Two More Debt Ceiling Facepalms

1.  If one didn't know any better, one might conclude that our elected officials don't care whatsoever about the American people.  I know it may sound shocking, but I have this sneaking suspicion.  As evidence, I give you this Washington Post-ABC poll which asked people, among other things, if they would oppose or support certain items in an effort to reduce the national debt.  Here's a summary:

Cut spending on Medicaid:  26% support, 72% oppose

Cut military spending:  43% support, 56% oppose

Raising taxes on Americans earning over $250,000 a year:  72% support, 27% oppose

Gradually raising Medicare age from 65 to 67:  46% support, 54% oppose

Changing the way SS benefits are calculated so they increase slower:  42% support, 53% oppose

Raising taxes on oil and gas companies:  59% support, 39% oppose

Means testing Medicare:  61% support, 36% oppose

Removing SS tax income cap currently at $107,000:  66% support, 33% oppose

Raising taxes on hedge fund managers (essentially changing capital gains taxes to income taxes):  64% support, 25% oppose

In sum, Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to match recent historical levels and only making very small changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (such as means-testing, which I'm okay with) to help fix the national debt problem.  The only quibble I personally have with the majority of Americans is that I think military spending needs to be cut dramatically.

Yet, in the debt ceiling negotiations in Washington the exact opposite is being considered.  Tax increases for the wealthy and corporations are off the table and big changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a near certainty.  Up is down, left is right, sane is insanity, and what the American people want is irrelevant.

2.  The House recently passed their pie-in-the-sky Cut, Cap, and Balance bill.  The bill was so draconian that it had no chance, absolutely zero chance, of passing the Senate or not being vetoed by the President.  It was a waste of time and Harry Reid, bless his soul, called it "some of the worst legislation in the history of this country." the worst piece of legislation every passed by the House.

It worked by first making massive cuts to government spending starting next year and going into the future.  Second, it capped government spending at around 18% of GDP per year and required 2/3 vote in Congress to ever raise taxes.  Third, it required the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt ceiling was raised.

All three of those ideas are bad.  The first because the cuts come at the expense of the poor and elderly almost exclusively.  The second because it gives no flexibility to respond to crises like the one from which we are still recovering.  The third because it gives even less flexibility than the second and degrades the beauty of our Constitution.  It would ruin our economy, I have no doubts about that.

It was, then, seen as a way for the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party Congresspersons to show their ultra-conservative chops.  It was a political stunt, nothing more and nothing less.  They knew it didn't have a chance for passage because it was so conservative, they knew it was just to satisfy their base.

But the Republicans control the House and it is their right to pass whatever they want.  I think it is a dangerous bill and a waste of time when we are so close to an economic meltdown, but they've earned the right to be irresponsible I guess by winning elections and anyway everyone knew it never had any chance to become law.  So it is not the mere passage of the bill that I consider a facepalm.

What really bothers me is that Utah Democrat Jim Matheson voted for it.  JIM MATHESON VOTED FOR CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE!  Are your *&%#^@ kidding me?  Even all of his Blue Dog Conservative Democrat associates called it a horrible bill just meant to give ultra-conservatives a message vote.  I would rather, much much rather, have a Republican in that seat than Matheson.  He's an embarrassment.  He is the worst Congressperson in the country.  I hope the state legislature redistricts him right out of office, I really do.

The Debt Ceiling Drama Makes Everyone Look Incompetent

The debt ceiling stuff makes me sick to my stomach.  Despite the fact that the warnings about default are clear and dire, our elected leaders seem to be only interested in political showmanship and not actually solving the problem.

On the one hand you have the Republicans who are the party much more responsible for our unwieldy debt, refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless all of their suddenly austere measures are met without any inkling of desire to compromise on any issue.  They are the major cause of the problem, are completely hypocritical about government debt and size now that they believe it is politically advantageous, and are unwilling to negotiate like responsible adults to avoid the catastrophe they precipitated.  They are more interested, it seems, in pleasing their corporate overlords than doing what is right for the American people.  Here is one graph, among many many many, that illustrates the level to which Republicans are at fault for the debt:

From the New York Times

On the other hand you have the Democrats who seem to only care about reelection, not solving problems, caving on almost every issue because they think the more they move to the right the more electable they will become.  Every time they make a move towards a compromise, without anything offered in return, the Republicans pull the chair out from under them and move it a little further to the right.  The Democrats get up, brush themselves off, offer fresh cuts to Social Security or offer trillions in cuts without any increases in revenue (e.g. raising taxes on the wealthy), without any compromises from Republicans in return, and go to sit back down again only to come crashing to the ground as the chair is pulled out from under them yet again.  Too stupid to learn, I guess.

Meanwhile, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of raising taxes on the rich; closing huge tax loopholes for corporations; keeping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid intact; and raising the debt ceiling to avoid another economic downturn.  Somehow the Democrats have turned all that into a losing hand and seem destined to weaken the liberal legacy in return for some non-existent political victory.

I am all for big cuts in spending in order to get the debt under control.  I'm all for cutting out some of the enormous amount of fat in government.  But it has to be done responsibly, and that means raising taxes on the rich and corporations and not gutting the social safety net for millions of poor and elderly Americans.  It mostly means doing everything we can to make the economy strong again, which hinges mostly on creating local and sustainable jobs for average Americans and not showering the wealthy and corporations with more tax breaks and kickbacks.

No one wins no matter what happens in the next few days.  What a miserable time to be a political partisan.

Good News Everyone: Corporations Are Doing Great

The economic recovery isn't going so well for Americans.  The unemployment rate is still over nine percent and hiring is actually slowing down again.  Home foreclosures are still occurring at an alarmingly high rate.  Regular people are not doing well.  In short, as the Wall Street Journal notes: "Across a wide range of measures—employment growth, unemployment levels, bank lending, economic output, income growth, home prices and household expectations for financial well-being—the economy's improvement since the recession's end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II."

In contrast--stark, ugly contrast--corporations are doing great.  Corporate profits are at an all-time high.  Corporations are holding onto a record amount of cash, around $2 trillion.  The GDP is higher now than it was pre-recession, but virtually all increased income was captured as profits by corporations.  Stocks are the highest they've been since the recession began.  Taxes on the wealthiest Americans are at all-time lows.  The Wall Street Journal astutely noted that there is a "dichotomy between corporate performance and the overall health of the economy."

It is time to stop babying corporate America and the ultra-wealthy, and to stop pretending that their successes or failures equate to general success and failure of everyday Americans.  They are not in the business of creating jobs, protecting the environment, or generally improving economy and the lives of regular Americans.  They are in the business of making profits, and that does not necessarily, or even regularly, translate to better lives for regular people.  Our 30 year experiment in supply-side, trickle down economics should now come to an end.

So what sorts of things should we be doing to take our economy back from corporations?  The first is to skew the tension between the pure profit motive and social responsibility way towards the latter.

Greens believe the legal structure of the corporation is obsolete. At present, corporations are designed solely to generate profit. This legal imperative -- profit above all else -- is damaging our country and our planet in countless ways. We must change the legal design of corporations so that they generate profits, but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health, workers, or the communities in which the corporation operates.

The practical solution is "federal chartering of corporations that includes comprehensive, strict and enforceable social responsibility requirements."

Second is for our economy to focus more locally:  "Greens support decentralization, and call for a community-based economics whose aim is local prosperity and self-sufficiency."

The overall idea is to shift power from corporations to people, from national or international to local.  This is a more sustainable way to run an economy.  I also really appreciate the focus on self-sufficiency.  One of the important purposes of self-sufficiency is to be able to help other people.  In our civic lives, we are self-sufficient as individuals and families so that we are stable and comfortable, to be sure, but also so that we can help our neighbors and create a self-sufficient community.  Greens care about self-sufficiency and community welfare because they are tied together.  And large, unwieldy corporations play virtually no part in that scheme.

The current painfully slow recovery for average Americans while corporate America and the wealthiest thrive is further evidence that it is time to reevaluate our economic structure.  It is time to demand social responsibility from corporations and time to stop pretending that that "trickle-down" economics is sound policy.

Nearly Half of Americans Aren't Paying Income Taxes: Bad But Maybe Not in the Way You Suppose

It has recently exploded all over the internet that nearly half of American households do not pay income taxes.  There are enough deductions and credits for families making around $50,000 and less to avoid the income tax completely, though they still are paying federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and others.

While some see this as a broken tax system, I see it as a broken economy.  While some gripe that half of Americans aren't pulling their weight, I see it as nearly half of Americans are not making enough money to pay income taxes.  They live below the line where we have decided that a person is only making enough to cover basic expenses and should not bear the weight of income taxes on top of it.  Instead of trying to figure out how to get those people to start paying income taxes at their current salary, lets instead focus on how to get these people making enough money to be able to afford taxes after their basic needs are met.

If we want to broaden the tax base, and I agree that that should be one of our goals, we need to narrow the gap of income inequality.  We are more free as a nation, and have increased agency as individuals, when the wealth and income gap is narrow.  That is perhaps part of why the Lord said, "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things."  Here is a site, called Business Insider, with all the charts you will ever need to help understand just how serious an issue this is.  Here is an example:

State of the Union Highlights

I was at scouts last night and couldn't watch the State of the Union Address, but as I've browsed through it there are several items that I believe are worth highlighting.  The theme was Win the Future, which I guess is the new Hope and Change.  In both cases, President Obama wants to exude optimism, which is something, as I've said before, we dearly lack around here.  So with optimism in mind, here are a few things worth looking at.

As some of you know, I'm a proud and moralistic environmentalist, so I appreciated the renewed emphasis on renewable energy:

Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if — I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

First, there is almost nothing so offensive, in my mind, as the billions of dollars in tax relief that we give to oil companies.  Those should end immediately.  Second, I've been contemplating a post about the world's population crisis, and one of the most important points in that discussion is energy.  Where are the billions of people we are going to be adding to our world's population going to get their energy?  How can we add billions more people to the Earth and not completely destroy the environment in the search for and consumption of cheap energy?  Renewable energy, of course, is the answer, and the longer we wait to make the President's goal a reality the harder it will be.  We simply have no choice but to invest aggressively in renewable energies.  And it will be good for our economy in the long-term, as well.

As to education, and to allay concerns that liberals are masked communists who want to destroy the family:

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair. We need to teach them that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

As a parent of children who are starting to make their way through school, I simply could not agree more that the most important factor in determining whether our schools are successful is the efforts of the home.  We wouldn't be talking about failing schools and teachers if families bore more of the burden and responsibility of education.  That is nearly impossible, however, when parents are facing foreclosure, unemployment, insurmountable medical bills, neighborhood violence, and the like, and where the stresses of oppressive poverty crowd out most other concerns.  The stability of the family is one reason why it is so important to build and maintain a robust social safety net.

Finally, one point that I wish was hit more forcefully.  When the president spoke about reducing the deficit he spent quite a bit of time talking about reducing non-discretionary domestic spending, which he acknowledged made up only 12% of the nation's budget.  Then he blithely stated, concerning the deficit commission:

And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

I believe I've linked to this before, but take a look at the a visualization of the budget found at the New York Times.  What jumps out immediately?  National Security and Social Security.  Those are certainly worthy of a lot of money, and we talk all the time about ways to control Social Security costs.  What we never talk about is controlling National Security costs.  It is virtually unheard of for a politician to seriously suggest bringing defense spending down in any meaningful way, which is a travesty.  Here are an assortment of charts to help put our military spending in context

From the Center for Arms Control:

From Think Progress:

From the Daily Mail:

If we want to seriously get the budget under control, we should cut defense spending, which is filled with corruptions, special interests, and waste.  Pres. Eisenhower correctly predicted this in his farewell speech where he warned:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I thought the State of Union was good.  I think it had the right tone and struck the right balance between government waste and government investment.  A focus on families, peace, and renewable energy, among other things, is the kind of liberalism I support.

Progressive Taxation

A recent poll showed that over 60 percent of Americans think that the government should tax the rich in an effort to reduce the budget deficit.  Polls also consistently found that a majority of Americans wanted the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  Conservatives, inexplicably, won that battle in their larger war against progressive taxation.

So with all the recent talk about taxes, I wanted to try to explain why liberals, and a majority of Americans generally, support a progressive tax scheme.  A progressive tax is one where the tax rate increases with taxable income.  So a person making a smaller salary pays a smaller percentage in taxes than a person making a larger salary.  Currently in the US, we have a progressive federal income tax that ranges from 10% for the lowest income earners to 35% for the highest marginal rates.

Mainstream conservatives typically oppose a progressive tax for moral reasons.  They argue that it is unfair to tax the wealthy at higher rates just because they have a lot of money, that it is a form of class welfare, that the poor are getting off easy, and that it disincentivizes hard work.  These arguments miss the point.
As a starting point, let's look at tithing, which is a conservative's dream flat rate of 10% for all.  Tithing is nothing like taxation, of course, and an analogy between the two is fundamentally flawed for that reason.  Tithing is a spiritual commandment, and is a matter of faith, unlike taxes which are a matter of public policy.  But it provides a nice, simple example of what I want to talk about.

Lets say there are two people, Person X makes $1,000 per month and Person Y makes $10,000 per month.  If they both pay 10% tithing, X pays $100 and Y pays $1,000.  It is tempting to say that since X and Y pay the same rate it is equally difficult or easy for them to pay, that their burden is equal.  That, however, would be wrong.  X makes very little money and thus a higher percentage, probably approaching 100%, of her income goes towards needs like rent, food, clothing, utilities, etc.  X's tithing check comes at the expense of items she needs, but will sacrifice nonetheless.  Y's 10%, on the other hand, will come almost exclusively from money she was going to use for savings, luxuries, and non-necessities.  It is much harder for X to pay 10% than for Y.

Tithing, then, in my opinion, is disproportionally more beneficial to the poor who gain greater blessings because it is a greater sacrifice.  The wealthy, again in my opinion, had better seriously step up in fast offerings if they want similar blessings, because the more wealthy a person is the easier the law of tithing becomes to keep.  There are plenty of scriptures that warn the wealthy that their wealth is a hindrance to their righteousness, and I think tithing was specifically set up to test how generous the wealthy will be with their money beyond the strict minimum required by tithing.

So for taxation, you can see why a progressive scheme is favored by liberals.  For another example, say that the we all agree that a nation of three people, for simplicity, needs $10,000 for its government to function properly.  Three people, A, B, and C, make $10,000, $30,000, and $60,000 per month respectively.  How should the tax burden be divided?  If there was a flat rate of 10%, A would pay $1,000, B $3,000, and C $6,000 and they'd get there.  But, again, this is actually a disproportionate burden on A who makes less and has a much more difficult time making ends meet under this scheme than B or, especially, C.  In this situation A actually has a higher tax burden.  A progressive tax of 5%, 10%, and 11% evens out those burdens.  You'll see that A had her tax burden cut in half and to make up for it C only had an increase of one percent.  This is more fair to everyone.

There are, of course, other reasons to support a progressive tax system.  The wealthy have increased access to influence and power, and thus more ability to shape public policy to their benefit at the expense of the poor.  Progressive taxation can even out that inequality.  There is also a persuasive argument that the wealthy receive greater benefits from the government, such as the protection of property rights, defense and security, infrastructure, and market regulation, than the poor and thus should shoulder a greater tax burden to support societal order.  Wikipedia has a nice rundown of the pro and con arguments.

What is overstated is the amount of animosity and hatred felt towards the wealthy, and the use of progressive taxation to punish them.  Some people no doubt feel this way, but the best and most useful arguments for progressive taxation do not rely on emotions or retribution.  Progressive taxation is a sound rational policy.

In fact, despite all of the hand-wringing about raising rates on the wealthy and the detrimental effect it will have on the economy, this is the least progressive tax system we've had since the Great Depression.  Throughout the steady economic growth of the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s the marginal tax rates were typically in the 70-90% range, instead of the 35% we have now.  During the Reagan era the top marginal rates were around 50%.  Here's a chart I think I've probably posted before from that link above.

Pres. Obama and Congress were wrong, from a public policy standpoint, to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  In two years the best thing to do for the country would be to let them expire and properly redistribute the tax burden.  The tax system in America needs to be vastly simplified and more progressive.  I don't want to necessarily go back to a 90% marginal rate, but we've certainly gone too far in the other direction.

Awkward Introduction Time

So it's high time that I make my first post here. It's been a while since I was added to be a contributor, yet I have been silent. At least I have a good reason, I'm about 70% done with a Masters degree in Computer Engineering, and seeing as how it will have taken me about 15 years since my high school graduation when I complete this thing I don't let too many distractions get in the way of my progress.

As you can probably derive from my above paragraph, I generally view things in terms of science or math, basically I try to over simplify any problem into some sort of equation that I can manipulate to confirm my preconceptions. The fact that I use math makes me feel both elitist and confident in my correctness, so it's a win-win. Doesn't qualify for the Michael Scott conflict resolution status of win-win-win, but two out of three ain't bad.

Here's the problem I've run into when I've attempted to write this first post in the past: I don't know what I should write about. With the title of the blog being Mormon Left, I find myself only half qualified. I've got the Mormon part down, but the left? Not so much. So let me introduce myself in the form of attempting to pigeon hole my political leanings. I don't really lean right or left, it's more down than anything. In fact, I once took a political test online and since it was on the Internet it was very accurate, that divided people's political leanings into a standard Cartesian Plane. I guess blogging etiquette would be for me to link that to Wikipedia, but sorry, not happening right now because I'm currently in a race against my laptop battery. So, for those that don't remember high school math and are too lazy to Google the Cartesian Plane is the standard four quadrant graphing system. Back to the quiz, my quiz results left me in quadrant four, the lower right as you look at it, with esteemed company as people like Milton Friedman. If you don't recognize the name, once again, Google it.

Now that you've Google'd his name, you probably think that I think economics is pretty important politically. You're right. In fact, in terms of the Federal Government, I don't believe they should be serving much purpose apart from national defense and economic development. I'm a Jeffersonian. I believe strongly in a limited Federal government, and strong, centralized local governments. I believe the closer you can keep the money to the people, the more honest the politicians will remain. Ironically, I don't live too far from D.C., which is a local government rife with corruption, embezzlement and outright fraud. Don't judge me.

Politically I'm old school. When I think in terms of conservative and progressive, I think about it in terms of government size and reach, not in social terms. I realize that I'm in the minority, but it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the planet that the term "conservative" has become synonymous with "social conservative". Pedantic? Yes. Irrational? Maybe. Impactful? Most definitely. Turns out when you make social conservative and conservative synonymous terms, people start to lose all grip on reality and believe things like "Mitt Romney is too liberal to be President." and "Sarah Palin would be a great leader for our country." I apologize to all the potential readers that may have pre-ordered their Palin 2012 bumper stickers, but I think she's one of the least relevant people in our country in terms of Presidential abilities and I find it amazing that there's anyone with an IQ north of the average temperature of Hawaii that believes she would be a solid executive. She does have her own reality show though, and I suppose she's probably more qualified than Snookie or that lady that got a show because she and her husband don't understand how to use a prophylactic and had 30 kids.

Okay, end of rant.

I thought of something left I can post about!

I'm in full support of Dennis Kucinich's NEED_ACT. Apart from ending the largest theft, embezzlement and fraud scheme of the last century (fractional reserve banking), it implements some really smart changes to our banking system.

That's the largest thing that our country has gotten wrong in the last 2-5 years. They believed the swindlers that told us we need specific banks in the form of bailouts. We don't need banks. We need a strong banking system. What makes a stronger banking system than forcing those banks to stop using depositor's savings accounts for financial speculation? Thus forcing any high-risk investments out in the open where the depositor knows that if they put their money into a certain investment vehicle that there's a chance they could lose their shirt?

If you haven't checked it out, don't worry about doing that. Just take my word for it, it's good legislation for our country's long term economic health. Call your congressman before it's too late and get them supporting it. After all, with the gerrymandering that's sure to happen after the census data, Kucinich may not be around much longer.

Let's make this his swan song. Thanks for the time, next time there will be more links, less rant, and more political stuff.

The Economy, Mitigated by the Tea Party

. . . unfortunately.

This was certainly a drubbing for Democrats, no doubt about it.  After making six years of gains they have lost the House in resounding fashion, lost a bunch of governorships, and lost a handful of Senate seats.  I have no problem with fluidity in political power, but when you take a look at the underlying factors in the Republican landslide last night, the picture isn't so neat and clear as it might seem.

Take a look at the polling that asks Americans which issues are most important to them.  The economy is always the most important by a wide margin.  In the most recent CNN poll 52% of respondents said it was the most important issue while only eight percent thought issues such as the deficit, health care, our lame wars, etc., respectively were the most important.  In a recent Pew poll 39% thought the economy was the most pressing issue, 25% said health care was, and 17% said the deficit was.  In a recent Bloomberg poll 49% listed the economy as problem number one, compared to 27% for the deficit and ten percent for health care.  In a recent CBS poll it was 57% for the economy, seven percent for health care, three percent for things like immigration and the deficit.  Exit polls from last night show the same thing.

When the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, the party in power loses.  When the economy is really bad, the party in power loses really badly (and when the American public gets upset . . . people DIE!).  It happens to both parties.  And since neither party is very adept at actually solving problems, voters are fluctuating randomly and widely, trying to find the right combination of people to get the country back on track.  I think we'll flop around between Democratic and Republican control of the various political institutions for a few years, to be honest.

But, in any case, the objective data show that this election had precious little to do with health care reform, or the budget deficit, or taxes, or anything else other than the health of the economy.  This was not a fundamental repudiation of liberalism or a fundamental acceptance of conservatism, just like the opposite wasn't true for the last few years.  This is an American public feeling lost and injured, trying to wend our way through the wilderness.  There are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and even more moderates and it will be that way for a long time.

The election was also colored by the Tea Party.  Last night MSNBC was running a graphic showing how Tea Party candidates fared.  The last one I saw showed that about 35 had won and about 60 had lost.  I can't find anything on this today, if you can please put it in the comments.  So while they generally raised Republican enthusiasm during the election, they were at best a mixed bag.  In the Senate, specifically, they might have cost Republicans control.  It looks like the new Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two independents that caucus with the Democrats (giving them essentially 53).  The Republicans threw away three seats because of the Tea Party: Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware.  The thought is that if they had picked up those seats and brought the Senate to 50-50 they could have persuaded someone like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson to switch and caucus with Republicans, giving them a majority.

In the end, Republicans can feel pretty good about this election, but they should stop with all the rhetoric about the American people finally waking up, repudiating Pres. Obama (who still has okay poll numbers, all things considered), or giving them some sweeping mandate.  We're actually totally depressed about our country and you are depressing, the Democrats are depressing, and we seem to be just randomly picking candidates at this point.

Early Mormon Cooperatives

I've been reading Building the City of God by church historians Leonard Arrington, Dean May, and (kind of) Feramorz Fox.  I wrote a post about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship here.

Not long after the saints arrived in the Great Basin, "gentile" traders and merchants arrived and started making huge money off the saints.  Brigham Young was against trading of any sort, but especially among the members.  His thought was that a man should be making something, or producing something, and that work in shops was okay for women, but not for men.  What's more, he was against the idea of a man gaining wealth at the expense of the producers.

Because members of the church were strongly discouraged from getting involved in trading, the gentile merchants had the market to themselves and became very rich at the expense of the saints.  This became very alarming to many members, who petitioned Pres. Young to allow the members to get involved in trading at a cooperative level.  At first he balked, but eventually relented.  Here is how the authors of the book describe the evolution of his thought process:

Finally, it is important that Brigham Young believed strongly in social equality.  Ideologically opposed to gradation of wealth and status among his people, he sought instinctively for a scheme that would prevent aggrandizement of a few at the expense of the many.  His opposition to the first association of Mormon traders proposed to him in 1860 was based partly upon these grounds.  He consistently encouraged the widest possible ownership of the new cooperatives, to prevent the establishment of a wealthy privileged class.  The cooperative movement was, thus, wholly consistent with his own social philosophy.

The cooperatives were set up to be community owned.  Since the Brigham City cooperative was particularly successful and well-known, we'll use it as an example.  At first the citizens of Brigham City would buy inexpensive stocks in the cooperative.  The cooperative would then purchase goods from the east or, probably more likely, from the big Salt Lake cooperative which purchased goods from the east.  The saints would buy exclusively from the cooperative, essentially running the gentiles out of business.

As the cooperative gained strength and money it would start getting involved in "home industries" such as tanneries, shoemaking, raising cattle, blacksmithing, and so on, until the community was entirely self-sufficient.  Since it was community owned, the cooperative tended not to enrich any one person above any other, and Pres. Young's quest for self-sufficiency and social equality was met.  At the end of the year big dividends were paid to members or reinvested in the cooperative.

In practice, however, there were some drawbacks.  Some of the cooperatives were funded almost exclusively by two or three big spenders.  And instead of voting by the one-man-one-vote model of some European cooperatives, they voted by one-share-one-vote, which meant that big shareholders were given big voting advantages.  Also, while the initial stocks could only be purchased by tithe-paying members of the church, there was no such restriction on their subsequent transfers, which meant that shares ended up in the hands of those not exactly operating with the same basic assumptions as tithe-paying members.

Nevertheless, the cooperatives were generally very successful:

In 1875 there appeared an apostolic circular that summarized clearly considerations that led the church into cooperation and praised its progress.  Cooperation, the leaders explained, had been a means of countering "a condition of affairs . . . which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many."  Fearing that a wealthy class might arise with interests "diverse from those of the rest of the community," the church officials concluded that such an occurrence "was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical."  The ZCMI had been opposed by the wealthy and the established, but since its founding had established a solid reputation while paying substantial dividends and paying a church tithe on all its profits.

Practical considerations such as a world that is smaller and more interconnected than in the 1860s and 1870s, and members of the church being encouraged to stay where they are and build up the kingdom, make cooperatives essentially impossible.  But more fundamentally, this is a mentality that simply doesn't exist in our society today, and I don't think it really exists in the church anymore, either.  We are no longer interested in smoothing out wealth and power inequalities, and if the prophet and apostles made statement like those above today they would be branded as communists or socialists and threats to the Constitution.

In the early years of the church, however, complete social equality was an express goal of the priesthood leaders and it could still be today if we had the same will.  Joseph Smith's Law of Consecration and Stewardship was the first effort to make it happen but failed as the saints were driven from state to state.  Cooperatives were the second effort and were successful enough to lead to the United Order, which will be the next installment.

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

I am currently reading the excellent book Building the City of God, which is a study of early communitarian efforts by the saints.  Though I'm obviously no historian, I thought it might be interesting to write a few posts about what I'm reading as I go along.  I just finished the section on the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which was Joseph's early attempts in Kirtland and Missouri to get the saints to live a more perfect economic system.

The basic gist of the plan went something like this:  First, all members deeded their real and personal property to Edward Partridge, the presiding bishop.  In the earliest iterations of the Law the person would completely forfeit all property if they left the church, i.e. the church had full rights to the property.  Later, when civil courts eroded that away, the person could get real property back, but not personal property and not any of the yearly consecrations.  Second, Partridge would lease and loan back those respective properties to the individual, depending on their needs.  Third, the individual, though a steward over the land, would have the control to do with the property whatever he or she desired.  Finally, at the end of the year the individual would consecrate to Partridge any excess gains above what they needed.

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship struck a balance between individualism and communalism by giving each individual the choice of what to do with his or her property and encouragement to be creative and industrious, while also requiring the pooling of resources above any person's needs for the benefit of the poor.  This was different than "common stock" communities like the Shakers where literally all possessions were owned by everyone, including clothing and household items, which led to a certain anarchist free-for-all in practice.

The authors gave five reasons why the Law of Consecration and Stewardship didn't last, and they contend that number five is overemphasized at the expense of numbers one through four:

1) Most of the converts to the early church were poor and had nothing to consecrate. Yet inheritances had to be provided for them.  2) Most of the consecrations that were made were in kind, while most of the church's investments (in real estate and so on to provide stewardships for those who needed them) required liquid resources. Conversion of the former into the latter was difficult on the Missouri frontier.  3) Constant persecution made property accumulation almost impossible.  4) The opposition of the courts to the Mormons, and to cooperative (and communal) ventures generally, made it easy for apostates who had made gifts to the church to disrupt the financial affairs of the system by demanding and securing the return of all their consecrated properties.  5) The converts were not faithful in making their initial and annual consecrations.

Those first four factors are no longer true, so the question I have is, could this system work today?  If President Monson announced in General Conference that the church was reinstating the Law of Consecration and Stewardship as revealed to Joseph Smith would it 1) work and 2) be embraced?

I think it would have to look something like this:  Every member would deed over all their real and personal property to the church.  The church would then lease and loan back that property according to needs and the individual or family would be a steward over those properties.  Each member would be expected to continue to work and be productive.  At the end of the year all income above what was strictly needed would be consecrated back to the church for the support of the poor and the building of the kingdom.

In practice it would mean that members living in huge homes and driving expensive cars, and the like, that exceed their needs would probably have to sell them and find more modest accommodations and consecrate the excess to the church.  How many members would be willing to do that?  I live in a stake that is probably 80% super rich and I wonder how many would support a modern Law of Consecration and Stewardship with a full heart, without reservations, knowing that they would have to move out of their McMansions or legitimate mansions, sell their Porches and yachts, and give away the rest.

But it isn't just the rich that would have to make uncomfortable decisions.  Would each of us be willing to forfeit, at the end of each year, any assets that otherwise would have been accumulated in savings accounts, retirement accounts, educational accounts, and investments acting on faith that those things would be taken care of by the church?  It would take real faith to not save for the future believing that the church would take care of you in your old age or in emergencies.  It would take real faith to not save for your children's college believing that the church would pay for that in the future.

The argument against such an economic system is that it stifles the drive to be successful and innovative.  If you never tasted the fruits of you hard work (to put it more starkly: if you never got to enjoy all the money you would earn from being successful), why would you even try?  Why would a person go through all that work and school to become a doctor if they didn't get paid like a doctor?  Why would a person put so much blood and sweat into an innovative and successful business if they didn't have the chance to earn that huge return on investment in the end?  Why should we work hard and then just give our money away to the poor?

The answer is faith, I think.  Such a system could only work if the saints had faith enough to become successful and industrious and then consecrate the excess to the church to support the poor and build up the kingdom.  It cannot work if greed is the only motivator, it could work if faith replaced that greed.  Should we not expect that of ourselves as members of the true church?  Thoughts?

Ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the beginning of the year and the bombs are starting to fall in the political war over this issue.  Democrats want to let them expire for those making over $250,000 while extending them for everyone else.  Republicans want to extend them for everyone.  So, essentially, the argument is whether or not to extend the tax cuts for the very wealthy.  The two top marginal tax rates would go from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively.

A second area of disagreement also has to do with taxing the wealthy, this time in the form of capital gains, which are disproportionally slanted towards the rich.  Those rates would go from 15% to 20%, and eventually to 23.8%.

Read up on the issues from both sides here, here, here, and here.  Another excellent resource is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which lays out the argument for how letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy and extending them for everyone else will reduce the deficit ($300 billion per year), almost universally benefit small businesses, and spur the economy and job growth.

 President Obama has come out forcefully with a plan to allow the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy and to extend them for the poor.  Here is the best and simplest argument I've seen for his plan, from Salon:

Not only did the wealthiest Americans benefit the most from the anything goes Wall Street boom years, but they paid the smallest price for the economic collapse. While millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes, they sailed right through. By calling for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama is putting down a political marker, and declaring that the rich must pay their fair share of the burden. Here's a message anyone can understand: I'm going to raise taxes on the rich and spend money directly creating jobs through infrastructure investments.

Remember, even with the expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthy they will be paying a lower tax rate than during the Reagan years, so save the cries of socialism.  This country became great because of the work of the lower and middle classes.  If we want to regain some of that greatness we have to secure them first by creating jobs and opportunities for them, and this move is a way to do that.  We've covered this issue a little bit before here.

Over the past 30 years, however, after decades of convergence in income distribution, the gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger.  That means America is less free because those poor have fewer and fewer meaningful opportunities to make their lives, and the lives of their families, better.  It also means America is much less righteous.  That might seem like a statement out of crazy land, but look at these principles from the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 9:30 - But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.

2 Nephi 9:42 -  And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

Jacob 2:13-14 - And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are ^alifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.  And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

Helaman 6:17 - For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.

3 Nephi 6:10-12 -  But it came to pass in the *twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boasting because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions; For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.  And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great  learning because of their riches.

There are many, many others just like this.  One of the overarching themes of the Book of Mormon is that when a society becomes stratified between the rich and the poor, the rich will become prideful and wicked and push the poor down further and further until they are ripe for destruction.  This is where we are inevitably headed unless we make the decision, as a society collectively, to narrow that gap voluntarily.  Extending the Bush tax cuts for the poor and letting them expire for the wealthy is a step in the right direction.

Liberaltarianism: Might Mormons Embrace a Liberal-Libertarian Alliance?

I once foolishly asked if the liberal dominance of the immediate post-Bush era would have the effect of liberalizing Mormon voters.  The answer came resoundingly recently with a Gallup poll that showed that Mormons give President Obama the lowest favorability marks of any group, 24%.  Sigh.

So I started wondering if there is anything that could be done about this.  In my mind Mormons should feel very comfortable leaning politically left on issues such as immigration (love thy neighbors, the special place of "Lamanites" in Book of Mormon prophecies), the environment (the sanctity of all God's creations), war (Gospel of peace), and poverty (BOM: no poor among you, all things in common, 4 Nephi), among others.  But I am continually disappointed.

In my meanderings trying to figure all this out I came across my solution du jour: liberaltarianism.  That's right, the fusing of libertarianism and liberalism.  This newish brand of Western politics could be just the thing to shake Mormons out of our political heterodoxy.  Or not, but let's take look.

Mormons unquestioningly have a libertarian bent.  Hostility to government has a solid foundation in extermination orders, declarations of war, military occupation, and opposition to the religious practice of polygamy.  Whereas early members focused on communal living among saints at the exclusion of federal government meddling, modern-day members have taken those anti-federal government feelings and invested them in free-market capitalistic principles.  Add that to the now cliche Western Individualism, wrought by eking out a living in a harsh land, and you have the perfect storm of libertarianism.

For many years libertarians found a natural relationship with conservatives.  Both argued for small government, because big government led inevitably to a loss of individual freedom and liberty.  They had basically every government ever as a precedent for this belief.  But some funny things happened over the years.  First, conservatives adopted a big government agenda just like liberals and Republican administrations increased the size of federal government and national debt exponentially more than Democratic Administrations who actually reduced the national debt.  Second, corporations grew to be just as big or a bigger threat to individual freedoms and liberties as government.

The libertarian-conservative alliance has been weakening for years now.  That has lead some political thinkers to wonder if there might be room for a new alliance between liberals and libertarians.  The basic idea is expressed well from that first link in the previous sentence:

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.

Such an alliance would be based on some mutually agreeable principles.  The low-hanging fruit where there is some obvious common ground includes opposition to government intrusion into Americans' family decisions and churches; opposition to government's weakening of civil liberties in the name of self-defense like NSA's spying program, warrantless wiretapping, and police brutality; opposition to war and entangling foreign policy; strong support for protecting the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment - I know I wrote this and I'm grudgingly willing to start perhaps maybe rethinking it if it means edging some Mormons' minds to the left a bit); support for a more open immigration policy; and rethinking our approach to the drug problem.  So there are certainly some significant areas of agreement between liberals and libertarians.

The hard part, of course, is economics.  Where libertarians have a general distrust of government intrusion into free markets, liberals have a general distrust of free market forces and wish government to promote more fairness.  The alliance, then, has to be framed in terms of creating more real choices and individual freedoms for Americans.  The first easy one is cutting corporate welfare.  Corporations in America receive billions of dollars of subsidies and tax breaks every year.  By eliminating corporate welfare we would open up the markets for greater competition and choice, and protect Americans from corporate restriction of our freedoms.  If we eliminated corporate welfare for traditional fossil fuel companies we would make it easier for alternative clean energy companies to compete.  If we eliminated corporate welfare for big agriculture we'd encourage more local, sustainable family farming.  If we eliminated corporate welfare for big banks we'd open up the market for smaller, community-based banking.  These all create more choices for Americans and a healthier economy.

The government could help create more choices, freedom, and information by investment in roads, public transportation, and the internet.  Infrastructure is key to promoting individual freedoms.

Next, a liberal-libertarian union would agree to dramatically reduce government over-regulation of small businesses.  Some of these measures may be painful for liberals, but could really go a long way to forging that left-libertarian alliance and free small businesses to create more jobs.

Finally, left-libertarians would have to agree that some regulation is necessary to keep markets healthy by expanding choices and giving consumers more information.  Regulating the worst health insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and refusing coverage based on technicalities gives consumers more and better health care choices.  Regulating the food and drug industries allows consumers to have more information on which to base their choices.

One of the keys, here, is to remember that the modern-day libertarian really has little in common with the extreme version seen in some "Tea Party" candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle.  While those examples certainly verify that the extreme libertarian still exists in America today, most libertarians are more the Cato Institute ilk that understand that some regulation of markets is required to make them more efficient.

This obviously isn't going to be for every liberal or every libertarian.  Both sides would have to give up a significant amount to make it work for the long-term.  But the idea is to appeal to voters in the "Mormon Belt," where libertarianism is strong but liberal thought has a lot to offer.  In places like Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada, a small-government liberal in the mold of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, Montana Senator Jon Tester or Wyoming Governor David Freudenthal can and has done very well.

So there's the idea for liberaltarianism.  It is a focus on individual freedoms and choices and identifying places where the government can facilitate progress.  It is about maintaining that core Western and Mormon belief in the power of the individual, while reminding us that if we work together we can achieve more.  I think this has some potential, but I've been wrong before.

The State of the President Part 1: The Polls

As President Obama gets ready to deliver his State of the Union address (which, thankfully, will not conflict with the season premier of Lost, which would have been a deal-breaker for me, and not just for watching the speech but for supporting the president at all), I thought I'd give my own little state of the president.

Let's start with the polls in this post and then get to specific issues and opinions in the next post.

Americans like Pres. Obama. You may disagree with his policies, but you can't disagree with the polls that show his popularity remains fairly high. Take a look at his favorability ratings here. Remember to scroll down and look through all the polls. After the mean-spirited contention of the health care debate and the attacks on the president from the right, I was expecting some dismal numbers. It turns out, however, that he is sitting around +15 across the board, which is a big number.

Favorability measures how much we like Pres. Obama, which is a lot, but job approval might be a little more substantive. Yet even here we see that the president is holding his own after a difficult first year in office. Take a look at some polls here and here and the Gallup daily tracking here. He has a stable number since around last August or September fluctuating between +3 and +10. Again, this was a brutal year to be a politician, and president in particular, and he came out with the support of the majority of Americans.

Now for the more sobering polls. When it breaks down to specific issues there are some major areas of concern. See the polls here. On domestic issues Pres. Obama typically gets poor marks. On the economy he's about -10, on healthcare he is about -15, on taxes he's about even, on jobs he's about -10. Those aren't good, but I will say a couple things about them. The economy has, by all indicators, hit its nadir and is on the rise. This year should see solid growth, so I expect improved numbers on the economy, taxes, and jobs. If the economy continues to dawdle along, though, those numbers could get even worse.

As for health care, many polls are showing (example here) that more people disapprove of the bill for not going far enough than for going too far. So it is not the case that a strong majority disapproves of the direction of health insurance reform, a strong majority actually wants the reform. So I expect that once the bill is passed and the hysteria has died down these numbers will improve some because the large portion of the president's base which is showing dissatisfaction will come back around. That is the nature of bases.

On the international front, the president is getting much better marks from the American people. On foreign affairs he's around +5 (and with such efficient response to the Haiti earthquake, government aid is already on the ground there, that could go up), on Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism he is anywhere from even to about +8 or so.

So a strong majority of Americans have a favorable opinion of the president and a solid majority approve of the job he is doing. This after one of the most contentious partisan years America has endured in quite some time.

Liberals, I sense, are starting to feel defeated, but this is qualified good news I think. We gave away a public option, Copenhagen essentially failed, and Democrats are facing losses in the midterm elections. But it has only been one year of a four-year first term for the president and progress is being made and a majority of America still supports our president. Once the health insurance bill is passed and the government moves on to focusing on the economy, jobs, and energy reform things should start to look better, but there is no question that right now Democrats are hurting, and liberals are hurting even more.

This coming year, though, may be crucial, which is where we'll pick up next week.

Gross National Happiness

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing that nations drop their fixation on gross domestic product as the leading indicator of economic progress and instead try to measure quality of life aspects such as availability of health care and education, protection of natural resources, and amount of leisure time.

The idea is that by fixating on GDP we are encouraging nations to engage in overly-risky behavior and to degrade the environment, which destroy the quality of life of the people and work to their detriment. The counter argument is a happiness index will not help countries decide how to allocate their resources and that, while it is important to attempt to track something subjective like happiness, it is not in order to replace a purely economic standard like GDP.

GDP is the total value of goods and service produced in a nation during a year. I won't pretend to understand it much deeper than that, but it is basically the standard measure of a nation's economic strength and, therefore, of its population's standard of living.

The question the French are asking, I think, is whether or not we should even be focusing on raw economic data, as opposed to focusing on the happiness and contentment of the people. Which nation is better off, the one with a high GDP but a demoralized and unhappy citizenry, or the nation with a moderate GDP but a happy and optimistic citizenry? The former conjures up images of a coldly efficient industrial nation-complex where management lords over labor. The latter conjures up, well, France. A nation of sidewalk cafes, 35-hour work weeks, and a lot of college graduates with degrees in philos0phy.

Joseph Smith said that:

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.

So are we focusing on the wrong priorities? Shouldn't we really be living our lives in order to find happiness and security, as opposed to finding the highest paying job and accumulating the most stuff at the expense of our happiness and the happiness of our families. I am about to find out on a personal level. I am taking a massive pay cut to take a job that I think I will like a whole lot more than my current job. This isn't entirely voluntary or premeditated, but I'm kind of excited to find out how we deal with it. I will work fewer hours, make less money, work towards a cause I believe in, make less money, and spend more time with my family. And make a lot less money. We'll see how we handle it.

Now, I've spent quite a bit of time in France and I know what their quality of life is like. I know what their pace of life is like. Frankly (no pun), I find it appealing. I understand that not everyone in France is happy, but I would say that the French are generally happier and live a better quality of life than Americans. Perhaps I am going to channel a little of that French in me.

But here in America we look down our noses on the French as lazy and socialist, we scoff at their work habits and high unemployment. But shouldn't be also be envious of their quality of life? Should we strive to be a more happy nation as opposed to a more efficient nation? I don't even think those two ideas are mutually exclusive, but perhaps one follows the other.

I believe that we would be a more optimistic and happy nation if we cut down on our pollution, grant access to affordable health care to every citizen, give every citizen a free, world-class education, all while providing physical and economic security. I think this is what the French are trying to emphasize, what I am going to attempt to live with my new career, and that this is the hope that President Obama sold us.