Saints singing “Let there be peace on earth” in defiance of those who would destroy our legally elected government through terrorism.
Given the pervasive nature of this claim, it is important to dig a little deeper to understand what it means. What specifically was the feared tyranny of the national government the Second Amendment was intended to defend against, and what does the Second Amendment mean in our day?
To quote self-proclaimed constitutionalists: We need to find out what was in the mind of the Framers. In the case of the Second Amendment, there is no mystery on this subject. We know from the writings of southerners like James Madison, George Mason and Patrick Henry that they were worried the Constitution could give the federal government authority to take over state-run slave patrols in the South. Maintaining peace in the South required a police state to keep slaves from revolting, and Southern states had laws drafting whites to take part in these militias. Substitute the phrase “slave patrol” for “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment and the somewhat strange wording immediately makes perfect sense. One habit conservatives can’t seem to shake, while encouraging us to hold exactly to the original intent of the Framers, is their tendency to conveniently forget those same Framers institutionalized human bondage into those original documents.
Given that the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments rendered the original intent of the Founders obsolete, what does the Second Amendment mean today? Recent court decisions have upheld the right of individual citizens to possess firearms, while also upholding certain restrictions on that right. But it is ludicrous to claim that these court decisions have included the legal right of citizens to take up arms against the government.
Let’s call a spade a spade. When one hears of “Second Amendment remedies” if the ballot box does not deliver the required outcome, we are speaking of armed terrorism against the United States. And what would these terrorists be fighting against? Despite the appropriation of the Tea Party label, I see no taxation without representation here. Every member of Congress and the President was chosen in free elections by a majority of their constituents. If anything, it’s Tea Party politicians who have suppressed the right of equal representation in recent years, through gerrymandering and six hour waiting lines at the polls. Political arguments in America are to be settled at the ballot box and in the courts, not at the point of a gun.
There will always be a small minority of ignorant extremists who fantasize about taking up arms against the government. However, there is no excuse for Latter-day Saints to hold these views. In addition to Matthew 5:44, which all Christians are bound to obey, we have modern revelation to give us clear guidance. “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.” (D&C 134:5).
I would also remind these wannabe terrorists that armed struggle does not work in today’s world. Change against tyranny is wrought following the model of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. My favorite example happened in January 1991, when thousands of unarmed Lithuanians stood arm in arm in Vilnius and faced down Soviet tanks and machine guns by singing folk songs. Thirteen were killed and over a hundred injured, but in an eerie resemblance to the account of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in the Book of Mormon, the bravery of these unarmed Lithuanians so stung the Soviet troops that they stopped firing. Eight months later, the toppling of this domino by a tiny Baltic nation led to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Conservatives love to quote the White Horse Prophecy, which states the Constitution will hang by a thread and be saved by Latter-day Saint priesthood holders. Church authorities have never authenticated this prophecy, but even if it is true, wouldn’t one possible scenario be the Church standing up to armed right-wing terrorists?
I hope that day never arrives, but if it does, I pray I will have the courage to follow the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the Lithuanians, standing beside my fellow Latter-day Saints singing “Let there be peace on earth” in defiance of those who would destroy our legally elected government through terrorism.
Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else
Those of us with a moderate to progressive worldview have many things in our modern world to be concerned about. Possibly the one thing that tops the list is the disturbing trend the last thirty years of seeing all the fruits of an expanding economy go to a select few, while the bulk of America’s citizens are falling behind. This doesn’t only offend our sense of fairness and justice (especially for honest readers of the Book of Mormon). Utah’s native son Marriner Eccles (and his modern disciples Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and others) teaches us that it’s this very economic imbalance that causes the type of severe financial crises we saw in 1929 and 2008.
If you want to understand the causes of this New Gilded Age in the developed world, I heartily recommend the recently published book by respected international affairs author Chrystia Freeland, which carries the title of this blog post.
It would be impossible to convey the depth of analysis that Ms. Freeland accomplishes in a short blog post, but hopefully a few highlights will pique your interest.
One intriguing insight is this: A big difference between the first Gilded Age of the late 19th Century in America and the New Gilded Age is the difference in who the super-rich are. It is no longer the owners of capital that are capturing all the wealth. Today’s super-rich are the highly educated, Ivy League knowledge workers. If you look at those pulling in the bulk of the nation’s annual wealth, it’s not owners of capital, but hedge fund managers, investment bankers, corporate CEO’s, highly compensated top tier entertainers, and high-tech entrepreneurs. This is a fundamentally new phenomenon in human history. And with globalization, it has become a world-wide phenomenon.
An important and new characteristic of these modern super-rich is that they are true citizens of the world, rather than of any individual nation. Regardless of their ethnic background or place of birth, they identify with the fellow members of their class and their work much more than with their country. Gov. Romney was criticized during the presidential campaign for all his overseas financial interests, but that is a characteristic of his class. Globalization has not just affected normal trade, but has created this new global elite, where American sports teams are just as likely to be owned by a Russian oligarch as an American. An interesting example is Chrysler/Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne. He was born of an Italian father and Croatian mother, spent his teenage years and early professional career in Canada, and later worked as an accountant in several European countries before taking the reins of Fiat. He currently holds dual Italian and Canadian citizenship.
Another important principle Ms. Freeland highlights is the difference between “rent-seeking” and wealth creation. Some of the super-rich, like Steve Jobs, clearly earned their riches by creating things. This type of wealth-creating activity is beneficial to society (as long as there are no damaging side effects). However, Freeland argues that many of today’s highly educated super-rich earn their money through “rent –seeking”, which is the opposite of creativity; you are using your education and skills to take money out of someone else’s pocket and transferring it to your own. The most obvious example of this is modern investment banking, which has been transformed from being the servant of productive business to its master the last thirty years. Much of the economic angst in the world today results from an economic system that has been too generous to rent-seekers in contrast with those who actually create.
Here is the personal epiphany I gained from this book: The world’s economy is in uncharted waters; many authors beside Chrystia Freeland have commented we are in an economic revolution at least as great as that which occurred during the Gilded Age. And as leaders like both Roosevelts did during the original Gilded Age, we must come up with solutions to the excesses created by the New Gilded Age, but without stifling the benefits of the new economy. Like the previous Gilded Age, not every American will be able to be a plutocrat. We will still need checkers at the grocery store, mechanics to fix our cars, people to cut our hair and serve us at restaurants. Like that earlier era, we need to find a way that average Americans can share in the American dream. And since we are in completely unchartered territory, it is crazy to think that old, hidebound political ideologies grounded in the mid-20th century will have the answers to the future. Dealing with the modern economic world will take creativity and the willingness to be influenced by facts and data.
If you want to understand the causes of this New Gilded Age in the developed world, I heartily recommend the recently published book by respected international affairs author Chrystia Freeland, which carries the title of this blog post.
It would be impossible to convey the depth of analysis that Ms. Freeland accomplishes in a short blog post, but hopefully a few highlights will pique your interest.
One intriguing insight is this: A big difference between the first Gilded Age of the late 19th Century in America and the New Gilded Age is the difference in who the super-rich are. It is no longer the owners of capital that are capturing all the wealth. Today’s super-rich are the highly educated, Ivy League knowledge workers. If you look at those pulling in the bulk of the nation’s annual wealth, it’s not owners of capital, but hedge fund managers, investment bankers, corporate CEO’s, highly compensated top tier entertainers, and high-tech entrepreneurs. This is a fundamentally new phenomenon in human history. And with globalization, it has become a world-wide phenomenon.
An important and new characteristic of these modern super-rich is that they are true citizens of the world, rather than of any individual nation. Regardless of their ethnic background or place of birth, they identify with the fellow members of their class and their work much more than with their country. Gov. Romney was criticized during the presidential campaign for all his overseas financial interests, but that is a characteristic of his class. Globalization has not just affected normal trade, but has created this new global elite, where American sports teams are just as likely to be owned by a Russian oligarch as an American. An interesting example is Chrysler/Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne. He was born of an Italian father and Croatian mother, spent his teenage years and early professional career in Canada, and later worked as an accountant in several European countries before taking the reins of Fiat. He currently holds dual Italian and Canadian citizenship.
Another important principle Ms. Freeland highlights is the difference between “rent-seeking” and wealth creation. Some of the super-rich, like Steve Jobs, clearly earned their riches by creating things. This type of wealth-creating activity is beneficial to society (as long as there are no damaging side effects). However, Freeland argues that many of today’s highly educated super-rich earn their money through “rent –seeking”, which is the opposite of creativity; you are using your education and skills to take money out of someone else’s pocket and transferring it to your own. The most obvious example of this is modern investment banking, which has been transformed from being the servant of productive business to its master the last thirty years. Much of the economic angst in the world today results from an economic system that has been too generous to rent-seekers in contrast with those who actually create.
Here is the personal epiphany I gained from this book: The world’s economy is in uncharted waters; many authors beside Chrystia Freeland have commented we are in an economic revolution at least as great as that which occurred during the Gilded Age. And as leaders like both Roosevelts did during the original Gilded Age, we must come up with solutions to the excesses created by the New Gilded Age, but without stifling the benefits of the new economy. Like the previous Gilded Age, not every American will be able to be a plutocrat. We will still need checkers at the grocery store, mechanics to fix our cars, people to cut our hair and serve us at restaurants. Like that earlier era, we need to find a way that average Americans can share in the American dream. And since we are in completely unchartered territory, it is crazy to think that old, hidebound political ideologies grounded in the mid-20th century will have the answers to the future. Dealing with the modern economic world will take creativity and the willingness to be influenced by facts and data.