Platform of the American People

Posted on 2007-12-22 by David

Newt Gingrich chose not to run for President because it would conflict with his movement, American Solutions (a good choice in my opinion). American Solutions has now published the Platform of the American People. They claim that the positions in this platform are supported by majorities from both major parties as well as a majority of independents. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at that platform. I have not come to any complete conclusions on the platform yet, but I have discovered that some of their majorities are closer to even than others. I did some objective, numerical analysis – taking all their data for granted – and here are the issues that appear to be the most widely supported.

    • It is important for the President and Congress to address the issue of Social Security in the next few years.
    • We have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation for future generations.
    • Children should be allowed a moment of silence to pray for themselves in public school if they desire.
    • Al Qaeda poses a very serious threat for the United States.
    • Our goal should be to provide long-term solutions instead of short-term fixes.
    • We should hold city governments to the same standards for cleaning waste water as are applied to private industry.
    • It is important to acknowledge today that the references to God in the Declaration of Independence – that we are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    • When applying for a temporary worker visa each worker should take an oath to obey American law and be deported if they commit a crime while in the United States.
    • We approve of a Christmas tree or a Menorah being placed on public property during the holiday season.
    • Therefore we should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education.
    • There will be incredible possibilities to meet our country’s challenges in a variety of fields because in the next 25 years there will be 4 to 7 times the amount of new science and technology in the world as in the last 25 years.
    • We should give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy systems in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy.
    • We must rely on innovation and new technology if we are going to compete successfully with India and China.

Each of these is supposed to be supported by a ratio of at least 11 to 1. Does this look like part of an agenda that will help the country? Does it look like an agenda that we could pass? Are there any candidates or members of congress that would want to push these things through?

I’d love to get feedback from others as I look more closely at this.

To see my full spreadsheet where I sorted these issues out by popularity download it here.

Posted in National | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Health Care Assistance

Posted on 2007-12-21 by David

When I wrote about declining enrollment for CHIP in Utah I did some research on the requirements for CHIP. I learned that even though I am fully employed – meaning I make a comfortable living – my kids would be eligible for CHIP if I did not have the option of insurance through my job. More interestingly I learned that there is another program, Utah’s Premium Partnership for Health Insurance (UPP), which my family would qualify for if I chose a traditional insurance plan. (Actually, my company just switched insurance and I could have enrolled in a traditional plan that would have allowed me to have my full premiums paid – partially by my company and the remainder by the state.) This program helps pay the costs of health insurance premiums for working families.

As I looked at the requirements for UPP it shows some interesting biases that are not good for our health care system. The one that makes the least sense is that they explicitly will not cover High Deductible (HD) plans that qualify for Health Savings Accounts. This essentially discourages people from using the best vehicle we currently have for becoming cost conscious and driving down the real costs of health care. If they wanted to encourage people to get the kind of insurance that is better for the whole system they would give the same amount of money – deposited directly into an HSA – for those who have an HD insurance plan as they give for comparable coverage under a traditional insurance policy. Of course the rules would be the same for qualifying plans whether they were HD or traditional.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why We Need A Tax Debate

Posted on 2007-12-20 by David

If anyone wonders why I think we need a tax debate here’s a good example. Congress passed their omnibus spending bill and today Senator Bennett announces that he got $290 Million for Utah in the bill. The assumption underlying his announcement is that any money he brings to the state from the federal government is a good thing.

Obviously if I leave near the Moab Atlas Mill Tailing site I’m happy for the $24 Million dollars. If I work at the Space Dynamics Lab in Logan (which I used to) then I’m pleased as punch that we got nearly $400,000. On the other hand I’m not excited about the golf course in Pennsylvania that the government paid for and the people of Pennsylvania are probably not too thrilled that they have to clean up the tailings mess in Moab so we can all complain that the government is wasting money. Besides that, when the $24 Million is gone will I be satisfied with the tailings cleanup myself?

We need to make federal spending more transparent and start to talk about what we believe is the proper place for government intervention – in other words, what things are appropriate to receive government funding Is government in charge of health care? defense? border security? my retirement? education? my transportation options? the cost of my groceries? what religion I practice (or get exposed to)? the speed of my internet access?

I think that anyone who says’s yes to all of the above, or no to all of the above is extreme.

Posted in National, State | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Wrinkles In Iowa

Posted on 2007-12-18 by David

I have read two stories now from the New York Times about questionable practices in the Iowa Caucuses. One on Iowa’s Student Vote and another on the reporting of the Democratic Caucus results. In regard to the student vote I was disappointed to learn that:

. . . political operatives often try to suppress the student vote . . . [using] a variety of tactics over the years to keep students from voting. There are often too few voting machines, so lines stretch for hours. Sometimes, students are falsely told that they will lose financial aid, health care or even car insurance if they vote while attending school.

In Iowa, the suppression has been rhetorical. With Barack Obama’s campaign, in particular, urging students to come out for him, other campaigns have tried to put up roadblocks. . . Clinton said during a campaign stop that the process should be reserved for “people who live here, people who pay taxes here.” Chris Dodd seemed to imply that people who were “paying out-of-state tuition” and participating in the process were somehow being deceptive and unfairly casting themselves as Iowan.

Student are rightly up in arms about these statements. The law in Iowa is crystal clear: students who attend school in the state are entitled to register to vote in the state as long they are not registered anywhere else.

For myself, I would be happy with any vote where voter turnout was above 70% even if I absolutely hated the person who got elected. At least I would know that the person who got elected was elected by an active electorate who disagreed with me.

With regard to the results of the Democratic Caucuses I was surprised to learn that the actual vote count was never made public. In the words of the article:

Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. . .

The press invests months in covering the caucuses. It and the public it serves are entitled at the end of the exercise to an unambiguous vote count, instead of delegate numbers that camouflage how much popular support each candidate earned.

Such practices serve as extra fodder for those who argue that Iowa is not representative of the nation and does not deserve to always take the lead in the process of selecting our president.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Merit Pay and Other Ideas

Posted on 2007-12-17 by David

With Governor Huntsman seeking more money to raise pay levels for public school teachers the Daily Herald calls for something better than a pay-raise across the board. They suggest using the money for merit-based pay increases. I agree completely as I had already suggested that merit-pay might be a good first step to build momentum and consensus in improving our public schools.

Devising an effective merit pay system for a job as subjective as teaching is a challenge, but not impossible. Business managers evaluate subjective factors all the time when reviewing employee performance. What is needed in the public schools is performance evaluation based on some combination of elements, with an accounting for differences in groups of students. The teacher’s job is to drive progress, regardless of the starting point of students. . .

Principals, the front-line managers, should have greater latitude to evaluate performance. They know who their best people are. An evaluation of a teacher might include such things as creating a positive environment for children (perhaps including feedback from parents), innovation, creativity, knowledge of subject matter and communication. If a principal is also subject to merit pay based on overall performance of the school, fears of favoritism should be minimized.

The only group that would oppose merit pay would be the NEA because merit pay could have a negative effect on below average teachers (which would likely be a positive effect on our public schools).

Unfortunately our current system is not set up to encourage teachers to excel. Many teachers come in with high hopes of making a difference in the lives of students only to be worn down within a few years until they quit teaching in public schools. Others may soon abandon their high ideals and rely instead on the job security of a perpetual teacher shortage combined with a large union protecting them from being fired for mediocrity. Few people have the mental and emotional reserves to continue to perform at a high level for an extended number of years in a system that does not reward outstanding achievement. An across-the-board pay raise would not improve that aspect of our school system.

In addition to promoting merit-pay, the Daily Herald suggested some other changes that are worth consideration:

But merit pay is not the only innovation that ought to be evaluated. What would have happened this year, for instance, if the $349 million that went to teachers had been poured into lower-priced staff support? If teachers could be freed from the time-consuming routine of grading and other rote work, perhaps they would have more time to plan, more time to energize, more time to inspire.

Nor should teachers be drawn exclusively from education programs at universities. A great candidate for a teacher is one who is alive with the excitement of a subject and wants to transmit that to others. A wide range of graduates is needed to populate the teaching ranks in Utah’s future schools, and barriers to entry should be minimized.

Those suggestions are too broad to really support without some specifics, but we need to get creative about improving our system. The problems are not going to just go away nor is the cost going to go down over time unless we abandon our ideals or else make some significant changes.

Posted in State | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

Posted on 2007-12-15 by David

Apparently the New York Times would like to have a public debate about taxes. The editorial board expresses their despair that none of the presidential candidates talk about taxes. I think that they are completely right that such a debate is necessary. Beyond that it seems that there is hardly anything that we agree about on this subject. When they turn to discussing their views as opposed to the positions and rhetoric of the candidates they start by saying:

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I consider it to be a very safe bet that they mean that on an perpetual basis. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility I could be sold on the idea that we need more revenue for the time being (meaning the next few decades) to help us dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are in (as a result of our spending in the last few decades). But I think that part of the solution will have to include reducing the spending on some government programs this should include increased efficiency in such programs, but wisdom dictates that it also include a reduction in some programs or services.

The editorial board suggests three opportunities that we can address in the necessary tax debate. Of those three, only one really strikes me as a real opportunity rather than empty dialog:

  • To create a system that does not disproportionately favor investment income over income from work.

I think we agree that the idea that the Democrats gave lip-service to when they gained the majority of both houses of Congress – paying for new programs with reductions elsewhere or new taxes – is a nice idea. The problem is that it really makes little difference if they do that without also making sure that they are actually paying for existing services as well, rather than allowing for deficit spending where it already exists.

The bias of the New York Times is irrefutable when they make statements such as:

. . . the exorbitant cost of the flat tax would likely be paid by cutting Medicare, Social Security and other bedrock government services.

If Medicare and Social Security are “bedrock government services” then I wonder how our nation survived its first 150 years without those services. Though I may easily be accused of being willing to punish poor people for being poor by cutting these government programs, I promise that I would happily support any such program if we did not have debts in the Trillions and if Congress were not deficit spending to implement the programs. Though I believe that these programs are not necessary for government, I am not one to believe that government can never do any good with such programs. The problem I see is in allowing our federal government to use illusory tricks such as deficit spending that even state governments (let alone private individuals) are not allowed to do. The fact is that if a business operated like the government the leaders of that business would be prosecuted and jailed in a truly just society.

More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them.

There is a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly about our budget problems – his name is Ron Paul. They might decide to argue that he lacks the leadership skills to solve the problem but nobody can credibly argue that he lacks the political courage to speak frankly about it. I think that this is a debate we should have. Perhaps the New York Times could start it by hosting a debate or forum in which they could invite Dr. Paul to participate. They could also invite David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who is also anything but timid in speaking about this subject. They can invite whoever they want to defend their positions where they obviously differ from these two men, but with their influence the debate would be hard to ignore once they got the ball rolling. We might even get all the candidates talking about it like they should be.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Liberty is the Priority

Posted on 2007-12-14 by David

Much of what has gone wrong in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam is a result of a culture that is very different from ours. As I thought about that recently it occurred to me that Iraq is typical of all (or virtually all) of the fighting that the U.S. has engaged in since the end of World War II in that our goal has been to establish or protect democracy. It would seem that democracy is our standard for measuring the relative liberty found in various nations.

The problem that we generate when we confuse democracy with liberty is that we get so focused on the structure that we forget the fundamental principle. The truth is that I would much rather live under a dictator who enforced law with consistency and equity than vote regularly to determine who would take the lead in telling me what to do and suppressing my freedoms as they deemed appropriate.

I believe that the last half century has offered conclusive proof that we cannot enforce liberty by the installation of democracy. Instead we should be spending out resources of time and energy towards the perfecting and perpetuating of liberty here so that our nation can stand as an example of liberty to the world. Rather than going out and policing other nations we would find that by policing ourselves, other nations would seek our counsel when necessary after they were able to support a free society.

Right now China, which is a fully communist country, seems more prepared to sustain a free society than Iraq even since we toppled their dictator. In fact, Iran might already be more prepared than Iraq is currently. Liberty cannot be imposed from outside. Our nation would not have survived its own founding if the society in the 13 colonies had not already been prepared to maintain the principle of freedom upon which our country was founded.

The question for each succeeding generation will always be – are they still prepared to maintain the freedom they inherited?

It is a question without a pre-determined answer.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

A Lame Duck Can Bite Harder

Posted on 2007-12-13 by David

As illustrated by the current budget standoff, an unpopular lame duck president has powers that often elude presidents earlier in their tenure. Prior to 2006 Bush never vetoed anything. Now he has no re-election to worry about so he has nothing to lose by vetoing every bill Congress sends that is not in line with what he wants. Eventually they have to override the veto or fall in line with his request.

Because his popularity is already low he does not have to worry about disappointing anyone by sticking to his favored position. By standing firm he takes the chance of raising his popularity. If that fails the other members of his party are already prepared to keep their distance from him. The odds are highly against this coming out good for the Democrats.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Media Outlets Are Focused On Future Business

Posted on 2007-12-13 by David

I’m not big on conspiracy theories nor do I subscribe to the belief that our elections are largely determined by the media so I don’t generally pay much attention to things like the dust-up between Huckabee and Romney. On the other hand I recognize that the media does have a good deal of influence on our culture and political discourse so I thought it would be worth posting this insight from when I was reading some of the recent Huckabee/Romney commentary.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the media does not care who wins the election. All they care about is having profitable stories to run during the campaign and for the months between presidential election cycles. To prove my point let me run through some stories about each of the front runners in both major parties that would be written if they win in November. (Notice that all but one of them were among the front runners last year.)

Rudy Giuliani –

    • Mr. 9/11
    • Where Did All the Social Conservatives Go (even cross-dressing and 3 messy marriages couldn’t stop him)

Hillary Clinton –

    • Wife of Bill Clinton (gives 8 years of history against which to compare her every move)
    • First Female President
    • The Dynasty (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton) storyline

John McCain –

    • The Comback Kid
    • The Maverick

Barack Obama –

    • First Black President (this is even easier to peddle with the public support of Oprah)
    • New Kid in Politics

Mitt Romney –

    • First Mormon President (overcame the anti-Mormon sentiment in the country)
    • The Real Executive President (as opposed to GWB)

John Edwards –

    • Five Years of Campaigning Paid Off

    (notice that this weak storyline goes with the weakest of the 7 candidates)

Mike Huckabee –

    • The Baptist Minister
    • Second Man From Hope (just like Bill Clinton but they will focus more on the minister than the former governor because the former governor is just like Clinton, Bush, and Reagan before him)
    • Anti-Mormons Control the GOP (that’s why they play up every religion question whether Huckabee or Romney believe they’re on the record or off)

If anyone thinks I’ve forgotten Fred Thompson among the front runners they should notice that almost nothing is said about him anymore outside of his schedule and where he sits in the polls. They thought he’d make a good story as the evangelicals flocked to him, then they discovered that there was not much real interest in him. This made Huckabee all the more attractive to write about once he started making a mark on the race.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

More Is Not Always Better

Posted on 2007-12-12 by David

In January I wrote my personal feelings about the value of all-day kindergarten. Today I learned a few things I didn’t know before. As a fan of irony I knew I would enjoy this when I read the opening:

All-day kindergarten sounds like a great opportunity. The teacher really gets to know your child, and how to help them learn. Your child gets enough hours in a learning environment to really absorb important skills. And, after all, kids are a lot smarter these days, so they are ready to get on with ‘real’ learning at a younger age.

Other good aspects of all-day kindergarten programs are not having to pay day-care costs for another year, and your little tired 5-year-old can just have his 1 p.m. melt-down at school, not at home. There are only 28 students in the class, so your kid will have plenty of attention. And don’t worry, the school will take care of teaching your child everything they need to know — you don’t have to worry about a thing.

The short takeaway list that should make you cautious of all-day kindergarten is this:

  • All-day kindergarten damages the academic performance of kids from middle- and upper-class homes
  • The Goldwater Institute found that there was no measurable impact on reading, math or language arts test scores by fifth grade of children who attended all-day kindergarten
  • All-day programs cost more

I should not take much observation to conclude that “most 5- to 6-year olds are not ready for a six to seven-and-a-half hour school day.” I think that those who push for all-day kindergarten are well-intentioned but I am confident that we would not want the social blow back that it is bound to bring. I think Ms. Herron got her conclusion just right:

In Utah, even kindergarten is optional — and with good reason. We shouldn’t push very young children to be in school all day at the expense of the family and playtime that makes childhood special.

Posted in culture, State | Tagged , , | 1 Comment