A New Effort to Reconcile the Church and Gays

There is a new effort gaining some notoriety on the interwebs to soften the church's stance on gays and reconcile the two groups. The website is called ldsapology.org. People are asked to read and sign their name to a petition which will be delivered to church leaders on November 4, the anniversary of the Prop 8 vote.

As always, I went to the comment section of the story by the Salt Lake Tribune to get an idea of what people are thinking, as there is really no better representative group of the general population than the comment section of an online paper (picking up the sarcasm?).

The gist of the comments from members of the church opposed to this effort is that the prophet has spoken through revelation, the doctrine of families and sexuality is set and eternal, and no amount of public protest can change that fact. The gist of the comments who support the site is who are Mormons to decide morality for everyone else and deny rights to citizens born homosexual? As is often the case, both sides are partly right and both sides are partly wrong.

The petition and website are inaccurate in several ways, and the reactions to them are also inaccurate. The petition reads, in part:

This means scrupulously acknowledging such practices as “reorientation”-- reparative, revulsion, and shock-therapies; such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion, a condition that is chosen and changeable and one that can be overcome through fasting, prayer, sacrifice and heterosexual marriage; and using scriptures that are taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality.

As far as I can tell, the church did away with most of this years ago and now, even before Prop 8, emphasizes that it is not safe or effective to try to change the person. The current teaching, as far as I understand it, is that if a person is gay they can still be temple worthy by simply living the law of chastity. I say simply, but, of course, it must be agonizingly difficult. This is why Elder Marvin Jensen of the Seventy and Church Historian has said on several occasions that the church weeps with those good members going through this supremely difficult trial.

I am not aware of the church using scriptures "taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality." There are scriptures in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and take a very harsh view of it, but I don't believe I've seen the church cite these scriptures, as is the practice of many born-agains, to bolster its argument. Instead, the church relies on modern revelation, specifically The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

So far, I think we're good. This is where the common ground can be found. I do not think it would be a repudiation of our teachings on morality and the family to recognize that homosexuality is not a choice, that gays should be afforded basic rights, and even that gays should be allowed to be married under our civil laws. As a church we do not oppose many marriages that would run contrary to our views of it, such as shotgun Vegas weddings, for instance. We can stand by our belief that marriage is sacred and that eternal life is available only to those who are sealed in the temple under priesthood authority while at the same time allowing civil marriages that fall outside of our beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive. This may not be ideal, but we live in a big, complex world and we can't control every variable or person or practice that runs contrary to our beliefs.

Where the problem comes is where the church is asked to repudiate "such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion." "Evil perversion" seems harsh, lets just call it sin. No matter the semantics, though, this will not change. First, it is not the homosexuality that is a sin, but homosexual actions, which is not a small difference. In any case, changing the church's teachings here would be reversing a prophetic pronouncement and one of the most basic doctrinal tenets of the church: the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage.

Not only is it theologically untenable, it is not necessary. As I stated above, there is no reason why we can't hold on dearly to our beliefs but still allow gay marriage amendments and votes to go forward without our opposition. Allowing gays to marry will not cheapen my marriage, or any other temple marriage that has ever been performed, nor will it negate or lessen the prophetic and doctrinal truth that we espouse. We can still use our influence through our missionary program and our examples and discussions with our neighbors, but going the political route is more harmful than beneficial. The church won't, and shouldn't, reverse its teachings about marriage, but it can, and should, take a different approach in public statements and treatment of non-Mormon gays. These are very different things that should not be confused and completely intertwined.

Finally, the site makes a big deal about suicide rates among gays, especially young gays. This is, of course, tragic and we should be doing everything we can to avoid this substantial problem. But to lay the blame at the feet of the church is wrong. I will admit that there has been some pretty harsh rhetoric coming out of the members of the church, and I can only guess how painful and disorienting that must be for young people who are struggling to understand their sexuality and trying to reconcile the fact that they are otherwise good kids who feel like they are being demonized for feelings they can't control. Bottle all of this up internally with no outlet, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But the church has always stressed love and sympathy and tolerance of the person. Many members can't separate the condemnation of the sin and the person, and I admit that it is very hard. When church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but that the person is to be loved and respected, many members use this as a basis for over-the-top rhetoric against the sin and the person. The fault is not with the church, but with the individual that misinterprets. The church, I believe, can and should stress this point more clearly and often for those that don't understand.

It looks to me like this is a good faith effort to bring the two sides together, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and public policy. For the church and its faithful members, requiring that it reverse its prophetic pronouncement and no longer consider homosexual acts sins is a non-starter. But members of the church can begin separate the politics from the doctrine and reach out with more understanding and tolerance.

Because Iranians totally wish they were Republican

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Irandecision 2009 - Iranians Support the GOP
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

I read elsewhere some words of wisdom from Henry Kissinger, who said that Obama is right to not take sides in Iran's current election drama. Without going into it too much here, it's very rarely that I agree with Kissinger on anything. But, quite frankly, his brand of conservative is far more desirable than the current crop who have little to no clue about the intricacies of international relations. Kissinger knew how to dress his deceptions well, and even stumbled across a truth every now and again. Bellowing about Obama's refusal to back Mousavi, on the other hand, fails to take into account how doing so might harm future US-Iranian relations, even if (and especially if) Mousavi is the ultimate victor. In a country where the US is demonized almost as often as Israel, we do ourselves no favors by picking favorites in political disputes. Despite Obama's drastically better grasp of international relations, the image of the US abroad hasn't recovered to the point where we can do anything effective in this situation, other than voice our strong belief that the elections should be judged honestly, and that everyone should have an opportunity to freely speak their mind. It is sad that Kissinger's view on this subject is in the minority in the Republican party -- here's to hoping that won't always be the case.

Utah Escapes Global Climate Change Thanks to New Governor

I remember when Utah used to have a really normal, really smart, really pragmatic man running our state. Now we have Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. As Gov. Huntsman begins the process of being confirmed by the Senate to take the post of Ambassador to China, he has turned the reigns over to L.G. Herbert.

This is what we call the old bait-and-switch. We are sold on a product that we like a lot and that we want to own, in this case Gov. Huntsman. Then at the last minute we get a somewhat similar product that is different enough to be of much less value, in this case L.G. Herbert. We've been betrayed. I never thought I'd have this deep sense of longing for a Republican.

So right off the bat L.G. Herbert, at the Western Governor's Association meeting, attired in the classic all-black look, professes his serious doubts on climate change and publicly mulls over whether to remove Utah from the Western Climate Initiative. Thanks for everything, Huntsman, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

By the way, can't you just imagine ultra-conservative L.G. Herbert gritting his teeth as the late Gov. Huntsman enrolled Utah in the WCI, supported civil unions and other gay rights, criticized Congressional Republicans as "irrelevant," and generally made of mockery of Utah County-style extreme conservatism? But all those worn down teeth finally paid off, L.G. Herbert, because you're in charge now.

Now, I'm no scientist. Far from it. So lets take a look at the institutions that consider climate change very likely (in scientific parlance "very likely" means 90% to 99% chance it is true) a man-made problem: the U.S. EPA, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NASA, the U.S. Geologic Survey, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program which include thirteen federal agencies (for those keeping track, we now have every scientific body of the United States government), the United Nations, Science Magazine, MIT, the National Academies, Britain's Royal Meteorological Society, and on and on and on. If you are able to find a scientific body that disagrees, by all means bring it forward.

But let's listen to what L.G. Herbert has to say:

"I've heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for. People say man's impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive."

Hmmm. Compelling. "People" do say that. My uncle, for instance. Also, a guy in my neighborhood. Keep going, LGH.

"Is there a hidden agenda out there? Help me understand the science."

Yes, every-major-scientific-body-in-the-world-that-has-studied-the-issue, do help us understand.

Herbert told the Deseret News after the discussion he wasn't convinced because all he heard was "the science is conclusive, the science is over. The debate is done. I'm saying, 'Based on what?' "

Seriously, LGH. Somebody show us what the conclusion to this debate is based on. Because if you're just going to point to a bunch of scientific reports, no thanks. Rather . . .

He said polls have shown the public is divided on the issue.

"I think people are confused," he said. "Most people are ignorant of the issue. They all say it sounds good until all of a sudden you've got $4-a-gallon gasoline."

The clincher! I think we can all agree that when it comes to science and major global environmental issues, we should base our reasoning and conclusions on divided public polls and people that are unhappy about high gas prices.

This is going to be our new governor? Ugh. We can debate about just how bad global warming is going to be, and what steps should be taken to best protect us and sustain us, but there simply is no more debate over the fact that human-caused global climate change is real and it is serious. The debate is over based on scientific facts and consensus. It's not haughty to say so, it is haughty to think that you know better.

But my favorite LGH line comes way at the bottom of the story: "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist." Thanks for clearing that up, Herbie: Science and capitalism are now mutually exclusive. Science is for commies.

DHS Was Right (about Right-wing extremists)

Here come the extremists. This type of thing is terrorism, pure and simple. The fact that our current President is black may be one of the factors that's tipping these nuts towards more direct action, but there's no question that on the Right side of the political debate there is way too much militarism. I've written here before (mostly in the comments) about hate speech on the Right being a precursor to violent actions. I expect more of the same; so does Mr. Tiller's killer (note the date on the article's byline).

Pres. Obama and Religious Tolerance in America

It will come as no surprise that I really liked Pres. Obama's speech in Cairo. I think it is absolutely necessary for America to overcome its fundamental distrust of Islam in general, as opposed to extremists in particular, in order to better secure ourselves and promote democracy abroad. Pres. Obama is doing well walking the sometimes fine line between finding common ground where it exists and condoning anti-democratic practices and customs.

But there was one section of his speech that I wanted to highlight that I thought was pretty relevant to this blog. In the section where Pres. Obama addressed religious tolerance, he said:

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

...

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together.

We live in an America where we are lining up religion and politics, and I think that is extremely harmful to both. Politicizing religion and religious-izing politics sullies and impedes them both.

Look, I love seafood, and I love Nutella. But I do not think that they go well together. I try to keep them separate and enjoy them each on their own. I don't dip my shrimp in Nutella or smother my salmon in melted Nutella. It ruins them both when you eat them in the same bite. Likewise, religion and politics are two things that I love to talk about and debate and learn more about. But combining them almost always has very negative side effects. Of course, it is easier to separate Nutella from seafood than it is to separate your politics from your religion, but no one ever said this life was easy and it is something for which we should strive.

In America, the current trend is that the majority of those who attend church more frequently vote for Repbulicans and the majority of those that attend less frequently or not all vote for Democrats. This is becoming so pronounced that we are getting the two mushed up in our minds. Liberal activists see conservatives as a bunch of irrational, kooky born-agains and conservative activists see liberals as a bunch of godless hedonists. This then becomes a positive feedback machine where the deeply religious dig in against the liberals and the non-religious dig in against the conservatives and all of the sudden we aren't even talking about politics anymore and what is the best way to run the country, we are talking about whether a Mormon should even be allowed to run the country or if atheists can be trusted in federal office or if religion itself should be done away with because it is irrational and only leads to wars and bigotry.

On the one side, then, as Pres. Obama pointed out, we have hostility towards religion under the pretense of liberalism, and on the other side the championing of overt religion as the only way to effectively run the country. What's more, conservatives demand ideologically pure religion (with suspicious glances at conservative Catholics and Mormons). In the end it looks like we certainly deal with religious tolerance and freedom better than most Muslim countries, but we aren't really doing that great in our own right.

It does religion no good to get intertwined with politics. Whether it is fair or not, many liberals have simply discounted Mormonism completely because they see it as too politically conservative for them. Otherwise good people who love their families and believe in God have shut their ears to our message because of politics. Politics. Are we really willing to shackle our religion with politics and miss out on the chance to touch the lives of millions of Americans? I want to emphasize again that the purpose of this blog is not to justify liberal politics through Mormonism, but to show that they are at least compatible and that a diversity of political thought in the Church is good for its long-term well being.

And it does politics no good to get intertwined with religion. Religion is based on faith and personal conversion, whereas politics must be based on facts and societal good. Often what is good for one is good for the other, but using religion as the reasoning to justify politics never works. It only leads to arbitrary decisions, distrust, and disenfranchisment.

So as Pres. Obama urged Muslims to practice religious tolerance and freedom, I could not help but think of our own issues. Liberals are becoming hostile towards religion, conservatives are becoming hostile towards the non-religious, and religion in America is becoming too indistinguishable from politics. This can only turn out badly for both.

A Real Utah Senate Race?

Utah Democrats have a seemingly legitimate candidate to run against Senator Bob Bennett. Sam Granato has decided to make a run for the seat, and the timing and situation are nicely aligned such that there is definite cause for optimism.

Granato is the owner of the Salt Lake City deli chain that bears his name. He is also a non-drinking chairman of the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. He is also known in political circles as someone who is involved with local leaders, moderate, and well-liked. This is exactly the type of candidate Utah Democrats need to be running right now: moderate, connected, and likeable.

Combine Granato's personal attributes with a political climate in Utah that is complex these days, and you have the recipe for a potential upset. Pres. Obama is more popular in previously dark red Utah than could ever have been predicted. Sen. Bennett is under fire from state Republican activists because, amazingly, he isn't conservative enough. These charges stem from the unthinkable actions of trying to think through issues instead of just toeing the party line. Because of this Bennett has some primary challengers from the right in the forms of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Tim Bridgewater.

There is recent history suggesting that Utah Republican activists are willing and able to defeat a very conservative federal office holder with someone even more conservative. Jason Chaffetz, our cute little ultra-conservative from Utah county, defeated Chris Cannon in a primary and eventually won a House seat.

So what if the perfect storm occurred? What if Mark Shurtleff defeated Sen. Bennett in the primary? Mark Shurtleff, while no lightweight, isn't exactly the most charming or articulate or popular politician in the state. Combine a candidate who has positioned himself way to the right against a moderate, well-liked Democrat, in a year where Pres. Obama is polling well in Utah, and you might just have the ingredients for an upset. Or, at the very least, a competitive Senatorial race for the first time in years.

And in a state where one party dominates as much as Republicans do in Utah, a competitive statewide race that builds momentum for the Democratic party would be a huge victory.

Whence a Mormon President?

Will the first Mormon POTUS, if there ever is one, be a Democrat or a Republican? The knee-jerk response, of course, is that he or she will be a Republican because the Church is viewed primarily as a conservative institution and because far more Mormons are politically conservative than politically liberal (but it doesn't have to be that way!).

But digging a little deeper may reveal some interesting opposition to this notion, despite the decades of religious-type devotion Utahns and Mormons have shown to the Republican party.

There are currently six Mormon U.S. Senators, all from the West. It is well known at this point that Senate President Harry Reid is a Democrat and that the Utah Senators (Sen. Hatch and Sen. Bennett) are Republicans. Two of the remaining three Mormon Senators, however, are Democrats: the cousins Udall (Mark from Colorado and Tom from New Mexico). The other Mormon Senator is Idaho's Mike Crapo. That makes an even 3-3, with the tie-breaker going to the Democrats because they have the Senate President.

So it is apparent that a Mormon Democrat can be a viable candidate. The most interesting question, however, is whether a Mormon could ever be nominated for President in the Republican primary. This is a primary dominated by the religious right and Southern Baptist conservatives. John McCain, in 2000, ran a campaign that explicitly defied the political power of the religious right, going so far as to call Jerry Falwell an "agent of evil," and was defeated by George W. Bush, who explicitly ran to the religious right.

In 2008 John McCain changed his tone, courted the religious right, and won the nomination easily. Mitt Romney also explicitly courted the religious right, but didn't have a prayer. Between McCain and Huckabee, the Southern Baptists could easily overlook Romney for someone who was less Mormon. Huckabee famously fueled the flames of religious ire by asking the rhetorical and contextless question of whether Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. He quickly retracted the statement, but the damage was done.

As a Democrat I am often angry at the way the extreme left of my party treats religion in general and Mormonism specifically. Part of the purpose of this blog is to prove that a Mormon can be a Democrat, but also that a Democrat can be a Mormon. But I wonder if there the same amount of anger that Mormon Republicans feel towards the extreme right of their party that distrusts Mormons and would, under no circumstances, support a Mormon president, even if he or she was conservative.

A Gallup poll taken in February 2007 attempted to gauge Americans' views of our religion. It showed that Mormons have a net -10 (42-52) favorability rating among Republicans, a smaller net -4 (43-47) among Democrats, and a net +8 (48-40) among independents. Protestants, who make up the vast majority of conservative voters, had a net -16 (36-52) view of Mormons, while Catholics had a net +25 (56-31), and those professing no religion had a net -7 (39-46). It is also the case that the more religious the person, the more negative view she has of Mormons. Again, the Republican party is dominated by more frequent church-goers. By all of these measures it appears that a Mormon is more likely to be voted in by Democrats and independents than by Republicans. By ideology, however, the reverse is true, in a big way. Those that consider themselves conservatives have a net -1 (44-45) favorability, while those that consider themselves liberal have a net -33 (28-61), and moderates have a net +8 (48-40) view of Mormons.

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that Mormons poll better among Democrats than Republicans, but worse among liberals than conservatives. That appears to be a contradiction and may even itself out between the two.

So what does all of this mean? First, don't hold your breath for a Mormon President any time soon from either party. Even though moderates and independents have a net positive view of Mormons, the more extreme wings of both parties do not, for different reasons entirely, and they decide who wins the nomination.

But there is no doubt right now that Democrats are currently doing more work appealing to independents and swing voters, while Republicans are having an internal debate about whether to become a more "big-tent" party or to establish an ideological purity, and the latter seems to be winning out. Given that, I think right now it might be more likely that a Mormon president be a Democrat than a Republican.

Sotomayor and Judicial Activism

President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and conservatives are gearing up for a fight. They are not finding a lot of ammunition so far, but there is one bullet they find particularly potent:



So Sotomayor thinks that policy is made in the Courts of Appeal. If it wasn't so absolutely and incontrovertibly true, it might just be appalling.

The United States is a common law country, and it has been since its inception and our legal roots go back hundreds of years to the English common law system. Common law is a system in which the law is developed over time by judicial decisions which hold precedent over subsequent decisions. Just about every basic law we have was developed by courts over hundreds of years of decisions, from criminal law to contract law to property law to torts and on and on.

This is opposed to a civil code jurisdiction which is governed by, just that, a civil code. The United States is moving in that direction, codifying most of our laws, but in true civil code jurisdictions like France and South American countries the courts hold no precedential weight.

So what does this all mean? It means that judges make law all the time and have done so for centuries. Sotomayor's comments in the Youtube clip were in response to a question about the differences in being a law clerk in a district court (trial court) and the Courts of Appeal. Trial court decisions hold no precedent. Other trial courts can follow or not follow another trial court decision as they please. As a result, trial judges look narrowly at the law and facts before them and decide accordingly.

Appellate court decisions do hold precedent and thus the judges need to have a more broad view of the law in making their decisions. They need to think about how the decision will affect other courts and litigants in the future. They need to think about how a decision fits in with all the other pieces of law that surround it. They absolutely must make policy decisions. Their job would be impossible if they did not, and the legal system would be in disarray because no courts would be thinking about the big picture. It is silly to act like appellate courts should not consider policy when making their decisions.

Legislatures and Congress, for example, often pass laws that are worded vaguely or subject to multiple interpretations. Sometimes they do this on purpose and sometimes out of oversight and sometimes out of incompetence. It is up the judiciary, then, to divine the legislatures intent (if possible, because often its not) and interpret the law accordingly, with an eye toward the effect of the decision on future actions and litigation. This is one ways courts "make" law, by interpreting statutes. This type of analysis requires consideration of public policy.

It is equally silly to rail against judicial activism. I suppose judicial activism is where a court overturns a law enacted by the legislature or enumerates a right or activity as legal/illegal where legislatures have not spoken.

As to the first, that is often the exact role a judge must play, and it is done all the time by both conservatives and liberals. I can find just as many decisions of conservatives overturning laws they don't like as you can liberals doing the same thing. If a law is unconstitutional, irrational, or unsupported by facts it is the courts' duty to overturn that law. This is part of the principle of checks and balances that is essential to our system of government.

As to the second, the courts are often (almost always, really) on the front lines of constitutional issues. The Constitution is an amazing document. It was purposely written broadly to allow for the inevitable changes in society. The Framers could not possibly have imagined a society so complex and different from the one they lived in, and yet they drafted a Constitution that is equally applicable and useful today as it was over 200 years ago. But what it means is that society is necessarily going to view certain provisions differently than had been done previously.

So when an issue of constitutionality comes before a court where Congress has not acted, it is often required of the courts to make hard decisions. In fact, it is the express duty of the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. Courts often find themselves in the position to announce new or altered interpretations of the Constitution, and time and public opinion usually bare those decisions out. The Courts are not always right, but they do a fine job in the face of big and difficult problems.

Over the next few months we are going to hear a lot about judicial activism. Just remember that "judicial activist" is simply a code phrase for "liberal" and nothing more. There are serious and interesting debates about the role of the judiciary branch in the United States, but this really isn't one of them.

Term Limits

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

The Washington Post recently posted a funny story about Senator Orrin Hatch test driving a hybrid Hummer for the media. First of all, I applaud the good Senator for trying to take the lead on the issue of increased fuel economy and technologies. The story, however, is about Sen. Hatch's basic incapability of driving a car. He could not distinguish between the brake pedal and gas pedal, he did not know how to start a car or even know if it was on or not, and he could not perform basic maneuvers.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in suggesting that perhaps Senator Hatch has it a little too cushy in his position as Senator which he has held since 1977, a total of 31 years and counting. Hatch is notorious for campaigning against the incumbent, Frank Moss, in part because 18 years in office was too long and he, Moss, had lost touch with his constituency. I have no doubt that Sen. Hatch meant what he said, but it is all too clear that Joseph Smith was right: once a person gets what they think is a little power and authority, they find it suits them rather well and they'd just as soon hold on to it by any means necessary, thank-you-very-much.

One very obvious exception to this is the Father of our country, George Washington, who would easily have been reelected for the rest of his life had he so chosen, but instead was hesitant to even be elected for a second term, and was adamant that two terms were enough for any President. This set a precedent that was only broken once, by FDR, who was elected to four terms (though he died shortly after the fourth term started). Soon thereafter we got the Twenty-Second Amendment which official limits the president to two terms.

There was a major push for a Constitutional Amendment requiring term limits in Congress in the mid-90's. The limits would have been six two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms for the Senate. The Amendment was voted down 227-204, short of the two-thirds majority needed to keep the Amendment process going.

So system we get instead is one of Congressional Stagnation. Incumbents are re-elected to Congress more than 90% of the time. Most never face a primary challenge, many do not face any opponent at all, and those incumbents that are challenged are challenged by under-funded candidates without any really support (Pete Ashdown, anyone?). This is a vaguely democratic system, but not by much.

And the American people suffer. We don't get fresh, new ideas out of Congress. We don't get varying ideas and healthy debate out of Congress. We don't get leaders who are willing to take risks on important new ideas. We don't get representatives who are accountable to their constituencies. Instead we get entrenchment. We get leaders who are only interested in getting re-elected. We get status quo, no matter what the status quo happens to be. Change happens a a glacial pace (which is good in some areas and very, very bad in others). We get intellectual dishonesty passed off as cool-headedness. We get cliques. We get increased pork spending because that is why people keep sending their ineffective representatives back to Washington, seniority alone. We get more and more influence from special interests.

I firmly believe that federal term limits would revitalize our government. I think such a system would attract interesting new voices and ideas to the national debates we have on important issues. It would attract talented leaders who are more interested in progress and innovation as opposed to power-mongers who are only looking for a life-time gig. I actually find it fascinating that there is not a more sustained and organized push for federal term limits because I can't think of a single good reason to not limit terms. If our greatest leaders can achieve so much good in eight years as President, I certainly think that our greatest leaders in Congress could achieve great things in twelve years.

But the catch is: how do you get a bunch of men and women who are, by definition, power-hungry to limit their own power?

The Haves and the Have Nots

There are two stories in the Deseret News that offer a nice little contrast. In the first, the DesNews scrutinizes the political donations of the Huntsman family. The article states that the family, as a whole, donated about twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans (but this is not what the post is about). In the second, the DesNews finds that 82% of low-income families are fully employed and still not able to meet the basic necessities of modern life, such as food, shelter, and health care.

So what we have here in Utah, in part, which is a microcosm of our nation as a whole, is on the one end a very successful family worth billions of dollars and on the other end 94,000 working families with 243,000 children, struggling to keep a home or apartment, food on the table, and basic health care.

You should know right now that I am in kind of a liberal/upset mood, so I'm going to get a little indignant here.

This is ridiculous and it makes me angry. I have no beef with the Huntsmans, they donate a lot of time and money to charitable causes and they seem like good people. But we've created a society where two people with the same drive and work ethic live in two separate worlds. In one world your family owns several mansions and offers you the best education and best connections that money can buy, and in the other the kids are in over-crowded classrooms without physical and psychological security or basic healthcare. In one world you expect to inherit millions of dollars from the family business and in the other you inherit callouses on your hands and a healthy distrust for a society that will just wear you down.

And yet all we hear is that the government better not touch my money. The government better stop encouraging lazy people to live off the Nanny State. The government is singularly ill-equipped to deal with social problems. The Invisible Hand will sort it all out!

All of which is nonsense. The rich receive so much more benefit from society and the government each day than the poor do in years. The rich grow rich from the physical labor of the poor. The government is not perfect, but we have seen again and again the injustices of a laissez-faire philosophy. We have seen slavery, monopolies, gender and racial inequalities, depressions and recessions, and the like.

I'm not calling for socialism, and I'm not calling for complete income parity. I'm calling for a society that fosters the hopes and dreams of all of its members, each of whom has something important and essential and meaningful to offer. I'd like to see better public schools that give every kid a chance to learn and succeed, affordable higher education available to anyone that wants it (including more emphasis on vocational schools), a public health care system that makes sure every family has their basic health care needs met, and no family (absolutely zero families) worrying about what they are going to eat tomorrow because the cupboards are empty.

This is what being a liberal is all about. Equality. Do those beliefs make me less of a Mormon than a conservative? I openly scoff at the idea.

There are plenty of ways liberals and conservatives can work together, and I respect many, many conservatives and think they present a lot of good ideas. But the goal of both political ideologies must be equality and security (which are completely intertwined), and you can't just come to the table with ideas that merely reinforce a system that leads to the rich getting richer and getting more opportunities, and the poor getting poorer with fewer opportunities.

If conservatives want to champion less government involvement that is fine, but that is not enough. They have to come up with ideas that replace government action that promotes equality. Can we rely on individuals acting independently with human compassion alone to create justice and equality? History has shown that we cannot. The only society that I can think of that achieved such total equality was this one, and I'm not sure we should just sit around and wait for that to happen again any time soon.

Congrats to Jon

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12382105

China, eh? That's a very interesting move by Obama. Definitely not something I was expecting; were there any rumors running about in Utah Democratic circles? It does make the 2012 race more interesting by potentially removing him from it. At the same time, it'll burnish Jon's foreign policy credentials for a possible run at the Presidency in 2016.

A National Sales Tax

I tend to keep out of tax reform debates because, frankly, I'm not smart enough to keep pace. I used to brag about how I haven't taken a math class since high school, but now that my kids are getting to be school-aged I am beginning to fret about when, exactly, they will surpass me. I'm thinking I have until junior high before I have to start learning (or re-learning) along with them to help out with homework.

So I'd heard of the proposal for a national sales tax, but didn't think too much about it, until I recently heard it boiled down to this: "We should tax consumption, not productivity." Stated that way, it seemed incredibly sensible to me, so I decided to dig a little deeper. You can play along by Googling consumption tax or national sales tax.

Basically, because that's the way my mind has to work in this area, a national sales tax would eliminate the income tax, so you would get the full amount of money you earn, and replace it with a tax on new goods and services purchased.

One of my pet peeves with our society is how consumption-oriented it is. We have to have the bigger house (with higher energy bills), we have to buy the bigger car (with lower fuel efficiency), we feel like our self-worth is measured by possessions and owning more and more. Wouldn't we be better off learning how to live more efficiently and focusing more on the simple pleasures of life? And even though I am a liberal and, as the stereotype goes, love big government, I think we all would love a more efficient government.

A national sales tax would seem to be a step toward both. First, it would likely encourage saving and investment over consumption. Here are some quotes from modern-day prophets on staying out of debt and living within our means:

President Heber J. Grant: “From my earliest recollections, from the days of Brigham Young until now, I have listened to men standing in the pulpit . . . urging the people not to run into debt; and I believe that the great majority of all our troubles today is caused through the failure to carry out that counsel.”

President Ezra Taft Benson: “Do not leave yourself or your family unprotected against financial storms. . . Build up savings.”

President Harold B. Lee: “Not only should we teach men to get out of debt but we should teach them likewise to stay out of debt.”

President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings. . . I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.”

Americans, as a whole, spend more than they earn. Bankruptcies continue to climb. Very few people had created a safety-net for the current economic crisis (which I have heard many refer to as the Great Recession). A tax on consumption (ranging anywhere from 15-30%, usually pegged at about 23%) might encourage more savings, thus creating a more stable society and economy. It would also encourage investment, leading to greater capitalization of business. Increased savings would reduce stress, interest payments, and becoming beholden to banks.

Second, under the current income tax system, individuals and corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year just complying with the income tax requirements. The code is so long and so complicated that it is astonishing to me that the system even works. A national sales tax would virtually eliminate the tax code bureaucracy, eliminate the need to ever file a tax return again, and some have even suggested it would eliminate the need for the IRS completely under certain conditions.

The downside, and there are always downsides, is that it is inherently regressive. The poor must spend nearly every penny they earn in the marketplace, whereas the rich spend an increasingly small amount of their wealth on goods and services. This means that the poor would spend a larger percent of their money on taxes than the wealthy, which is the opposite of what our income tax has always been.

This alone is enough to torpedo the idea, for me and most Americans, but there are ways around it. The most common is the annual or monthly prebate or rebate check which would eliminate the tax for those living below the poverty level, and lessen it for those making otherwise low incomes. Another idea is to eliminate the tax on essentials, like food and medical expenses, and/or create a higher tax on luxury items.

So I like it because of its simplicity and its propensity to encourage Americans to save and invest. I am leery because it is potentially very oppressive for the poor. I am by no means completely sold on it, but it is an interesting way to look at tax reform. Thoughts?