Well, plenty of things, but take a look anyway! Click here to see Politico’s slideshow of various officials throughout the decades … and see if you shriek.
Newsletter Sign Up
Let’s Be Friends!
Well, plenty of things, but take a look anyway! Click here to see Politico’s slideshow of various officials throughout the decades … and see if you shriek.
These two reports, published six-plus years apart, portray the civic behavior of Utahns as notably estranged from ‘responsible citizenship,’ Utah’s unique, youthful voter-age demographics notwithstanding:
The solution to the “problem” described in these reports is not simply a matter of increasing the number of people who complete and submit an election ballot – an effort that can merely increase and multiply the effects of ignorance – but rather to increase the level of informed awareness among those who do vote: of the actuality and operation of principles; the cause-and-effect consequences of choices and behavior; of what is required to attain and sustain healthy, functional culture and civil society.
Former Sutherland president Paul Mero often talked about “earned opinion” as being more than merely having ideas one prefers and wishes to share. The value of one’s view is not simply reposed in the fact that s/he has a personal thought or preference but is rather the product of his/her effort first to learn truth and gain some degree of comprehension of its meaning and practical application, and thereby merit the willingness of others to consider that perspective.
In ways not dissimilar, while all citizens have the right to vote, it is folly and an undermining of functional society to seek merely to “get more people to vote.” Perhaps this was a factor underlying Thomas Jefferson’s sage, and prescient, declaration that,
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be (1816, in a letter to C. Yancey).
Encouraging citizens to exercise their right and privilege to vote – a privilege won and preserved by the blood of patriots – is important and commendable. That citizens exercise this right after having earnestly and meaningfully studied the issues, candidates and predictable consequences is essential.
Not that we should give undue attention to actors who opine on economics and politics, but this article has a couple of great charts that show just how ridiculous Russell Brand’s rant against capitalism is.
Click here to read more at AEIdeas.
Here’s more, from The Economist, commenting on how free markets help pull people out of extreme poverty:
Many Westerners have reacted to recession by seeking to constrain markets and roll globalisation back in their own countries, and they want to export these ideas to the developing world, too. It does not need such advice. It is doing quite nicely, largely thanks to the same economic principles that helped the developed world grow rich and could pull the poorest of the poor out of destitution.
Sutherland Institute commends Governor Herbert for his wise and prudent decision not to call a special session to consider his proposed Healthy Utah Medicaid expansion plan. The question of whether Utah should add a second, private-insurance tier to its Medicaid program for the sake of federal funding is a momentous one. This decision has significant implications and consequences for the most vulnerable Utahns – the single parents, disabled individuals, and children who would be left behind in the lower tier of traditional Medicaid coverage. Additionally, given the long-term fiscal implications of creating a new entitlement program such as Healthy Utah, this decision ought to be considered within a budget process that sheds light on whether future state funding for Healthy Utah could be better utilized if instead spent on essential roles of government such as higher education, transportation, and corrections.
Despite calls from some to short-circuit thoughtful consideration of the details and impacts of Healthy Utah because they believe the decision merits no further evaluation, Governor Herbert made the correct decision and should be commended for recognizing the importance of a thoughtful process for making sound public policy. Sutherland looks forward to continuing this important policy dialogue where it ought to be engaged: in a general session of the Utah Legislature.
For those who have ever wondered what a “push poll” looks like, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that’s up in arms about the West’s movement to transfer most federal lands to state control, provided a great example a couple of weeks ago.
Their poll clearly demonstrated, at least in their minds, that a majority of Westerners oppose turning over the 50 percent of Western lands that D.C. currently owns to state control. You can see a summary of it here.
This one-sided poll was crafted to support a specific outcome by asking leading questions of very few people across a wide swath of states. Shocking, I know. If either the Center for American Progress or the polling companies involved were capable of being embarrassed, they would have enough red on their faces to paint a barn. But as their purpose was simply to advance a point of view, I’m sure they’re basking in the light they’ve stolen from the rest of us. The world is just a little dumber for their efforts, and while both the left and right are guilty of dishonest polls to either push a viewpoint or raise a buck, this is a particularly egregious example.
The axiom that you get what you pay for is especially true in the polling business, where the wording of a question can lead to desired responses that campaigners can then tout as a “The people have spoken” moment. This poll basically asks people if they would rather see state taxpayers pay for the rape and ruin of public lands or have those lands munificently managed by benevolent federal cherubs gently tending the flora and fauna as they glide effortlessly — and at no cost to the taxpayer — overhead.
Here’s the question they’re most proud of:
Thinking about one idea related to national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other national public lands in your state, would you support or oppose having your state Government and taxpayers assume full control of managing these public lands, including paying for all related costs, including the cost of preventing and fighting wildfires?
Got all that? Continue reading
Don’t drink the water – or even bathe in it, the city of Eagle Mountain told its residents on the evening of Sept. 29, 2014. The city reported that someone had broken into one of its water storage tanks. There was no way to tell what, if anything, had been put into the city’s water supply, until state testing results came back the following day. The city advised residents not to drink, cook with, or bathe in the water. Not even boiling the water could guarantee it’d be safe to use.
The water advisory was given around 5:30 Monday evening. Two hours later this picture of the bottled water aisle at the nearest Walmart was posted online:
Empty. Some people started posting on social media in anger, yelling at others for hoarding water and not leaving any for the rest. The next day another picture was posted of another nearby Walmart, also with a barren water aisle.
What can we learn from this? First, “be prepared” ain’t just for Boy Scouts or doomsday preppers. The unexpected can happen to you. Store some extra food and water. It’s just smart.
But second, there’s an interesting economics lesson here.
Click here to read the rest of this article at Utah Citizen Network.
A story by New York Times film critic A.O. Scott last month declared adulthood dead in the United States. Well, maybe, but his reasons for thinking so are not the ones I’d choose.
Much of his argument seems to rest on the death of patriarchy in pop culture, with a side journey into American literature and history. Go ahead, read the whole meandering thing here.
Among other things, he cringes at the fact that American adults are reading (gasp!) young adult fiction. Well … that might have something to do with the fact that Harry Potter and other high-quality juvenile books are better written than many books aimed at “adults.” (Please forgive those of us “adults” who enjoy plots and moral clarity.)
Scott also sniffs at middle-age men “wearing shorts and flip-flops,” as if they should all be in Cary Grant-type suits 24/7.
David Marcus, in the Federalist, gave Scott’s New York Times piece a big eyeroll:
The first object of Scott’s imagination that needs to be tackled is his argument that “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad,” and “The Sopranos” are influencing and reflecting a turn away from male adulthood in our culture. …
Scott doesn’t fare much better as he wades into the history of America and its letters to find foreshadowing for our current crisis of masculinity. His readers are treated to a description of the founders of the United States in which they are not fathers, but “late adolescents.” Benjamin Franklin is his primary example, and while it’s true Franklin had his dalliances, he also pretty much invented everything we use in our houses. Meanwhile, the notion that Adams, Jefferson, and Washington were adolescent is really just bizarre. In Scott’s version, the American Revolution is little more than a temper tantrum directed at daddy figure George III.
Click here to read the rest of Marcus’ entertaining critique.
First, 60 percent of Americans either don’t drink at all (30 percent) or, on average, have less than one drink per week (30 percent). But the top 10 percent of American drinkers? Let’s just say their livers might some day be used as an example of how not to treat your body.
What does this mean for public policy? For starters, it suggests that raising alcohol taxes is a fair and likely effective way to combat the social costs of alcohol consumption (e.g., traffic deaths, health problems, and economic harm due to decreased productivity).
Higher alcohol taxes are fair because they amount to a user fee – you only pay if you choose to drink – and because they have minimal impact on the vast majority of responsible drinkers who, in the end, will not drink an exorbitant amount of alcohol, and therefore will pay only a small amount of the increased tax.
And higher alcohol taxes are likely to be effective because, while they will have minimal impact on moderate and responsible drinkers, they will have a significant impact on the problem drinkers that consume mind-boggling amounts of alcohol (taking for granted that having more than 10 drinks per day on a regular basis is difficult for most people to comprehend).
Conservatives tend to hesitate at any call to increase taxes, and rightly so. But thoughtful conservatives also understand that not all taxes are made equal – some taxes are fairer than others; some taxes are less economically and socially harmful than others (and some, like alcohol taxes, can even be beneficial for society); and maintaining a reasonable level of taxes is necessary for good government.
Alcohol taxes – and specifically the policy of increasing alcohol taxes from current levels – fall into this category of a fair, beneficial (or at least minimally harmful), and reasonable tax, when given thoughtful consideration.
Click here to learn more about Sutherland’s position on alcohol policy in Utah.
Last week, Sutherland Institute had the opportunity to meet with Tarren Bragdon while he was in Utah’s capital. Tarren is CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability – also known as the FGA – an independent, nonprofit policy organization based in Naples, Florida. With a focus on healthcare and welfare issues, the FGA works with policy makers in about 20 states helping them fix big-government and broken healthcare and welfare programs. Among their priorities is freeing people from dependence on government and helping them move on to a better life.
Medicaid expansion is a significant topic across the nation. A number of states have decided to expand while others have not. As Utah is in the process of working toward making that decision, Bragdon discussed with Sutherland key elements of this important issue that he and his colleagues are addressing as they meet with legislators and decision-makers across the nation. In the videotaped interview, Tarren talked about Medicaid expansion in general and briefly about the Healthy Utah Plan proposed by Governor Herbert.
In the brief, 14-minute interview, he describes the informative experience of states that have made the decision to expand Medicaid and, with the body of information now emerging, he highlights points of particular relevance he believes Utah policy-makers should keep in mind as they work through the decision process:
Essentially, what you have right now is the federal government dangling this promise of federal money in front of the states, hoping the states will embrace this Medicaid expansion voluntarily because they want this federal money to flow into their states. But what we’re seeing is that just like with almost every welfare expansion, that the prediction of how much it would cost is very different than the reality. And so we’re seeing states already having dramatically higher enrollment in Medicaid expansion than what they projected and dramatically higher costs. It turns out these individuals are much more expensive to cover than single moms. And so states are already seeing this as a budget buster. In states like Arkansas, the state taxpayers are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars just in the first year.
He then explains what this means for the most vulnerable populations – for whom Medicaid was implemented in the first place:
What that has meant in the states, and we’ve already seen this happen, is they will cut back Medicaid programs when times are tough for those most vulnerable populations because those are the populations who they have the lower match for. … Typically, lawmakers focus on making those cuts to the most vulnerable. We saw this in Arizona where, when the Medicaid expansion for childless adults got out of control, the Legislature voted to cut heart and lung transplants.
What is the significance of the numbers 1, 3 and 10 when it comes to Medicaid expansion? Watch this video to find out:
In this interview, Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), and Stan Rasmussen, director of public affairs for Sutherland Institute, discuss Medicaid expansion in general and the Healthy Utah Plan proposed by Governor Gary Herbert.
Bragdon, whose nonprofit is based in Naples, Fla., talks about the experiences of states that have made the decision to expand Medicaid – and why Utah should be wary of the “free” federal money offered for expanding Medicaid.
“I’m too busy with everyday life to bother with politics.”
These are refrains we often hear and perhaps have said ourselves. The problem with this thinking, however, is that politics affects our daily lives with ever-increasing regularity.
The Athenian general Pericles famously said, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”
How true this has turned out to be! Take, for instance, something as mundane as going to the grocery store. You’d think there’s no politics in groceries, right? It’s just a farmer selling a customer a head of lettuce, or a baker selling a loaf of bread, right?
Nope. Politics has taken an interest in food.
Between 2006 and 2013 food prices increased 22 percent, far more than prices of other goods. This cost the average family an additional $2,000 a year and came at a time when jobs were scarcer and wages weren’t increasing. What caused this drastic rise in the price of your groceries?
Or, more specifically, the federal government’s mandate that a certain amount of biofuel be added to your gasoline. So instead of farmers planting crops based on what you buy at the grocery store, they switched to corn en masse. Suddenly, there was less of every other crop being grown, and we all got a lesson in Econ 101’s supply-and-demand cycle.
But this mandate didn’t just affect prices of vegetables and grains. You see, the federal government’s biofuel requirements were so hefty that even after growers switched their fields to corn, there still wasn’t enough to go around. So corn prices went up too. And everything that depends upon the price of corn feed went up – meat, poultry, dairy. Not only are vegetables more expensive, but so is milk, cheese and butter. We’re talking the very staples of Americans’ dinners.
Why would our politicians do something like this? And why wouldn’t they fix it at a time of massive job losses and stagnant wages?
When enough citizens ignore politics, it amplifies the influence of those who do take an interest in what government can do. There’s money to be made when government arbitrarily increases the price of food – and those who make that money don’t say, “I’m too busy to bother with politics.” They are acutely aware of how politics take an interest in you.
Rejection of a faraway government meddling in our daily lives is what this nation was founded upon. An engaged citizenry voting for good representation is the only way to keep it.
Want to dig deeper? Click here to explore this topic at Utah Citizen Network.
Amid the agonizingly slow recovery from the last recession, policy-makers on both sides of the aisle have turned their focus to improving economic mobility for the poor and economic security for the middle class. So from the political left we hear calls to raise the minimum wage, and from the political right we hear proposals to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and reform welfare programs.
But based on the results of a recently published study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, it seems there is another policy path toward addressing poverty and middle-income security: developing energy resources.
The researchers report that a boom in oil and gas production and employment has significant, positive impacts on nearby employment in manufacturing. This is “because many manufacturers in resource-abundant counties supply inputs to the oil and gas sector, while many others sell locally traded goods and benefit from increases in local demand.” The researchers conclude that their study “highlight[s] how linkages to natural resources can be a driver of manufacturing growth.”
How is this link relevant to economic mobility and security? Jobs on manufacturing and energy development have historically been vehicles for individuals with limited formal education and job skills to move up the economic ladder, and for middle-income families to secure and maintain their advantageous economic position. Subsequently, increasing job opportunities in both sectors through energy resource development has the potential to simultaneously strengthen economic mobility for the poor and economic security for the middle class.
In Utah, this is magnified by the fact that much of the energy resources in the state reside in more rural areas, where economic development and job opportunities can be limited. In other words, energy development and manufacturing growth provide greater possibilities for rural Utah to keep younger generations in the area and/or bring in new people, instead of losing or never having a chance with them because most good job opportunities are to be found in more urbanized areas and cities.
As policymakers consider ways to use policy to provide new economic opportunities to the poor or to shore up the position and outlook of the middle class, they should remember the potential of energy development to do both.
If you haven’t had a chance to watch our video of Sen. Mike Lee and AEI president Arthur Brooks sharing ideas for fighting poverty, now’s a good time! Click on the photo at left.
A new study once again confirms that Utah is the model for the country for charitable giving. The Chronicle of Philanthropy measured gifts to charity by analyzing itemized taxpayer deductions for 2012, and found Utah to have the highest rate of giving by a wide margin. Utah’s 6.56 percent giving rate is 31% higher than second-place Mississippi’s 4.99 percent. Additionally, Utah’s Millard County is America’s most generous county, and Salt Lake City is the country’s most generous city.
Also interesting to note, the top 17 most generous states voted for Republican Mitt Romney, while 21 of the 24 least generous states voted for Barack Obama. Some on the left say they give less from their personal income because they help the poor by paying taxes that support government programs.
“Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates,” wrote The New York Times’ liberal opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof back in 2008. His piece further highlights the conservative/liberal charity disparity.
As conservatives know, voluntary charity is a key component to a thriving, civil society. It helps our neighbors in need while limiting excessive and expensive government programs and bureaucracy. And it often provides the giver a direct connection with the recipient, not to mention increased compassion and humanity for his or her fellow human beings. By cutting out the government middleman, private charitable dollars are used more efficiently, with less waste and more good accomplished. Continue reading
Utah’s marriage law, and a measure of its self-determination, has now been wiped out by the inaction of the U.S. Supreme Court. As you’ve no doubt heard, that court yesterday [Oct. 6] turned back petitions from Utah and four other states whose marriage laws had been struck down by lower federal courts.
Thus, as Justice Kennedy said, to the edge of the cliff we go. Just 18 months ago, during the Hollingsworth v. Perry Prop 8 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered if the court, or anyone, knew what it needed to know to decide the same-sex-marriage question. Kennedy said, “The problem in the case is that you’re really asking … for us to go into uncharted waters . . . it is a cliff.” Apparently, a little more than 18 months on, the court believes the country is ready to go over that cliff and into those uncharted waters.
After hearing oral arguments in that same Perry case, Notre Dame Law School’s Gerard Bradley described what happened:
Justice Alito looked for “data” on this “institution which is newer than cell phones.” Same-sex marriage, he said, might turn out to a “good thing”, or “not”, as Proposition 8 supporters “apparently believe.” Justice Scalia said that there is no “scientific answer” to the decisive “harm” question at this time.” Justice Sotomayor asked the Solicitor General: why not “let the States experiment” for a few more years, to let society “figure out its direction.”
That’s a sample of what they were thinking 18 months ago. It’s impossible to know what precisely the justices were thinking yesterday. One possibility is that one or more of the conservative justices on the court voted not to hear any of the cases because they knew the liberal justices, along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, were poised to make gay marriage the law of the land. Another possibility could be that some justices might have approved of the policy result but just hoped to spare the court of doing the “dirty work” that the circuit courts seemed willing to do. Continue reading