Enter Email to Receive New Post Alerts:

Should the federal government be involved in public education?

November 3, 2009

Ever heard of the acronyms NDEA, ESEA, EAHCA, IASA, IDEA, or NCLB? All these represent former or current federal laws that did or do regulate public education in the states. What kind of impact have these laws had on state governments, schools, and students? Has that impact been positive or negative?

You can find answers to these questions in a publication I recently wrote called “Federal Intervention in Public Education: Is It Good for Utah?” Just click on the links that follow:

Executive summary
Full report
Press release

What do you think?

*Photo credit: Raul654

Elder Oaks says religious freedom is threatened

October 14, 2009

Yesterday, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave what the Church is calling “a major address…on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

His speech to BYU-Idaho students is very interesting and important for every Latter-day Saint and every supporter of religious freedom to read. I urge you to read it. Elder Oaks reviews the historical and constitutional context of religious freedom, outlines current and potential threats to religious freedom (E.g., Proposition 8 backlash), and offers “five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.”

To help give you a flavor of what people are saying about the speech, I’ll post some links and a video below.

Elder Oaks: Religious Freedom
LDS Newsroom: Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened
Associated Press: Mormon leader: religious freedom at risk
KSL News: LDS apostle says religious freedom is under attack (video)
Fox 13 News: Mormon Leader: Religious Freedom At Risk (video)
Deseret News: Freedom of religion under increasing attack, LDS leader says
Salt Lake Tribune: LDS apostle under fire for civil-rights analogy

Here’s a video of Elder Oaks’s response to criticisms of his civil-rights analogy:
 

What do you think?

Related posts:

-Prop. 8 backlash: what would Jesus do?
-Let our voices be heard
-Romney, religion, and the presidency
-The Church on civil unions
-Gay agenda: not about rights

“Look what you did you little jerk!”

September 30, 2009


Rob Miller (D) and Dave Hansen (R)

Last night, I attended a very interesting forum for bloggers at the Sutherland Institute. The discussion was about civility in politics and included representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you might imagine, this debate on civility in politics was extremely civil, which was refreshing in contrast with recent overly-heated debates at town hall meetings and the incessant blabbering and bickering so common among cable and radio talk shows (is that comment uncivil? If so, then I apologize).

You likely encounter incivility in various places — political debate, the freeway, the grocery store check-out stand, sports events, and even in your own home. You and I may even be guilty of uttering uncivil words or performing uncivil actions from time to time.

I have found incivility to be most common and extreme when there is a barrier between two people and, especially, when one or both people’s identity is hidden. For example, put two people who disagree on an issue face-to-face and more than likely a relatively civil discussion will ensue. However, put those two people in two separate automobiles or in their own homes using the World Wide Web to communicate, and their tempers may flare, their word choice degenerate into insults, and their claims become stretched, exaggerated, or false.

I witness this almost daily on the road and on the comment boards of news sites and blogs, including on the articles I’ve written. I also witnessed it in anonymous student evaluations as a teacher at BYU. Anonymity shields us from the possible negative repercussions of our words and actions, which can bring out the worst in us.

How can we raise the level of discourse in our nation, communities, and families? The solutions are easy to identify but difficult to apply. I’ll offer six:

1. Remember that the worth of every soul is great in the eyes of God
2. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes to try to understand their point of view
3. Express disagreement in a way that respects other peoples’ opinions, values, and self-worth
4. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say to a person’s face
5. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say in your mother’s presence
6. Assume that all poor drivers are rushing a very pregnant woman to the hospital

Have any to add? I think that if we could all put these suggestions into practice, then the world would be a better place.

Finally, please consider these quotes on civility from Stephen L. Carter:

“Our duty to be civil towards others does not depend on whether we like them or not.”

“Civility requires that we listen to others with the knowledge of the possibility that they are right and we are wrong.”

What do you think?

Is the Constitution hanging by a thread?

September 17, 2009

222 years ago today, America’s founders signed the U.S. Constitution. Since 1787, this inspired document has been a bulwark of liberty and justice for Americans and a pattern for many governments around the world. We would all do well to re-read and study the Constitution so that we understand it and can defend it.

Now, perhaps you’ve heard mention of a quote attributed to Joseph Smith that the Constitution would one day “hang as by a thread.” Though no one knows for sure exactly what the Prophet said or what he meant by it, many other prophets and apostles have referred to the prophecy and expounded upon it. Orson Hyde, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from 1847 to 1875, offers probably the most reliable report of what Joseph Smith said. Hyde said this:

I believe he (Joseph Smith) said something like this–that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he: ‘If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.’ I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 326)

President John Taylor added his own interpretation later on:

When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. This is part of the program and as long as we do what is right and fear God He will help us and stand by us under all circumstances. (John Taylor, JD 21:8, August 31, 1879)

There has been a lot of speculation about whether or not the Constitution was once hanging by a thread and was saved or if it is now hanging by a thread and needs to be saved. Declarations that the Constitution is in peril have been common especially lately . Rather than fuel speculation regarding the status of the Constitution’s potentially precarious position, I’ll pass along a prudent statement pertaining to this issue from Rex Lee, former Solicitor General of the United States and president of Brigham Young University. In 1991, he said:

Seven presidents (successors to Joseph Smith) have either used the ‘thread’ metaphor or something like it. But in none of those quotations…has any Church leader ever been very specific as to the metaphor’s meaning. Unfortunately, some members of the Church have been all too ready to offer their own explanations. The only thing consistent about these explanations is that in each instance, it was the Church member’s own unresolved, often very private, grievance that supplied evidence that the thread was beginning to fray, sometimes beyond repair. Among some people, any problem from a tax increase to a failure to collect the garbage on time to a boundary dispute with one’s neighbor is likely to call forth the observation that it is certainly easy to see how the Constitution is hanging by a thread. A companion assertion is that the election or appointment of certain persons, often the person making the assertion, to designated positions provides the key to preventing the demise of our constitutional system.

In my view, this is another instance in which going beyond what our leaders have said can be misleading at best, and potentially fraught with mischief. Even though we have not been given the exact meaning of the prophets’ statements about the Constitution hanging by a thread, the scriptures do define the conditions on which freedom in the land of America ultimately depends. I am satisfied that whatever else may eventually hang in the constitutional balance, this much is clear: The continuation of the blessings of liberty depends finally on our spiritual righteousness. As the Lord told the Jaredites in the Book of Ether, this is a ‘land of promise.’ and ‘whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity,…if they will but serve the god of the land, who is Jesus Christ.’ If the people fail to keep this covenant, they ’shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity’ (Ether 2:9-12). (Rex E. Lee, “The Constitution & the Restoration,” 1991)

Certainly, I am concerned that judges, politicians in both major political parties, and others are slowly chipping away at the Constitution. As responsible U.S. citizens, we should do all we can to help maintain “the laws and constitution of the people…for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77). However, we need not speculate excessively regarding the “hanging by a thread” statement. The Lord will protect us as we strive to be righteous, and He will fulfill his divine purposes no matter what evil forces arise in opposition.

What do you think?

*To read more quotes about the Constitution from the Brethren and the Founders go here.

Part 3–The Family: The Most Sturdy Structure

September 4, 2009


[Pres. Obama reviews his family tree with Church leaders]

In Part 2 of this series, we learned why the family should be the fundamental unit of society. In this post, we’ll learn why the natural family is more likely to succeed than any other family structure.

The stability of any structure (e.g., building, bridge, organization) depends on the materials that make it up and on how it is built. The same principles apply to the family. In times of adversity — great or small — some families waver and even fall whereas others stand firm. The strongest family structure is the natural family — biological father, mother, and children.

This isn’t to say that other family structures can’t succeed or that the natural family is perfect but that the structure of the natural family is the most likely to stand firm through the inevitable storms of life. Why?

To begin, the complementarity that exists between male and female, or father and mother, provides the best physical, social, and emotional atmosphere for raising healthy, productive children. Dr. Dean Byrd says that generally fathers are more firm and rely more on rules and principles, whereas mothers are more intuitive and responsive and are more willing to bargain or negotiate. According to Byrd:

Men stress justice, fairness, and duty based on rules while women stress understanding, sympathy, care, and assistance based on relationships … no reputable theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers to the healthy development of children can be found in the professional literature. Recent researchers have concluded that fathers are critical to the healthy development of children as well.

Therefore, children with one parent or with two parents of the same sex do not benefit from the balanced care that comes with this complementarity. Also, children of same-sex parents often experience gender confusion, among other problems. For example, according to Byrd’s research, “lesbian mothers have a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughers.”

When a family has two parents whose gender identities complement one another and the parents love and care for their children, the family can bear greater stress. In the words of Paul Mero:

“The natural family structure is highly elastic. Single-parent homes are not very elastic. That is, the natural family structure can bear tremendous loads of force while bending but not breaking … Larger, more tightly knit, families reaching across generations are able to bear heavier loads. A community of such families will be stronger than a community of families comprised of alternative structural materials and non-complementary structures. On a much larger scale, this same science of elasticity works as well for nations or civilizations. Highly elastic family structures will endure the ages; less elastic family structures will die off through the ages.”

As we have been warned, “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” (Family Proclamation). We should do all we can to create, develop, and encourage sturdy natural families that stretch across generations.

What do you think?

Related posts:
Intro-The Family
Part 1-The Family: How to Define It
Part 2-The Family: The Fundamental Unit

How to fix health care

August 12, 2009


1,018 page health care bill

I think we can all agree that America’s health care industry needs help. Costs are rising quickly, the system is riddled with inefficiencies, and many people aren’t receiving needed care. Getting people to agree on what is causing these problems and how to fix them is harder than breaking the land speed record on Lake Michigan. In my previous post I described what I believe some of the problems are and argued that President Obama’s plan will do little to fix them and may even aggravate them. In this post, I offer some alternative solutions.

But before we can talk solutions, we must first paint a picture of a better health care world. Consider the following hypothetical story that illustrates the kind of health care system we could have:

Herbert, a 33 year-old mechanic, does not get health insurance from his employer; in fact, nobody he knows does. Instead, he went on-line, researched various options with companies in four different states, and purchased a “catastrophic” insurance policy that costs only $500/year for himself and his family. He uses this insurance to cover only major medical expenses such as long-term hospital stays, high-tech laboratory tests, and surgeries. For all other expenses like routine checkups, prescriptions, and dental work, he uses money he invests in a health savings account (HSA).

Herbie and his family know that doctor visits might cost a little more than today’s $10-30 co-pay, so they make sure to eat well, exercise, and avoid hazardous situations. When they do need professional care, however, Herbie can afford to pay for it because his insurance premiums are low and medical costs are not exorbitant. Why are costs not exorbitant? Because doctors compete with each other for individual customers rather than answering mostly to insurance companies and the government.

Herb chooses any doctor he wants, even specialists, based on the quality of the services they provide and the prices they charge for them. When he needs to fill a prescription, he shops around various pharmacies to find the best value available. When he is dissatisfied with a product or service provided, he goes elsewhere. This shopping around forces medical providers to offer the best products and services they can for the lowest price possible.

One year, Herb lost his job but still paid his medical bills the same way because his insurance wasn’t connected with his job. Although unemployed for a year, he was able to survive using funds in his HSA. Toward the end of unemployment, his HSA was exhausted and he was low on cash, but he was able to receive charity care at a free clinic in his neighborhood. Once he found a job, he started replenishing his HSA.

In Herbert’s world, health care is high-quality and affordable. He has the freedom to choose what products and services he wants and knows exactly how much he pays for them. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurance providers are accountable to customers who hold purchasing power.

Herbert is very familiar with this type of system because it generally mirrors his work as a mechanic. He charges his customers specific prices for basic repairs and only deals with insurance companies when a customer has had an accident. Government’s involvement is limited to simple regulations regarding safety and emissions and some guidelines to keep insurance companies honest. This system is much like every other market for any product or service. In most cases, the best way to get it to work is to leave it alone.

To help America develop a system this efficient would require some major reforms and many years. But here are some specific initiatives government can take to get started:

1. Eliminate the employer-based system. For now, money spent on employer-sponsored health insurance is excluded from federal income and payroll taxes. Government could stop encouraging employers to offer insurance as a benefit by removing this tax break.
2. Encourage HSAs. Government could offer a limited tax credit for money spent on insurance and HSAs. It could also encourage individuals to participate in a guaranteed medical loan program to help fill any gaps between HSA savings and insurance coverage. This reform would give individuals more opportunity to pay for their own medical expenses.
3. Reduce government intervention. The federal government could gradually phase out Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other programs that fund health care for specific populations. Doing this would help make doctors and insurance companies more accountable to patients which would reduce costs. If nothing else, the feds could at least reform these programs so they don’t go bankrupt in the next decade or two.
4. Reform medical malpractice laws. In most states, patients can sue medical practitioners for unlimited amounts of money for mistakes made and often for “frivolous” claims. To be sure, doctors should have some liability for mistakes, but excessive legal awards drive up the costs of health care. State governments can help reduce excessive awards and false claims through various reforms, such as putting caps on damages awarded for malpractice.
5. Eliminate state barriers. For now, people can only buy insurance from companies approved by their own state. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would help lower costs and give individuals more options.

These reforms won’t fix everything, but they will put us on a path to productive change. Remember that people are the answer to most of our problems, not government.

What do you think?

Related post: How not to fix health care

How not to fix health care

July 22, 2009

Ever been pressured by a salesman to purchase something immediately or risk losing a sweet deal? That’s a tell-tale sign that something behind the deal will cause you grief later on and you should just walk away. President Obama is the latest salesman knocking at your door. He’s trying to rush through Congress a health care reform bill that someday (sooner than later) Americans will regret buying into.

What’s wrong with the Obama-Democrat health care proposal? Space will allow me to address only four major problems with the 1,018 page bill.

1. Employer mandate. Most employers (payrolls of $250,000+) would have to provide insurance for their employees or pay a tax (8 percent of payroll). This idea is probably the best way not to fix health care. Employers began providing health care in the 1940’s when government imposed wage caps on companies. Since they could not pay their employers as much as they wanted to, employers began to offer “fringe benefits” such as health care. Later on, Congress made employer health care benefits tax deductible. Since then, Americans have come to expect health care as an employee benefit rather than purchase it on their own.

This employer-based system encourages people to spend more than necessary on health care and to overuse insurance by tapping into it for basic medical procedures rather than just for emergencies or major procedures. It causes doctors to be more accountable to insurance companies than to patients. It usually forces employees to open a new insurance policy every time they change jobs (non-portable). All these problems have contributed to skyrocketing health-care costs. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to require employers to provide health insurance because doing so will only perpetuate and exacerbate the problems we are trying to solve.

2. Individual mandate. Under the Democrats’ plan, every American would either have to purchase health insurance or pay a tax (2.5 percent of their income). This idea is disturbing because it uses government to force people to do something they may not want to do or be able to do. For example, almost one-third of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 19 and 29 and are likely healthy and don’t want to buy insurance or don’t have enough money to pay for it. President Obama recognizes this fact and still wants to force them to pay up because their cooperation might help other people obtain insurance.

Actually, the Democrats’ plan is an ingenious way to dupe Americans into adopting entirely government-run health care: require every individual to purchase insurance and every employer to provide it, then when millions of Americans still don’t have insurance, which will be illegal, government, in its great benevolence, will have to step in to help them. As government so often does, it creates a problem and then steps in to save the day by “fixing” a problem it created, which ends up creating more problems to be fixed. As the Washington Post has astutely observed, “in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate.”

3. Public option. Again, the public “option” is government’s way of slowly transitioning the nation to a government-run health care system without you noticing. Certainly, insurance and pharmaceutical companies share in the blame for our health care woes, but space does not permit to describe how government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and many others have distorted the health care market. Government health insurance is not the answer.

4. Rising health care costs. The main objective of the Democrats’ plan is to help insure people who can’t afford the escalating costs of health insurance. Unfortunately for them, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported that not only will their current plan not contain costs but could cause them to rise even more. And according to CBO estimates, Congress would spend at least a trillion dollars to help insure 69 percent of the uninsured for 9 years at a cost of $27,000 per person, or $3,000 per year, and 17 million Americans would still be uninsured. Today, most people can buy decent health insurance for $1,200-2,000/year.

In the end, all this bill does is shift the exorbitant costs of health care from the private sector to government and restricts the liberty of Americans to pay for their health care in a manner best suited to them and their families. As someone wise once told me, “never make an expensive purchase without taking ample time to think about it first.” Our chief executive and representatives in Washington might want to sleep on this health care proposal — for a long, long time.

What do you think?

*My next post will offer some alternative solutions to our health care problems.

This speech by Ronald Reagan is particularly pertinent to today’s health care battle:


Part 2–The Family: The Fundamental Unit

July 8, 2009

Part 2 is based mostly on the ideas of Allan Carlson and Paul Mero from the book Preserving Sacred Ground. They ask:

If you could create society the way you think it should be, what would that society be centered around? The individual? The church? The corporation? The state? Or the family?

Which unit of society do you think should be the fundamental unit? Let’s look at each one briefly to determine the best answer.

Individual
Society increasingly revolves around the individual. “What do I want? What do I need?” According to Carlson and Mero, “In a world where the individual is the fundamental unit, people are socially isolated. Culturally, they are narcissistic…Politically, they are very utilitarian or, we might say today, libertarian.” Individualism tears apart families and communities. It is manifested in ever greater numbers of cohabitation, divorce, and same-sex relationships. Carlson and Mero also make the following analogy:

Sand is nothing more than atomized stone. Though substantial in the aggregate, it is no more than the accidental product of stones and shells as they slowly disintegrate. Individualism as a force is no more than the atomization of the family unit. Individualism is the sand; family is the stone.

Just as the foolish man built his house upon the sand and it fell, society will fall if it is built upon the sand (the individual) rather than upon the rock (the family).

To read some great quotes from the Brethren on individualism and the family go here.

Church
Though religious institutions do much good to promote morality, selflessness, and happiness, the church cannot be the fundamental unit because the family existed before the church. The best role for the church is to complement the family — to provide opportunities for learning and religious expression. It is in the family that religion has the best opportunity to flourish; “the family is the perfect home for God.”

Corporation
The main purpose of any corporation or business is to exchange goods and services and to create wealth. These activities are not inherently bad; in fact, they can help individuals and families obtain what they need to live, fulfill their responsibilities, and enjoy life. And yet, life is about much more than buying a car, getting a haircut, or saving for retirement; thus, the corporation cannot be the fundamental unit of society.

State
Government is necessary to help provide order for society, but history teaches us that when society revolves around government society fails. Totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China have tried to gain control over individuals by eliminating marriage and family as a significant structure. In a government-centered society, people tend to become just another roadblock between government and its social goals, whereas in a family-centered society government exists to serve people and promote healthy families.

Family
Each of the units we’ve discussed plays an important part in our lives, but the family must be the center of it all.

Family: The Fundamental Unit of Society

Carlson and Mero nicely sum up the importance of the family as the fundamental unit:

All facets of life are enriched when we choose the natural family as the fundamental unit of society. Our social life is richer — we experience broad diversity within a context of stable familiarity. Our cultural life is richer — we are better able to take advantage of generational experience and the lessons of tradition. Our political life is richer — strong, autonomous families maximize the best functions of democracy. Our economic life is richer — we work with lasting purpose, cooperatively and altruistically, for others and not just for ourselves. And our spiritual life is richer — we are motivated to become our better selves as we give birth and nurturing to the rising generations

The natural family is the key to the fullness of life. It does what no other organizing principle can do — it makes everything around it better, it amplifies the best elements of all other institutions. It is the foundation of ordered liberty.

What do you think?

Related posts:
Intro-The Family
Part 1-The Family: How to Define It

Living the American Dream

July 1, 2009

Independence
Independence Hall; Philadelphia, PA

The Fourth of July is almost here. To help get you in the spirit for it, you might want to read an article I recently wrote for Palacio Magazine. It’s called “Living the American Dream” and was published in both English and Spanish. Here’s the first paragraph:

Since the first colonists settled in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, millions upon millions of men, women, and children from all nations have come here to live what many today call “the American Dream.” Their quest to live this dream and to secure the same opportunity for future generations has come at no little cost, even their own blood.

You can read the whole article in English here or in Spanish here. Or if you want to see the article in English and in Spanish together in the actual magazine, then go here.

Happy Independence Day!

Why the Senate should confirm Sotomayor

June 6, 2009

Ever since Barack Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first selection for the U.S. Supreme Court, there has been vigorous public debate about whether or not the Senate should confirm her. I believe that the Senate should most likely confirm her.

I was working in Washington, D.C. during the confirmation hearings of both Justices Roberts and Alito. Their hearings were intense and debate was furious. Despite both being highly qualified to be on the Court, Democrats threatened to filibuster the Roberts nomination and attempted a filibuster against Alito but failed.

Democrat objections were not about the nominees’ qualifications but about their political stances on issues like abortion. The Democrats were wrong then, and, most likely, the Republicans would be wrong to try to hold up or reject the Sotomayor nomination now.

The Senate’s constitutional duty is to confirm or reject nominations, not delay them. Delay tactics have not always been common for Supreme Court nominations. In 1922, the Senate confirmed George Sutherland, the only Supreme Court justice from Utah, the same day he was nominated. Sutherland was in Europe and may not have even known about it.

From 1789 to 1949, the average time from nomination to confirmation was 13 days. Since then, the average has been 62 days. Perhaps the confirmation period has lengthened simply because the Senate is busier today or there are more resources available to research a nominee’s background, but, more than anything, the Court has become politicized. Both parties want justices to steer the Court in a direction that furthers their political views.

Is Judge Sotomayor qualified for the job? Probably, but I don’t know enough about her to say for sure. I do know that her ethnicity, gender, and political positions on abortion, affirmative action, or civil marriage don’t matter one whit when determining if she’s qualified. As long as she is honest and law-abiding, has appropriate and adequate experience, and hasn’t made any rulings that both parties would consider to be outlandish, then she, and any future nominee, should be confirmed.

Many Republicans don’t agree with what they believe is her judicial philosophy — a broad interpretation of constitutional principles — and I probably don’t either. But the truth is that judges rarely agree on every aspect of their judicial philosophies.

If the nominee meets the basic requirements described above, then the Senate should give deference to the president’s selection, regardless of his party affiliation.

As Rex Lee once said:

One of the most important acts of any president–some have said the most important–is to appoint members of the Supreme Court, whose average tenure has been several times that of our presidents.

Therefore, over the decades of your future careers as voting Americans, just remember that when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court. (”The Restoration and the Constitution,” Jan., 1991)

Whether Americans like it or not, we have chosen Barack Obama to be our president. We should support any reasonable Supreme Court nomination he makes. So far, I haven’t heard or seen any strong evidence indicating that the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is unreasonable.

What do you think?

Resources:
Sotomayor Questionnaire (detailed background info.)
Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide
My paper on constitutional interpretation

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here