Spending and Bailouts and Stim Pkgs, Oh My!

Today's economy: In a recession? Yes. Headed for the Great Depression Part II? Let's hope not. So here's the million . . . wait, the trillion dollar question: What is the best way to jump-start the economy back to life? Right now and in the near future, it seems that those in government want to revisit old, failed Keynesian strategies. Keynesian economics calls for large increases in federal deficit spending, rebate checks, stimulus packages, etc. It embodies the strange idea that borrowing from Peter to stimulate Paul will somehow result in an increase in aggregate production, "stimulating" the economy. These ideas dominated the domestic economic agenda from the 1930's to the 1970's. Were these strategies successful?

2 UCLA economics PhDs studied the policies and programs of the New Deal for 4 years to determine their effects on the Great Depression. Their findings were published in 2004, with the main conclusion being that FDR's New Deal policies (more specifically, the National Industrial Recovery Act) actually prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years. Here's just one snippet from the press release:

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy makers that capitalism could not be trusted and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Here's the link for the full article: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Japan tried to spend their way to prosperity by instituting Keynesian policies in the 1990's as well. The result: a well-documented economic stagnation which lasted a decade. On the flip side, when countries like Ireland, the Czech Republic, and New Zealand dramatically cut federal spending as a percentage of GDP - enabling them to reduce taxes, their economies boomed.

So what's the answer? What is the best way to "stimulate" the economy, preventing the next Great Depression? I'm interested to hear what you all think.

Minister Wright's Prayer

Sunday, this prayer appeared on the back of our program. I thought it was very thought provoking. I wanted to post it and see what you thought about it.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know your word says, "Woe to those who call evil good," but that is exactly what we have done.

We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Amen.

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

Freedom, Conservatism, and Partisanship

Freedom.

Freedom is the reason I identify myself as politically conservative, because maximum (not total) freedom is what I believe flows better out of a truly conservative fountain. Here is one aspect of what “conservatism” doesn’t mean, in my opinion.

Conservatism vs. Partisanship: The Republican and Democratic parties have never pretended to be perfectly aligned with “conservative” or “liberal” thought. Thomas Jefferson, the historical leading light of the Democratic party, was in my view, a radical conservative. Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson’s historical counterpart for the Republican party, probably accomplished more consolidation of power in the central government than any other president other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My feelings about freedom, and therefore conservatism, are non-partisan. That is why I voted for an individual, not a party, who I believed would best promote an idea of government that was most consistent with my conservative view. He turned out to be neither Democrat nor Republican. Another reason my core philosophy is non-partisan is because the parties tend not to follow their own platforms once they are in power. At least that has been my experience with the Republican party. When the members of a party depart dramatically from the expressions of core philosophies of their party, partisanship becomes simply a means of parties soliciting power without promising any performance consistent with the platform in return. President George W. Bush abandoned conservative principle on a national level by simultaneously borrowing gazillions while expanding the federal government’s size and dominance over states. On the local level, our supposedly conservative leaders have no problem dictating to local business people what the color scheme on their marquee should be, or passing voluminous “dark sky” ordinances restricting everyone (except the city government) in their choice of exterior lighting.

Obama's "Change"

One of my classmates forwarded the following email to me the other day. Check it out:

“Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in that area, with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.'

Once in the restaurant my waiter had on an 'Obama 08' tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on with those doing the work.”

What do you guys think? Is this a fair characterization of Obama’s policies? If not, how do you spin Obama’s now infamous conversation with Joe the Plumber? Can you think of a country which has successfully experimented with socialism in the past? What would make this time different? Is this the "change" America needs? Do you think more free handouts for one class, paid for by the hard work of those in another, are really going to “help” those in the former? Comments? How about those tongue-in-cheek pictures?

Should the U.S. push states to institute a "Junk-food tax?"

This cartoon is actually a bit outdated. Sources now put the U.S. population at almost 70% overweight....and climbing. This is an enormous area of concern for the United States. Obesity and obesity related diseases are accounting for a high-percentage of health related costs. Obesity leads to diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, stroke, and countless other conditions. Children are now contracting type II diabetes (typically considered to be adult-onset diabetes) at ages like 12, 11, even 10 or younger. There's no doubt this condition is an enormous contributor to rising health care costs. What might be the cause? It's no one thing but an abundance of high-fat, high-sugar foods is a major cause. Cheap calorie-packed fast food is another cause. The fact that children drink more soda than milk (one can contains 34 packets of sugar) is adding to it. We experienced a similar epidemic a few years ago with tobacco consumption. Instead of just letting tobacco kill everyone, the Government stepped in and states began instituting high taxes on tobacco, using revenue to fund state budgets and also wage a war warning of the risks of tobacco consumption. Tobacco consumption went way down, state budgets were gaining a lot of money, and people were healthier. My question is, why couldn't this be applied to high-fat, high-sugar foods? In fact it already has. In Alabama they instituted a 2-cent per 12-oz tax on just soft drinks and generated $44 million in a year. So if obesity is a contributor to rising health costs, and obesity is largely caused by an unhealthy lifestyle, why not tax the behavior caused by it instead of making the rich pick up the tab? I wrote a 10 page research paper on this very subject last year for an English class and actually presented part of the paper to a body of about 300 students. Could this work in America? Is it unfair to the companies that are producing this food? Would Americans be outraged at paying more for their unhealthy foods? Would the effect be similar to the tax on tobacco in curbing consumption of these junk-foods? I am interested to hear other opinions on this idea..

What to do with America's health care system?

Alright Devin, challenge accepted.

Let me make say something first, I believe in capitalism. I think that for the most part, capitalism has led to great advances and truly turned America into what it is today. But there is an area of capitalism that I am frankly absolutely disgusted with. This part is known as health insurance companies. Tell me how this makes sense. Pay enormous health insurance premiums to a company designed to deny you as much health care as possible in order for them to maximize profits. As a future physician and part of the 40 million uninsured Americans, I believe our health care system is tremendously flawed. Talk to any doctor and they will tell you how difficult it is to deal with health insurance companies. Is this patient pre-approved? Does their policy cover the care I need to give them? If they are uninsured, how are they going to pay me? How can I give care to this patient and pay my malpractice insurance premiums? Currently the United States is ranked #1 by the World Health Organization in cost of health care (about $7500 per person per year.) Health care costs represent the largest portion of our GDP (I think around 16%.) But for paying the most for our health care, our system is rated #37 (you may be interested to know that ranking #1 is France, who have a universal health care system and they spend half as much as we do, and are consistently healthier than we are.) According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure universal coverage. Approximately 18,000 people die each year because they are either uninsured or underinsured (I consider this to be a great irony, since most republicans are the ones adamantly opposed to universal health care while claiming to do anything possible to protect the sanctity of life, until it costs them money.) Stopping the legislation of universal health care are health care lobbyists in Washington, making up 3 times as many members of congress. I believe that a health care system patterned after France's would actually decrease health costs, improve the overall healthiness of all Americans, and improve the quality of life for all of us (for good articles about this from NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273 .) I do not think universal health care would mean less quality care. I know some of you have experienced universal health care in other countries (Argentina, England, Canada) and may have had negative experiences which turned you off to the idea. But I think we as Americans can develop a better system that gives high quality health care and targets preventive care to reduce costs that arise from people waiting too long and needing more expensive care. And if universal health care is too socialist for us, what about universal coverage? Mitt Romney was able to do it in Massachusetts, and I think it could work nationwide. I'm interested in everyone's opinions on what can be done to better the U.S. way of giving health care.

The Prop 8 Riots and the Irony of Intolerance

Proposition 8 passed this last Tuesday in California which amended the CA Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act and also overturned a CA Supreme Court decision which briefly legalized same-sex marriage. I'm sure you all have heard, but doubt that any are really surprised, that Mormons are the ones getting the blame. Yep, Prop 8 opponents have taken to the streets, have vandalized LDS chapels, and demonstrated outside of the LA Temple. Police had to be called in to disperse the angry crowd. Yesterday William Weigand, a Roman Catholic Bishop, from Sacramento released the following statement:

"Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western civilization for millennia. The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos. Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8. As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes. I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant. I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words — and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”

I'm just curious to hear everyone's opinion regarding Prop 8 and the subsequent Mormon scapegoating. (I'd especially appreciate the Matt Daines perspective given that he lives in the LA area with his wife and 2 children) Does anyone else see the irony here? Or am I the only one that gets the impression that the hard left only favors a fair, legitimate, democratic vote when it favors their agenda? Just a thought . . . what do you guys think about this?

Our Political Duty

In getting ready for this new blog, I found a great talk by D. James Cannon about our responsibility as members of the church to become active in politics. It is not too long and even has a section on definitions of political terms. You can click here to view the complete talk. Here are just a few of my favorite quotes.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in good politics and good government and in the right of people to exercise their franchise.

“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. … such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people. …” (D&C 134:1, 3.)

Become active in politics. Help destroy the myth that “politics are dirty.” The fact is: politics are essential. The Lord has stressed that we ought to be concerned and involved in promoting good government. You simply have to realize that the political process is the way to attain that objective.

Remember you’ve got to do more than talk about politics. You’ve got to vote and act intelligently."

Hopefully this blog will enable us all to become a little more active in politics.