A Perspective on Bankruptcy and Employment

Bankruptcy filings are up nationwide and could top 1.4 million this year.  This is the approximate level of bankruptcies that were filed per year prior to the new bankruptcy laws enacted in 2005.  Utah’s bankruptcy filings are up 62% from a year ago.  On a per capita basis Utah is ranked 13th so far this year in the nation, up from 20th and 37th in 2008 and 2007 respectively.  This is not a good trend.  You probably know one or more people who have declared bankruptcy.

People go through bankruptcy for many different reasons from a way to escape monetary judgments (like O.J. Simpson) to just trying to get a clean start after massive crushing bills (the majority of filings, I hope).

Bankruptcy is designed to give people a fresh start.  Many famous people have declared bankruptcy and rebounded from it.  These are people like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Mark Twain, Harry Heinz (Ketchup), Milton Hershey (chocolate), Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Larry King (twice), and Donald Trump (twice) among many others.  It was not the end of their life or financial fortunes.  Many people recover from bankruptcy and are able to move on with their lives and go on to relative financial security.

Bankruptcies and foreclosures are trailing economic indicators that show the effects of economic troubles. Unemployment rates near 10% will probably lead to greater numbers of bankruptcy filings in the future.

There are many causes for filing bankruptcy.  Some people live beyond their means always thinking that their income will somehow keep up with their spending and borrowing.  Some people may have an accident and not be able to work for several months and never can get caught up on the bills that continue to pile up while not being able to work.  Sometimes these accidents result in massive medical bills that are the cause of bankruptcy.  The blame game for why people are filing bankruptcy is not productive or useful.  It is good to be prepared and to live within your means but it is impossible to prepare for every eventuality that may befall you.

Whatever the underlying reasons for bankruptcy are the main cure is gainful employment.  People need to be able to work to be able to pay their bills.

The best way to create a prosperous and employed people is freedom and the free circulation of money.  Allow people to open businesses and compete on a level playing field and prosperity will be the result.  People will find ways to make money and to take care of their obligations.  The biggest obstacle to a free market is government regulation and taxation.

There are thousands and millions of people who have ideas for businesses and are short of funds and are unable to comply with all of the regulations to start up these businesses.  If the government got out of the way to let the free market work we would again be the most prosperous people on the planet.

Investment dollars are lacking right now.  The availability of credit is short and many people are finding it difficult to get the funding they need to start businesses.  Many Americans have accumulated Trillions of dollars in accounts outside of the country.  Part of the reason the money is still overseas is the IRS.  The IRS will assess financial penalties, plus interest, and then income tax on the money brought back in.  What if we just let the money back in tax and penalty free if it is used to invest in the economy?  Trillions of private dollars could flow back in to the country which would be a great benefit to everyone.

Comments Welcome

Harry Reid is Wrong

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Harry Reid criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for standing up for the right thing.

Specifically Sen. Reid thinks that the LDS Church should not have become involved in the Proposition 8 battle in California saying it was “a waste of church resources and good will . . . [and] didn’t think it was appropriate”.  In fairness it should be noted that Sen. Reid’s more balanced spokesman said “[w]hile Senator Reid agrees with his church that marriage is between a man and a woman . . . he also believes that the resources that went into the Proposition 8 effort could have been put to better use”.

Sen. Reid also supports a gay rights march on Washington D.C. and a sustained lobbying effort to allow for a federal law enabling gay marriage among other issues.

So, if I read this correctly Sen. Reid believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman but that Federal Law should allow for official recognition of sinful behavior and the LDS Church should just shut up about it.

Sen. Reid is wrong.  If you sincerely believe that a particular behavior is immoral or inherently evil you should pursue laws against that behavior.  In a republic with elected representatives the representatives will make laws that reflect the values of the people they represent.  Last time I checked Nevada was also against Gay marriage.

The LDS Church should get involved in moral issues regarding the laws of the land.  Laws against prostitution, gambling, gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, and any other number of moral issues are up for debate in the public arena and churches should get involved in the debate, just like anyone else.

Sen. Reid was not specific about what goodwill was wasted.  The groups who fought against Proposition 8 already had no great affection for the LDS Church anyway.  If the Church did not get involved in the campaign they probably would have wasted the goodwill they had with other religious groups much more than any theoretical goodwill from the gay rights groups.

Sen. Reid probably wasted more of his good will with the LDS Church by his statements.

Comments Welcome

The First Amendment Revisited

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”  – The First Amendment.  Congress continues to regulate speech in violation of the Constitution.  What we need is to have power returned to the people in their communities to regulate speech and the press.

Right now pornography is a more protected medium of expression than explicitly political speech.  Thanks to the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance bill there are severe limits on the freedom of political speech in the last 30 to 60 days prior to an election, the most important time for open discussion and airing of issues before any election.

Congress has outlawed child pornography but does not know what to do with computer generated images of child porn.   Because of these laws underage kids are now facing problems of being listed on sex offender registries for the rest of their lives for sending pornographic images of themselves or others from their phones with cameras.

This week the Supreme Court will be hearing a case about a movie maker who filmed some dog fighting and used video from other sources in his films.  The film maker was sentenced to 37 months in jail although there were no allegations that he was involved in staging, encouraging, or participating in the dog fights.  The film was found to violate a federal law against trafficking in depictions of animal cruelty.  Michael Vick who organized and paid for a dog fighting ring was only sentenced to 23 months in prison.  The law makes exceptions for videos that have some kind of educational, religious, historical, journalistic, or artistic value but without clear guidelines people who make these videos may face unfair prosecution.

We need a return to local controls again.  Freedom of speech with local influence and restrictions according to the values of the community.

In the early 1800’s the First Amendment applied to the Federal Government, not the states.  Not only could a state persecute people for their religion, but the individual states and municipalities could abridge freedom of speech and of the press.

One example in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“The Church”) was action taken by Joseph Smith and the City of Nauvoo against the Nauvoo Expositor.  The Expositor printed some very inflammatory articles calling for violence against the leaders of The Church.  The city council of Nauvoo met and after taking evidence and having a hearing on the matter declared the Expositor a public nuisance and ordered it destroyed.

Is that such a bad model?  Just imagine if that kind of local control was given to the people again!  Communities and cities could ban pornography and other salacious material.  There would be public airings of difficulties and then people and businesses would know what kind of speech is allowed in their city or community.  Likewise there would be some other communities that would pander and cater to lower and baser elements of society.  When the same rules are applied to an entire State or Nation there is a race to the lowest common denominator for what is barely acceptable speech.  This never allows for a community that wants higher standards.

On a community or even a city level, you can have a marketplace of acceptable speech where community values would rule and allow for a better mix of what is or is not acceptable.  Let the communities have more control.

Comments Welcome

ACORN and Bills of Attainder

ACORN has been in the news quite a bit recently and some of the recent coverage has been based on misinformation regarding an arcane but important bit of Constitutional Law about bills of attainder.  The Defund ACORN Act was added as an amendment to an existing bill and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared a report about whether the act was a bill of attainder as prohibited by Article I of the Constitution.

I watched this video yesterday and I had a hard time determining if MSNBC is stupid, doesn’t do their homework, or is just dumbing down the news even more so that we can be equally misinformed about bills of attainder.  Rachel Maddow explains that the prohibition against bills of attainder means “you can’t pass legislation that directly targets one individual or one specific group of people” (just after the 1 minute mark).   The rest of Rachel Maddow’s report focuses on the point that if the law were applied and enforced equally then many of our fine defense contractors would also be forced to quit all government contracts too.

Politico reported on this same issue as well and also led with this mis-information: “A bill of attainder – which is prohibited in Article 1 of the Constitution — is a law targeted to hurt or help an individual.”

Neither report got it right, but Politico was worse because they have a link right at the bottom of their report to show the text of the CRS report.  In the summary of the report is given the correct definition of a bill of attainder.  The Politico writer did not even bother to read the summary before reporting on what a bill of attainder is or whether this bill would qualify as one.  From the report on the expanded page:

The two main criteria which the courts would likely look to in order to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether “specific” individuals or entities are affected by the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a “punishment” on those individuals.

So in summary, a bill of attainder must be specific to individual(s) or entitie(s) and must be punitive, not regulatory in nature.  Legislatures can target individuals without it being a problem, like the censure of Joe (“you lie”) Wilson which would also be punitive in nature but Congress is allowed to punish its’ members.  Bills can also target individuals for benefits like special legislation granting immigration status to named individuals or commemorative days for specific individuals.  Only when someone is singled out for punitive treatment does it become an issue of constitutional law.

After reading most of the report, it appears that the CRS attorney (like most good ones) does his best to explain the issues and risks with the bill.  The most stringent warning about the bill is in these words: “Thus, it appears that a court may have a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, and find that it violates the prohibition against bills of attainder.”  Not likely, not probably, but “may”.  This is how a cautious attorney describes one of the possible outcomes of litigation because it may happen.

I’d still say it is not likely.

Comments Welcome

Government Provided Security is a Prelude to Captivity

There is a modern day fable about how a farmer captured wild pigs that has a great amount of relevance to today.  One day the farmer went into an open field and laid out corn for the pigs.  At first the wild pigs were suspicious and would not approach the corn but they overcame their fears and ate it.  The farmer continued to provide corn in the same place and the pigs became accustomed to eating with little or no effort on their part because it was easy to get and they already knew where to find food.

As the days passed on the farmer began to place fence posts in the ground around the corn.  This was a little odd to the wild pigs but they were still easily able to get in and out of the open field to enjoy their food and move back into the tree cover where they felt safe.  As the time went on the farmer began to assemble a gate and a fence surrounding the feeding area.  The fence was nearly complete and the pigs were continuing to come and go as they pleased.

The farmer then began to reduce the amount of corn available.  The farmer instead of placing enough and to spare began to make scheduled deliveries of corn at a regular time of the day so that the pigs would recognize him and when the deliveries were to be made.  The pigs were still somewhat cautious and waited for the farmer to leave before they moved in to eat the corn.  Some of the younger pigs were forgetting how to find their own food and becoming dependent on the farmer for their meals and were some of the most eager animals to eat the corn.

The fence was finally completed with the gate left open and the farmer delivered the corn again but this time instead of leaving completely he waited in the shadows for the pigs to come in and begin eating.  The farmer moved in and closed the gate, trapping the pigs.   Now that the pigs were trapped they had no ability to provide for themselves and were dependent on the farmer to provide for their needs.

With every government solution to our financial difficulties there are strings attached and the threat of captivity instead of freedom.  Ronald Reagan spoke of welfare queens and generational welfare.  The people who grow up in the welfare system are conditioned to accept government handouts and look to the government to provide for them.  When I lived in Hartford, Connecticut for a few months I met young women whose future plans were to have babies so they could get on welfare programs with a retirement plan of being cared for by their own children’s welfare payments into the future.  The living conditions there were not pleasant but they weren’t working for it, didn’t plan on a better life, and were content to live in those conditions.

That kind of generational welfare mindset is the end game of many of these government solutions.  If enough people are brought into the welfare system through bailouts and handouts then we will become dependent on the assistance and continue to vote for politicians that will offer the biggest handouts.  Instead of a nation of adults we will become a nation of dependents who need the government to provide for and control them.

Comments Welcome

Why does Dan Brown claim it is all true?

I read Dan Brown’s new book, The Lost Symbol.  At the beginning of the book, there is a claim that “All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real.”

Available at Barnes and Noble

Similar claims were made at the beginning of the Da Vinci Code as well.  Because of the claims of truth, this lead to books like Cracking the Da Vinci Code and What Da Vinci Didn’t Know, among other books, documentaries and History Channel specials.   These books and specials have shown that Dan Brown can write a nice book but is a bit sloppy on his homework and claims of accuracy while unwittingly creating a cottage industry of detailing how Dan Brown was wrong.

Dan Brown’s new book also has a couple of problems with truth claims (at least with regard to the science) of the book.  If you wanted to be charitable you can say that the science is real but was not described accurately in the book.

(Spoiler Alert, Discussion of a very intense part of the book ahead).

One part of the book has Robert Langdon, the hero of the novels believing he is drowning but is actually inside a sensory deprivation chamber full of a breathable liquid.  He is later removed from the chamber and everything is fine.  The science is real, but it has not been approved for testing on humans for several technical reasons such as irreparable and fatal lung damage on animals who have been immersed in these breathable liquids.

The science is a little complicated but to make it simple, the main problem is that your lungs are conditioned to breathing air and not very efficient at moving liquid in and out of your lungs with a sufficient speed to effectively take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide at a rate necessary to support life for very long.  Because of the build up of carbon dioxide in your body you would breathe faster causing  you lungs/diaphragm to over work and be damaged.  One hypothesis is that the mice dying after the experiments were also in polluted liquids and with a more purified sample it would work better.  Regardless of the problems with the technology there are no real world examples of this breathable liquid immersion technology working without also killing the organism experimented on.  Dan Brown’s claim that the science is real is misleading and his further claims that the CIA uses sensory deprivation chambers with this breathable liquid as an interrogation technique is preposterous.

Another science description failure has to do with the CIA helicopter toward the end of the book.  In Chapter 120 the helicopter was close to a large glass skylight and bumped it, shattering the glass.  Many skylights are shatterproof for one thing and the other problem with this event is the reason given for the helicopter bumping the glass.  It was not a pilot error, but “the incline of the pyramid beneath the helicopter was efficiently shedding the thrust sideways, robbing him of lift.”  The lift of a helicopter is provided by the blades spinning, not from pushing off from a flat and level surface.

Mr. Brown, thanks for writing a fun and exciting story but please quit trying to claim that your descriptions of things are true.

Comments Welcome

Activist Court?

OK.  There apparently seems to be a difficulty with the definition of terms.  The “activist” in Activist Court has generally been used to describe when the court more or less makes things up not found in the constitution.  Like a fundamental right to an abortion or gay sex.  Conservative on the other hand has been used to mean a court that upholds the traditional past, conserving institutions, or perhaps even rarely deciding to follow the written words of the constitution.

Now a certain writer is accusing the court of activism by possibly disregarding certain supreme court precedents and even congressional intent in lawmaking.  Mark Willen, writing for Kiplinger’s blog levels accusations that Chief Justice Roberts would be a raging activist on par with Earl Warren if he strikes down that monstrosity, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill.

If the Roberts Court strikes down the legislation it is just giving a plain meaning reading to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  That is not activist, it is refreshing and exactly what the Supreme Court should have been doing for the last 80 years instead of giving a tortuous reading of the constitution to enable the Federal Government to be an all powerful entity.

Congress has enumerated powers, regulating speech is not in the enumerated powers and it is also prohibited by the First Amendment.  I hope the Court gets it right this time.

Comments Welcome

The War on Terror

The eighth anniversay of 9/11  just passed a little while ago.  The United States declared a War on Terror because of the events of 9/11.  This is a timely issue because so many of us know people who have been in the armed forces and been deployed overseas in the War on Terror.  Utah has a very high degree of military participation so this war touches all of us and has no real indications of ending any time soon.

Many people called the 9/11 attacks a new Pearl Harbor and in many ways it was.  The American people were united and returned to their religious roots in the days and weeks following 9/11.  There were record breaking numbers of people donating blood and performing community service.  We have since gone to war in two countries and are still in armed conflict in both countries.  We are scheduled to be withdrawing from Iraq but with no real timeline or schedule of goals in Afghanistan.  Support for the war in Afghanistan is eroding.  Ground Zero has yet to be rebuilt and Osama Bin Laden is still unaccounted for.

To compare: after Pearl Harbor we had fought Italy, Germany, and Japan to unconditional surrender in less four years.  Why is it so hard to win a war today?

Part of the problem is that we did not declare war against a nation, but a course of conduct.  The War on Terror will never be won because there are terrorists the world over that will continue to grow and act out.  The War on Drugs is more than 25 years old and there is no sign of that war ending either.

The prevailing doctrine during the Bush years was to go after terrorists wherever we find them and then to go after the countries that harbor and give sanctuary to known terrorist groups.  As a theory this makes sense, similar to going after drug lords and suppliers in other countries when we have the permission of the leaders of those countries.  The United States has not yet declared war on a nation for failing to aid us in the drug war unless you count the invasion of Panama to depose Manuel Noriega which pretty well gave a warning to the rest of the South American nations to cooperate with us or else.

Most wars end with a surrender and a treaty.  Who can surrender on behalf of terror?  Who can surrender on behalf of drugs?  Without an answer to these questions the war should not continue in the way it has.  There must be a change.

The United States needs to get serious about domestic security and not by spending more money on the Department of Homeland Security.  We need to secure our borders with Mexico and Canada without harrassing law abiding citizens any more than absolutely necessary.  We need to start looking for terrorists and allow for profiling.  If a terrorist attack happens to slip through we should find the responsible parties and then take care of them rather than invading an entire nation.

The War on Terror has not worked out too well so far.  We need to get rid of politically correct sensitivities and take a more realistic approach to the problem.

Comments Welcome

Would This Help You Save?

The President thinks we should be saving more.  The savings rate in this country is down but I suspect it is mostly due to people who are unemployed or underemployed needing to spend their savings to pay the bills.  Whatever the reason is, saving is a good thing to do.  To help us all save more money President Obama has suggested allowing people to take their tax returns in the form of a U.S. Government Savings bond.

U.S. Savings bonds as a savings vehicle make no sense at all right now.  This suggestion is made at a time when the U.S. Senate needs to vote on increasing the debt ceiling for the U.S. Government from $12 Trillion to $13 Trillion or face default on a national scale.  Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, the U.S. Postal Service is operating at a loss, and Congress has approved enough spending to create a $1.6 Trillion deficit this year.  None of these things are good for our confidence in the ability of the Federal Government to pay the bonds back or the value of the dollars repaid.  Runaway spending and the current fiscal policy of the Federal Reserve will probaly cause massive inflation making each dollar you have in savings right now worth less and less.  If you have a significant nest egg it could be completely dissipated by inflation.  Thanks Congress!

President Obama has done nothing at all this year that would promote savings.  A stable dollar is the first thing that needs to happen in order for people to want to start saving money again.

Here are my suggestions to help create more savings opportunities for the American public by promoting economic growth.  1- Stop the runaway spending.  2-cut taxes across the board and watch the tax revenues increase because of the increased economic activity.  JFK cut taxes to promote economic growth and so did Ronald Reagan.  It also worked in Japan when it was tried a few years ago.  This spurring of economic growth will create new jobs which will lead to more savings opportunities.  3- Remove corporate protections.

Removing corporate protections would help restore public confidence in these all too often faceless entities ruled by profit motives.  Social pressure can be brought to bear easier on an individual owning a company as opposed to thousands of shareholders.  A known owner or owners can be influenced to buy local instead of imports and into following better hiring practices much easier than some monolithic corporation.  The stock market really is just high level gambling and trading on the perceived value of a company with little regard to the actual value of the company.  Shareholders are not adding value to the company merely as shareholders and the company gains no value either.

The profit motive needs to be balanced with other considerations like being a good neighbor and seeking to build up the community instead of just chasing another dollar.  A tidal shift of this nature would improve all of our lives.  There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money, the problem is when the desire for money crowds out more worthy motives and hurts the community.

Which plan is more likely to help you save, the President’s or mine?

Comments Welcome

Government Solutions Make Social Problems Worse

Private Solutions at the Family Level are Much Better.

Voices for Utah Children supports increased state spending for children five years of age and younger.  In a news report in the September 7, 2009 print edition of the Deseret News we are informed that Utah is lacking in “nonschool spending” for kids according to a study done by Voices for Utah Children.

The impetus for the story about Utah not spending enough money was a report created by Voices for Utah Children.  The report is mostly a lot of statistical analysis about how Utah could be spending more money on children five and under because sociological studies say that early prevention programs will help to prevent later juvenile delinquincy and aid in educational performance.  The argument is that if we just spent more money on young children it would then preclude the need for the additional money spent ameliorating the societal breakdown not prevented by spending money in the first place.  Or as it is said in the Sept. 7th news article: “‘The fiscally conservative approach adhered to by Utah lawmakers and public agency administrators would dictate greater investment in the development of young children,’ [Janis] Dubno said”.  Hogwash.

Parents inculcate the values and behaviors that will turn societal trends in the direction they should be.  Strong, value-oriented, involved, and loving families are what we need to fix our social and economic problems.  Families will lead the way to fixing these problems, not government.  Every social ill that Voices for Utah Children would like to see fixed through government spending can be fixed through stronger families.

In the early 1960’s President Johnson was pushing for a new welfare program called the Great Society.  Many of these programs have never been abolished or rolled back.  Part of the impetus for the need to act now to save the future was the horrible, mind boggling, skyrocketing, completely unacceptable out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans of NINETEEN PERCENT.  The horror!  Luckily for us we passed the Great Society programs and we solved THAT problem.

Ha-Ha!  Just kidding.  After forty-plus years of government programs or approximately two generations of people who could have had the benefit of these government programs, the out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans is now almost SEVENTY PERCENT.  Among the entire population the rate of out of wedlock birth is 38.5 percent as of 2006. Government programs did not help, it made the targeted problem three times worse.

A better solution is a theory called “The Economics of Goodness” mentioned by Gov. Leavitt in the 1998 State of the State address and again in 2005 while serving as the Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush.  The theory is that a people who make good choices and voluntarily do the right thing will be better off economically than people who do not.  On a societal level there would be less need for drug treatment programs, prison space, or other diversionary programs designed to fix these problems so the money currently spent on these problems would be instead used for better medicine, education, research, and other economically productive uses.

The goodness will come from strong values oriented families,  not government programs.

Comments Welcome