Paradoxically, cult of privacy led us to NSA problems

barred window

Photo by Cyberuly

The following post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations.

Are you concerned about the National Security Agency gathering blanket data through cell phone companies and Internet activity? Everyone should be terrified. But why aren’t we?

The answer, of course, is the new nature of war we call terrorism, and the threat of terrorists who often hide in plain sight among us. A central reason we have a federal government is to provide for the common defense. But how does our government protect us in a world where enemies don’t often have an identifiable address, are embedded in any country on Earth and can even live next door to us?

It’s easy to see why an otherwise clear-cut case of unconstitutional powers begins to sound and feel reasonable. Normally, when a government official challenges our privacy by reminding us that innocent people have nothing to hide, we quickly remind that official that constitutional protections were made substantially for innocent people. But under the constant threat of terrorist attacks, in our fears, we begin to think that anyone at any time could be a terrorist. We succumb to fear and, as a result, we seek the secure comfort of government agencies – after all, the job of government is to protect us, isn’t it?

That answer is yes and no.

The federal government provides the common defense for a nation just as a local police force provides a common defense for a community. But those sorts of protective provisions do not exist in isolation, as if they’re independent of every other requirement upon every citizen to help maintain personal liberty and lasting freedom. Just because a local police force shares in the effort to protect a community doesn’t mean that we provide that force with every detail of our lives so it can preemptively stop crime. We don’t let that force live in our home to protect us– instead, we buy guns and security systems for our homes and assume major responsibility for our own protection.  Read more

Obama’s big-government culture breeds scandals

Listen to the audio here:

The following post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations.

800px-Barack_Obama_in_the_Oval_Office,_April_2010The Obama administration has had a rough couple of weeks. CBS News headline: “Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says White House.” The Economist headline: “The administration seems to have trampled on press freedom.” Real Clear Politics headline: “Woodward: Obama Administration Did Not Tell the Truth About Benghazi.”

What do all of these headlines from one of President Obama’s worst weeks in office have in common? It is this: Big government, by its very nature, almost always becomes corrupt. This is because big government (in place of good government) is driven by two things: money and power, and both have a tendency to corrupt people … even good people. This is one reason Sutherland counts limited government as one of its core principles.

Take the IRS scandal, which stems from a recently released Treasury inspector general’s report that showed the IRS was improperly scrutinizing conservative and tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status.

The IRS activity is classic big government using its power and authority to target groups it feels are hostile to its ideology. Big government wants more government, meaning more power and money, and tea party groups want less government and more freedom. So big government discourages, interrogates, and targets tea party groups hoping to find inappropriate, if not illegal, activity so it can take action against these groups that it does not like. Sounds more like a move straight from Stalin’s communist Russia than America, doesn’t it? Read more

Large sodas, liquor and a free society

The following post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations:

If you’ve ever searched for an infamous example of government overreaching its proper bounds, you need look no further than the New York City ban on “sugary drinks.” Last year, on June 12, the city’s Department of Health, through its Board of Health, and with full approval of New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, issued a regulation that limits the sale of “sugary drinks” to containers no larger than 16 ounces. “Sugary drink” is defined as a carbonated or non-carbonated, nonalcoholic, sweetened drink that has greater than 25 calories per fluid 8 ounces of beverage.

Not only couldn’t a customer buy the drink, neither could she buy the cup size violating the regulation for self-service. The Board of Health voted 8-0 to adopt the new rule on September 12, 2012. A multi-party lawsuit was filed exactly one month later and the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled to overturn the regulation just this month.

In its defense, the Board of Health argued, “There is an obesity epidemic among New York City residents which severely affects public health.” It argued, “The health of its residents affects the economics of a town, village, city, state and nation” and that “New York City … battles to maintain services in light of tough economic times. One of the fiercest budgetary fights is over Medicaid [and] Medicare.” You can start to see the picture – because of the modern welfare state and culture of entitlement it breeds, government must step in to fix us so we don’t break the budget.

And the only way for government to fix us, evidently, is to coerce us. Read more

What the Republican Party needs to champion

The following post is a transcript of a weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations:

There is growing angst in Republican circles over the direction the Republican Party ought to take. While I am not a Republican operative (far from it), Republican concepts of government appeal to me more than Democratic concepts, so I feel somewhat equipped to recommend a course of action for Republicans, especially Utah Republicans, to keep their party relevant and attractive to all people of good will.

First, Republicans ought to champion fiscal prudence that lies at the heart of limited government. Understanding and articulating the proper role of government (even acknowledging that there is a proper role of government in this day and age) should be their constant drumbeat. They must also strive to understand and then articulate the nature of limited government, especially the vital understanding that government cannot be limited if society continues to marginalize and denigrate the power of the private sector to address public problems.

In this spirit of fiscal responsibility, Republicans need to understand and articulate the natural but ultimately destructive spending bias that exists at every level of government. Read more

Obama's utopia

The following post is a transcript of a weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations:

With the second inauguration of President Barack Obama, his speech was impressive – even Reaganesque. He began by citing the Declaration of Independence – always a safe bet and very conservative sounding.

Who said this, Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?

We have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

Of course that was Barack Obama. His inaugural speech is an interesting mix of traditional values mingled with utopian comments about how the world should be. Listen to this,

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

Surely every American deserves a “measure of security and dignity.” But when he says, “we must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit,” Obama actually means “you” not “we.” Read more

Herbert: ‘From adversity comes strength, from strength comes success’

Last week Governor Gary R. Herbert was inaugurated to his first full term as Utah’s chief executive, having first accepted the role in 2009 when then-Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. was appointed ambassador to China.

Conducted in the rotunda of Utah’s magnificent State Capitol building, the ceremonies included outstanding music by a trio of the Governor’s and First Lady Jeanette Herbert’s sons, who beautifully sang the National Anthem, the One Voice Children’s Choir, the Utah National Guard 23rd Army Band, and the Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square.

In his inaugural address, “From Adversity Comes Strength, From Strength Comes Success,” Gov. Herbert shared insights that every Utahn would be prudent to remember and embrace:

In times of great strife and difficulty, when our course is steep and we are weary, it may be tempting to take a shortcut, to postpone difficult decisions, to abandon our commitment to principle in favor of political expediency. But as I was taught by my parents, principles are not relative. Whether you are a contractor like my father, or a teacher, or a small business owner, or a doctor, or a farmer; for a family or for the government, principles always hold true. And true principles are the surest foothold for good governance.

In Utah we honor the principle of individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility – the power of people to work, to produce, to innovate, to be self-sufficient, and to be rewarded for their efforts. We understand that the most powerful engine for prosperity in the history of the world is the private sector, operating in a free market system. We believe in the principle that we achieve the best outcomes when everyone is engaged….

…We all know that the correct path is often not the easy path.

Amen, Governor Herbert. We heartily concur.

Utah government entities catalogue how they compete with the private sector

During yesterday’s interim meetings, the Legislature’s Political Subdivisions Interim Committee heard reports from representatives of higher education, K-12 public schools, counties, cities, and others about activities they participate in that potentially compete with the private sector and how they go about deciding to engage in such activities.

Those activities were fairly wide-ranging. For instance, universities compete sometimes with the private sector by allowing their catering services to do business off campus, often at a lower price than private caterers do it. Public schools compete with private beauty schools by providing cosmetology courses. Cities and counties compete with private businesses by building recreation centers and golf courses. Read more

Positive signs for Orem taxpayers after 8-hour tax hearing

After an eight-hour Truth in Taxation Hearing, the Orem City Council voted 4-3 at 1:45 this morning to approve a 25 percent property tax increase for the Orem portion of the property tax bill, instead of the proposed 50 percent increase. That will raise $1.7 million and the city will forego city employee pay raises and other purchases to cover the remainder of the $3.3 million city budget shortfall, $2.8 million of which is due to a UTOPIA bond payment. 

But Deputy City Recorder Rachelle Conner said she personally believes Orem residents will file a petition to make the tax increase a referendum item to be voted on by Orem residents in November of 2013. If the petition gets the necessary signatures and is validated, the tax increase will be put on hold until the vote, leading Conner to state that the city will have to make $3.3 million in cuts to city services to balance the city budget.

Read more

Liberal economic policies are killing jobs (part 2)

As a follow-up to a previous blog post about how liberal public policies on a federal level are contributing to the pitiful number of job opportunities for low- and middle-income families since the end of the recession in 2009, here’s a rather depressing fact: Less than 60 percent of Americans have had a job now for 40 consecutive months. By comparison, before the current presidential administration, no fewer than 60 percent of Americans were employed in any given month for more than 23 years straight (280 months).

In fact, in the more than two years (27 months) since Obamacare was passed, the proportion of Americans with a job has never risen above 59 percent. The last time that this was the case (pre-Obama)? 1984.

This is just more evidence that liberal public policies kill growth in the economy. In other words, putting liberal thinking and policies into practice means that more low- and middle-income families struggle to obtain life’s necessities and remain stuck at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Union pensions: the next government bailout?

A recent Weekly Standard (WS) article chronicles a coming financial and economic crisis in union pension plans with gloomy implications for Utah’s (and the nation’s) economy. In short, the article describes a scenario in which these plans may become the next sector of the economy seeking a government bailout due to their own recklessness.

The WS article begins by describing how the Newspaper Guild of New York successfully defeated a proposal from The New York Times to increase the workweek from 35 hours to 40 hours. Yes, you read that right.  Evidently, the physical/emotional toil of an average workweek is just too much to ask of those hard-working journalists at The New York Times.

Next, the WS article shifts to a discussion of the Times’ pension plans, which are only 77 percent funded. For context, a pension plan that is below 80 percent funded is considered “endangered” by the federal government rules. Amazingly, the Times’ pension plans are actually among the better funded pension plans in the nation.  Read more