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.
Newsletter Sign Up
Let’s Be Friends!
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
Two recent polls on federal versus state lands management preferences have seemingly contradictory findings. In fact, they demonstrate one key point: The more people know about the costs and benefits of transferring federal lands to state control, the more they tend to endorse it.
A Center for American Progress poll released late last week claimed that 52 percent of those polled in eight Western states did not want their state to assume control and costs of public lands managed by national resource agencies. But the poll notably omitted any reference to potential benefits of states assuming control and instead listed only potential costs and controversial potential management policies.
Also of note, Utah bucked the apparent trend, with a 52 percent majority expressing a desire for state control. And that finding was echoed in another poll, released earlier this week by UtahPolicy.com, that asked simply whether that state’s residents supported or opposed state government taking control of BLM and Forest Service lands. Sixty percent of respondents supported state control of BLM lands, and 50 percent approved of taking over Forest Service lands in that poll. Fifty-four percent also supported a lawsuit against the federal government to demand control of those lands.
The difference seems to be that Utahns have been grappling with the state control issue for several years and are therefore much more educated on the costs and benefits of the state potentially assuming ownership of most federal lands. They know, for instance, that only multiple-use lands are being considered, leaving national parks, wilderness areas and military reservations in federal hands. They also know that these multiple-use lands can generate income to offset the expenses of managing them. Neither poll addressed these issues, but they have been widely debated in the state since passage of the Transfer of Public Lands Act in 2012.
Taken individually, these polls seem to have contradictory results. But the take-away from examining both of them together is simply that the more people know about the costs and benefits of transferring multiple-use federal lands to state control, the more they approve of it.
Children are entitled to be raised by a married mother and father. Sutherland Institute is deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has failed to correct the lawlessness of lower courts that have deprived the people of Utah and other states of their ability to protect that entitlement.
While it appears that Utah is being forced by the federal courts to recognize same-sex marriages, there are still other states whose laws the courts have not yet disrupted. We will provide whatever support we can to those states and hope the Supreme Court will reconsider this unwise action in a future case.
The federal government owns nearly half of all land west of Nebraska, and it is increasingly using that ownership to cut Western states off from the natural resources and tax bases they need to take care of themselves. National polls show a lack of trust in the federal government and a growing reluctance to accept its expanding power. But the one-two punch of resource ownership and the flow of federal funds gives the federal government a seemingly free hand to dictate how Western states educate their kids, manage their economies, and provide core public services. In effect, they are becoming states of dependence.
Many of these states are pushing back to restore a balance between individual and states’ rights and responsibilities on one hand versus the federal estate and federal government intrusions on the other. But this Western backlash against federal overreach could also ripple across the country and help set the tone for Americans’ future relationships with their federal overseers.
Much of the growth in federal power is being done under the aegis of cooperative federalism, where the federal government basically buys the rope and lets the states hang themselves. Many Western states would like to get rid of that rope by asking a very simple question: Why not govern ourselves? Why accept being states of dependence?
Just imagine if America could restore that proper balance and make government more accountable by bringing it closer to home; if we could have a servant instead of a master, a government that works for us, not against us. Imagine being able to decide our future; to figure out how to best educate each of our kids, how to steward our lands, and to provide for our public safety and services using local solutions that take into account local resources and local needs rather than imposed or one-size-fits-all dictates.
But increasing federal power doesn’t allow us to govern ourselves, and we can get an idea of who is most at risk by looking at who’s manning the barricades against overreaching and often counterproductive federal policies. The West is the proverbial canary in the coalmine as the federal government is able to impose more of its power and create greater dependence by controlling access to Western resources.
That’s why you see Nevada ranchers getting on their horses and riding to the district Bureau of Land Management offices to protest new grazing restrictions. It’s why ATV riders in Utah are protesting trail closures on public lands that they have used responsibly for generations. It’s why county commissioners in New Mexico are threatening to break locks—installed by federal officials—that block access to water that ranchers have used responsibly and improved since before New Mexico was even a state. And it’s why Utah certified public accountants called upon the legislature to get a better handle on the inherent risks of depending on federal funds to perform core state functions.
The primary vulnerability to federal overreach in the West is the states’ lack of control over their own resources. The primary driver for that lack of control is the simple fact that they don’t own the land those resources are on and under. Fifty percent of all land, over 600 million acres, west of the Colorado/Nebraska line is owned by the federal government, making up 91 percent of all federal lands in the nation. That’s enough land to cover every state on the Eastern Seaboard, plus Kansas, plus Texas, plus France. That’s just unfair: Western states are cut off from 50 percent of their tax base and have little say over 50 percent of their economic potential, just because they came to the Union later in our nation’s history.
Click here to read the rest of this article by Carl Graham at the Heritage Foundation’s InsiderOnline. It was also printed in the summer 2014 edition of the Insider.
Is social justice a conservative cause? Yes, absolutely.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, explained why it’s not just a cause, but a moral imperative, last night at a Sutherland Institute dinner in Salt Lake City.
Brooks told the group gathered at La Jolla Groves that conservatives who want to improve social justice cannot be elitist about the type of work considered “worthy.”
“All work is blessed.”
If you believe in fighting to improve life for poor and middle-class families, you cannot believe that trimming a hedge is less valuable than managing a hedge fund, he said.
Sen. Lee said that because nearly every strategy in the “war on poverty” has failed to achieve true societal change, conservatives need to summon the courage to lead this fight with new strategies.
“Defenders of today’s status quo say that any critique of our welfare system is really just a thinly-veiled attempt to destroy the social safety net. But what we all should want – and what I certainly do want – is not to destroy the safety net, but to make it work.”
America’s complicated tax code, health care and justice system hurt working families, Sen. Lee said. “Our justice system tears apart communities and fractures families among our most marginalized communities.” Sen. Lee is a co-sponsor of the Smarter Sentencing Act, along with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Lee urged supporters of conservatism to help “make poverty temporary, not merely tolerable.”
“We usually refer to the free market and civil society as ‘institutions,’” he said. “But really, they are networks – networks of people and information and opportunity. …
“Networks of opportunity formed within the free market and civil society are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to.”
Derek Monson, policy director at Sutherland Institute, pointed out that family strength and culture are intertwined with economic issues – issues that are at the heart of Sutherland’s Center for Utah’s Economy. Continue reading
A couple weeks ago, Utah and the country celebrated Constitution Day. September 17 was designated to commemorate the signing of the Constitution by the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.
The day is well chosen because the genius of a written constitution is as much in the fact that it’s written as in what it says. A government constrained by an accessible set of guidelines stands a real chance of actually being limited. The fact of its being written allows conscientious citizens and officers of government to return to the document to ensure that they are keeping faith with their foundational charter. It allows critics a standard by which to measure proposed actions and policies. If the Constitution is taken seriously it allows for what John Adams called, in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, “a government of laws and not of men.” This way of interpreting the Constitution is widely known as “originalism,” and is the view supported by conservative Supreme Court justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The alternative is to allow a powerful individual or group of people to govern with no restraint but the bounds of their own wills. Unfortunately, this can occur even with a written constitution if the terms are treated not as expressions of objective standards that can be discerned from the original meaning of the words, but as empty vessels for government actors to pour their own preferred meanings into. This view is known as the “living Constitution,” which is often tied to the practice of judicial activism. Many view the Supreme Court’s left-leaning judges in this light.
When judges engage in judicial activism, they are essentially creating new law and altering the meaning of the Constitution. This is not the proper role for judges. If a change seems to be needed, the Constitution itself provides the means for making it — not by creative interpretation but by a formal amendment process, difficult enough to require deliberation and consensus but not so difficult as to create undue barriers to needed adjustment.
The even greater genius of the United States’ written constitution is that it is more concerned with structural matters than in asserting nebulous ideals for government officials to run with. The U.S. Constitution is dominated not by policy prohibitions but by structures for decision-making. Nearly the entire 1787 document lays out the responsibilities of the branches of government including crucial limitations on their powers. The Constitution does tell us how we can make decisions that affect our lives, not what all the right decisions will be. Continue reading
Utah has heard a lot of praise lately for its economic performance, and rightly so. Utah has the nation’s 2nd lowest unemployment rate (3.6 percent), 2nd highest rate of job growth (3.5 percent or 44,700 new jobs), 3rd highest household income ($59,770), and 3rd best ratio of income inequality.
This is likely due to several factors such as Utah’s cultural work ethic – our motto is “Industry,” after all – and good economic policies enacted by Governor Gary Herbert and the Utah Legislature in the years during and after the so-called “Great Recession.” But based on demographic reports and recently published research from the National Bureau of Economic Research, it is also likely due, in no small part, to Utah’s strong family culture.
In addition to Utah’s consistently high economic rankings, the state also ranks at or near the top in most (but not all) measures of family strength and creation. For example, based on the most recent data from the Census Bureau, Utah has the nation’s largest median family size (3.66 people), youngest age at first marriage (25.9 years for men, 24 years for women), highest portion of households headed by married couples (61.4 percent), highest portion of married-couple households with children (31.5 percent), and highest fertility rate (72 per 1,000 women age 15-50).
Of course, correlation is not causation, so what connects these strong family measures to Utah’s solid economic performance? One explanation is the relative youth of the state’s population and how that drives job creation through the creation of the new businesses. Continue reading
Utah and its elected officials are often lampooned for the alcohol/liquor laws and regulations of the state. The laws are usually portrayed as draconian, backwards and unnecessary. As most of you know, Sutherland Institute believes strong regulation of alcohol is a necessary component of a free and thriving civil society. Because of the unique nature of alcohol, its cost and availability should be much more regulated than soda or milk.
So last week, at the Utah Legislative Alcohol Policy Summit, it was very interesting for me to learn we had some very staunch allies in some unexpected places. I listened to a session headed by Victoria McDowell, CEO of the Presidents’ Forum of the Distilled Spirits Industry, which is an alcohol lobbying group that represents about 55 percent of all distilled spirits in the United States. You might know distilled spirits best as vodka, tequila, brandy, whisky and rum.
Throughout her presentation, McDowell described how her group is in favor of strong regulations and opposed to privatization. What could she be thinking? Everyone knows commodities and consumers do best with little to no regulations, right? Yes, we almost always agree with that sentiment. But alcohol is a very unique commodity. McDowell shared the experiences of Washington state, which privatized its alcohol sales in 2012 and has since experienced a host of problems. Listen as McDowell describes some of what has happened in Washington.
We don’t ever want to see another Washington state happen in another [alcohol] control state. Some very large retailers came in — Costco. Costco spent over $20 million to — it’s an initiative state so they got their initiative passed, and consumers were promised greater access, lower cost.
In fact, prices went up. More Washington state residents are going into Idaho or Oregon to buy their alcohol. The mom-and-pop stores, the smaller stores, are slowly dying out because they can’t compete with Costco, with the really big box retailers.
We’ve all probably read in the press about thefts — you know, distilled spirits being stolen by kids out of the grocery stores — because the grocery stores weren’t really prepared and equipped to sell distilled spirits — you know, spirits, I’m always saying, this is not milk and chips that we’re talking about.
Overall, when you see those promises that the states are going to get more money, so far, it hasn’t panned out. In fact, a couple of states who had privatized years ago [have] gone back to control because they never realized all the money they thought they were going to get.
Legal writing can be dense and overly technical. Perhaps that’s why there persists some confusion about the effect of the Hobby Lobby decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. It did not help that the dissent in the case included some irresponsible charges about the majority decision. Indeed, the dissent’s worry that the decision would have a broad effect seems to have captured some adherents against all reason.
As an example, after the decision was issued a reporter asked if we could expect to see employers stop covering contraceptives in their employee health benefits. I tried to explain that even a cursory look at the facts and reasoning of the decision would make clear that it could only apply to a very small set of employers—they would have to be running a closely held corporation (such as a family-owned business), would have had to have a sincere religious objection to extending the coverage (and an employer that had been covering these for years and only now decides to object would have a hard time demonstrating a sincere objection). Plus, the case involved only objections to a small number of drugs that could result in an abortion.
This confusion appears to be at the root of some of the comments on the news that a federal judge in Utah had ruled that the federal government cannot compel testimony where doing so could violate the religious beliefs of a person. Continue reading
After federal Judge Clark Waddoups’s recent ruling that Utah’s current state board election system is unconstitutional, a new argument from advocates of nonpartisan state school board elections has begun to make the rounds: that partisan state school board elections are barred by the Utah Constitution. While this argument represents a novel reading of the state Constitution, and certainly provides something new for talking heads to discuss, it has not been accompanied by much fact or substantive reasoning to back it up.
The constitutional provision in question (Article X, Section 8) reads: “No religious or partisan test or qualification shall be required as a condition of employment, admission, or attendance in the state education systems.” In prosecuting their argument, the nonpartisan election advocates have simply quoted or cited this provision and moved on without further explanation, evidently assuming this citation closes all possibility of debate to any reasonable person. I mean, what part of “no partisan test” don’t you understand, right?
But for the common good and for the sake of free society, deeper thought and more substantive consideration than that is required for determining such an important policy and constitutional issue.
The plain language of Article X, Section 8 makes clear that it only applies to three areas of public education: employment, admission, or attendance. Obviously, state school board members are not seeking to be admitted to or attend public schools, so the only constitutional leg left for this argument to stand on is the area of employment.
So the relevant question becomes: Are we electing school employees when we vote for our state school board representative?
The common sense answer is “no.” Voters don’t go to the ballot box to choose their favorite education bureaucrat. Rather, they are voting for a person who is willing to take time and effort away from work and family to help administer the public school system — not as a source of employment, but as a public service to their community and state. Of course, we also recognize the financial difficulties that this service would create if it were left purely as a charitable donation of time, not to mention the implications for free society if only the wealthy were able to serve. Therefore, society has decided as a matter of policy to provide some basic financial reimbursement to school board members to help more people be able to serve. But the presence of modest financial reimbursement does not lead to the conclusion that state school board members are public school employees. Continue reading
We invite you to watch this debate tonight on a topic vital to our state: the potential transfer of public lands from federal to state control.
If you live in the Cedar City area, feel free to attend in person. The debate starts at 6 p.m. at SUU’s Sterling R. Church Auditorium at Sharwan Smith Student Center.
Otherwise, click here for the live feed. See the flier below for more details.
Sutherland Institute commissioned a poll by Magellan Strategies that was released yesterday about Utah voters’ support for Medicaid expansion in its various forms, including Governor Gary Herbert’s preferred “Healthy Utah” form of expansion. The question we aimed to address was this: “What do Utah voters think about Medicaid expansion when they are informed about the issue in a way that is comparable to Utah legislators?”
Utah voters’ answer was to reluctantly say “Utah should probably do nothing on expansion for now, and should instead start looking for better ideas.” But before I dig into that, I think it’s important to understand why we thought to commission a poll at all.
Multiple polls on Medicaid expansion in Utah have been published and reported on in the press. These polls reported that somewhere between 70 and 88 percent of Utah voters support either traditional Medicaid expansion, or the Healthy Utah version – overwhelming support by any reasonable standard.
But think for a minute about whether those numbers make any sense. If these numbers are accurate, it means that a higher portion of Utah voters support expanding Medicaid than supported Utah’s marriage amendment in 2004. Now, does anyone really believe that’s true? Yeah, neither did we.
Rather than accepting hard-to-believe polling results at face value, we thought it better to commission a poll that gave more complete information and context to Utah voters about the costs, enrollment, and uncertainties of Medicaid expansion in Utah.
What happened is that voters said that none of the Medicaid expansion options merit majority support. In fact, the only one that received positive net support was the “do not expand Medicaid right now” proposal, with 45 percent in favor and 26 percent opposed. For comparison, Healthy Utah got 32 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed, traditional Medicaid expansion got 21 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed, and partial Medicaid expansion got 19 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. Thirty percent of Utah voters on average said they were unsure or didn’t know whether they supported or opposed each proposal. Continue reading
The “green-über-alles” crowd has Utah and our neighbors in its sights. For instance, take this editorial from a Montana newspaper (republished by Utah.Politico.Hub), “Big Trouble in Big Sky Country.”
This “big trouble” – referring to tactics used by radical environmentalists who demonize multiple use of our beautiful Western lands – doesn’t just apply to Montana, but to all the states in the West. From the editorial:
When public support for the  Wilderness Act tanked, enter the manipulation by environmentalists. Greens both inside and outside government have turned to an onslaught of other means to control and/or remove land uses they dislike — through appeals, litigation, administrative fiat, bureaucratic delay, endangered species, conservation easements, even national monument designation under the Antiquities Act.
The strategy is to block land uses in hopes the land users go away.
Click here to read the rest of the editorial at Utah.Politico.Hub.