Fwd: What can we do?

Dear Family and friends,

Many if not all of us have wondered what we can do to turn our country around.   I recently severed as a delegate for the Republican Party Convention and learned that there is something very simple that all of us can do.   I learned that in many Utah races, our candidate won the general election but lost when they counted absentee ballots.   The reason is that a 90% of democrat convention attendees voted absentee while les that 10% of Republican attendees voted absentee.   It would take more time that I have to explain why but we can each vote absentee and turn some of these races around.   If you want to know more why give me a call.   Otherwise…PLEASE go to this link right now and print a copy off for every voter in your family and fill it out and mail it in.   You will receive an early ballot and can vote without going to the polls in Nov.   We lost 6 Republican seats last election because we didn't do this.   Here is the link:

http://www.clerk.slco.org/elections/PDFs/PVBM_App-01_10.pdf

Forward this to any of your family that lives in UT.   Thanks

Neil Baird

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

Comcast to acquire right-wing network

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0410/Report_Comcast_to_acquire_rightwing_network.html?showall

ia Political Carnival and Crooks & Liars, we learn that Comcast has announced a new venture with RightNetwork, "an independently-owned media company" whose mission is "to entertain, engage, and enlighten Americans who are looking for content that reflects and reinforces their perspective and worldview. RIGHTNETWORK will consistently impact the political and cultural discussions of Americans" (it is set to launch this summer).

(UPDATE: Comcast tells POLITICO that, while it is considering acquiring RightNetwork, Crooks & Liars' headline -- "Comcast partners with teabaggers to bring new right-wing broadcast network online" -- is misleading. Comcast tells me that it has received RightNetwork's pitch (see the .pdf here) but is only considering at this stage whether to partner with them. RightNetwork's preview .pdf seems to suggest the the partnership is as done deal, callingComcast a "partner" and including this quote from Comcast's Ed Snider: "We're creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who've been looking for an entertainment network and media channel that reflects their point-of-view. Rightnetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and Connect with the American majority about what's right in the world ")

RightNetwork's YouTube page features cameos from Kelsey Grammar and previews for such shows as "Politics & Poker":

It even has its own anthem:

...and its own reality show, "Running":

Posted by Patrick Gavin 08:25 AM

DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html

The U.S. Justice Department has abruptly abandoned what had become a high-profile court fight to read Yahoo users' e-mail messages without obtaining a search warrant first.

In a two-page brief filed Friday, the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation. CNET was the first to report on the Denver case in an article on Tuesday.

Yahoo's efforts to fend off federal prosecutors' broad request attracted allies--in the form of Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation--who argued (PDF) that Americans who keep their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Two years ago, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama had pledged that, as president, he would "strengthen privacy protections for the digital age." This dispute had the potential to test his administration's actual commitment to privacy, which recently became the subject of a legislative push supported by Silicon Valley firms and privacy advocates. The administration has taken a position at odds with that coalition in a second case in Philadelphia involving warrantless tracking of cell phones.

Much of the information about the case in federal court in Colorado remains unclear, including the nature of the possible crime being investigated, how many e-mail accounts are at issue, and whether it was the flurry of publicity in the last few days or something else that prompted the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver to back down.

The brief filed Friday says that Yahoo had turned over more information since March 3 and that "the government has concluded that further production of records and information by Yahoo would not be helpful to the government's investigation."

On December 3, 2009, U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Yahoo to hand over to prosecutors certain records, including the contents of e-mail messages. Yahoo divulged some of the data but refused to turn over e-mail that had been previously viewed, accessed, or downloaded and was less than 181 days old.

Neither Yahoo nor Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne were immediately available for comment on Friday. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver sent CNET an e-mail message saying: "Because this involves an ongoing investigation, I respectfully decline comment, other than to say the brief filed today speaks for itself."

A 17-page brief (PDF) that the Justice Department filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in "electronic storage" that are less than 181 days old. But, Rhyne had argued, the Yahoo Mail messages don't meet that definition.

"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne had written. "This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts." (The Justice Department says that what's known as a 2703(d) order--and is not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants--should let police read e-mail.)

A footnote to Friday's government brief says that the Justice Department "is aware that Yahoo and other various parties have now submitted briefs on various privacy issues in the context of the prior motion to compel. The government respectfully disagrees with positions taken in those briefs, but because the need for the motion to compel has been vitiated by Yahoo's further production, the government declines to litigate this matter in this moot context."

Update 12:23 p.m. PDT: Added more background.

Update 12:45 p.m. PDT: EFF Attorney Kevin Bankston just sent me a link to his post, which claims the Justice Department is "unwilling" to fight civil liberties groups in the courts. (Another explanation is that prosecutors are perfectly willing when the time is right, but didn't think this particular case offered the best chance for them to win.) Bankston writes: "While this is a great victory for that Yahoo subscriber, it's disappointing to those of us who wanted a clear ruling on the legality and constitutionality of the government's overreaching demand."

Update 2:08 p.m. PDT: Yahoo has sent a statement saying: "We are pleased with the decision and we continue to be committed to protecting the privacy of users." A spokesman has repeatedly declined to disclose what, if any, additional information the company has turned over. And EFF's Bankston adds, in e-mail, a thought that buttresses the DOJ-not-wanting-a-public-fight point: "This is an area where the government is very vulnerable, considering that two circuit courts have already disagreed with the government's reading of the statute on that point."

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.story

By Noam N. Levey

April 13, 2010

• E-mail
• Print
• 
  
• Text Size

la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13

Reporting from Washington

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

Many state governments -- which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies -- also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

"It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.

At least in the short term, regulators will be able to do little more than require insurers to publicly explain why they want to raise rates. Consumer advocates think that will not be an effective deterrent against premium increases such as the 39% hike that Anthem Blue Cross sent some California customers last year.

"The irony here is that it was the Anthem rate increase that breathed new life into the healthcare bill," said Jerry Flanagan, medical policy director of Consumer Watchdog, a longtime supporter of tougher premium regulation. "But there is nothing in this bill to guarantee that it doesn't happen again."

The lack of muscle is stoking concerns that more rate jumps -- and an angry backlash from ratepayers -- could undermine support for implementing the healthcare overhaul.

Insurance industry officials say that talk of more regulation is misguided and have urged federal officials to focus instead on containing rising medical costs, which help drive up premiums.

"Politicians are much more comfortable looking at healthcare premiums," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm.

Ignagni, as well as some independent healthcare experts, said policymakers should look at ways to control what hospitals and other providers charge, although few elected officials have shown much appetite for doing so.

Obama endorsed Feinstein's insurance proposal this year, including it in the healthcare blueprint he unveiled in February as Democrats were struggling to revive their proposals. But congressional rules prevented Democratic leaders from including the rate control provision in the final healthcare package.

Many consumer advocates think this enhanced regulation -- known in the industry as "prior approval" authority -- is the only real way to protect ratepayers from insurers, particularly for-profit companies under pressure to generate returns that satisfy Wall Street investors.

Prior approval requires insurers to submit proposed rate increases to regulators, who can then comb through companies' financial and actuarial data to see if the proposals are justified.

Insurers cannot raise premiums without explicit permission from the regulator.

Some states have given prior approval authority to their insurance commissions and have used it to force down premiums.

In New York, the state insurance department reduced nearly a quarter of the proposed premium increases between 1990 and 1995, according to a recent department analysis.

More recently, state regulators in Kansas successfully pushed Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas to reduce a proposed premium increase for some of its elderly customers, according to state Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger.

California, which does not have the power to block health plan increases, has been using similar authority to control property and auto insurance premiums for more than 20 years, said Dwight M. Jaffee, a real estate and finance professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "It has been very successful," said Jaffee, who studied the state's experience.

Health insurance, however, is more complicated than property and auto coverage. And even the most active state regulators typically cannot investigate every proposed change in every segment of the insurance market.

Washington Post: Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067_pf.html

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, April 14, 2010; A02

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."

Reporters for foreign outlets, admitted for the first time to the White House press pool, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they're cracked up to be.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama's opening remarks as part of that limited pool: "The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is."

Alamiri's counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV's Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama's meeting with the Jordanian king: "We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king."

The Press Trust of India, at Obama's meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, "In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave." The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was "ushered out about 30 seconds" after arriving for Obama's meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey's TRT-Turk went to Obama's meeting with the president of Armenia, but "we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds."

Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan's Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to "say hello to the cameras" and "thank you everybody."

Obama's official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China's Central Committee. Excerpts: "The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press. . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press."

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said these were the most restricted such meetings they had ever seen. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents' Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the "protective" pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan's prime minister, saying reporters "were very upset."

In "bilateral" meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama's, there were only written "readouts." Canada: "The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership." India: "The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries." Pakistan: "President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan."

Finally, away from other leaders, Obama took reporters' questions for 20 minutes. They were tough and skeptical questions that punctured the banal readouts: pointing out that the nonproliferation agreements weren't binding, noting China's equivocation on sanctions against Iran, and pressing Obama on the failure to curb North Korea's weapons. The Post's Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.

"I'm not going to comment on their program," Obama said.

Not surprising. But it's still important that the questions are asked.

Original Article Sent to the Daily Herald Re: ASD

http://www.utahsrepublic.org/media-coverage/original-article-sent-to-the-daily-herald/

Original Article Sent to the Daily Herald

 April 12th, 2010

I am working on a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal to the Daily Herald article entitled, "Parents accuse BYU, Alpine District of socialist conspiracy" of 4-11-10, but in the meantime I thought it appropriate to make public the article I originally sent Caleb Warnock from which he drew some inaccurate conclusions.

Is Truth Dead?

Does truth really matter anymore? The professors of our day say it's just democratic. It's what the majority says, right? Morality is all relative, right? Truth is just different things to different people, right? If more people say God doesn't exist than those that say he does, then he doesn't exist right? Welcome to democratic knowledge, a basic tenet of humanism.

If the BYU motto is right, and the glory of God is intelligence, or in other words light and truth, and truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be, then it must be logical to assume that knowledge is not democratic and never has been. Shades of gray only apply to human limitations, but for God, truth exists and our quest as honest seekers of the truth, is to find those absolutes.

In the recent Alpine School District debate over the terms democracy and republic and what form of government our nation has been founded upon, a number of people are asking questions of why it matters what term is used. Is truth dead?

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. The word democracy does not appear in the Constitution at all. The simple truth is, we are a constitutional republic which elects representatives to do the business of the people. The purpose of the website I set up at www.UtahsRepublic.org was to help restore this basic truth to the K-12 state history standards, where the term "republic" didn't appear even one time.

However, beyond this, there is something far more important which has come to light inside the motives of those who are trying to change our language and remove the notion that we are a republic with natural rights bestowed upon us by God.

To begin, it's clear the word democracy has changed over time. The online Merriam-Webster's dictionary actually has 2 contradictory meanings for the word, one as in the true meaning of democracy (mob rule) and the other quite close to what the term republic means. What isn't so clear is why the meaning of the term democracy has changed and what the driving force is behind that change.

John Dewey was one of the original signatories on the first Humanist Manifesto, a document which describes itself as a religion meant to transcend and replace deity-based religions. Their work was based on the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels which they held as an effective means of transforming society into one based on moral relativism, atheism, and democratic knowledge, only accepting that which the 5 senses can detect.

For the last hundred years, we have accepted gradual doses of the secular religion of humanism in direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Utah. Our state constitution says the legislature shall provide for the establishment of an education system which "shall be free from sectarian control." This means the self-proclaimed religion of humanism cannot be taught through our school system.

John Goodlad, a follower and recipient of the John Dewey award, and keynote speaker at a John Dewey conference, came to BYU in 1983 to establish the Public School Partnership with 5 surrounding districts. Goodlad has done this numerous times with universities and school districts around the nation. BYU's education department drew heavily on his book entitled "The Moral Dimensions of Teaching." One of Goodlad's "moral dimensions" is entitled "enculturating the young into a social and political democracy," which is the text and controversy surrounding Alpine School District's large plaque inside their teacher development center.

What does Goodlad mean by this? Is this an innocent phrase meant to instill a sense of patriotism and participation in the democratic process? Or is this revealing of Goodlad's ultimate motives?

John Dewey said that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques "previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil." (School & Society, pg 112)

What did he have in mind? Perhaps we can see some of this evil when we examine what his follower John Goodlad has said. Here are several quotes illustrating Goodlad's belief system.

"Again, we are looking for a balance—for an institution, really—that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children. Parents do not own their children. They have no 'natural right' to control their education fully."-Goodlad

"Education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents, and children all have interests that must be protected." -Goodlad

"Education, public schooling, is necessary to maintain citizenry capable of maintaining a democracy. The knowledge of how to run a democracy is not possessed by all parents equally." -Goodlad

"In the quest for learning, educators must resist the quest for certainty…So it is with morals and patriotism." -Goodlad

"…belief in some that there exists 'objective knowledge' and a 'correct' view of the world.  This is incorrect.  All knowledge is partial and subjective." -Goodlad

Which of you believe the state has a right to your children and has interests that must be protected in the education of your child? Which of you believes it is up to the schools to educate your children because parents don't understand how to run a democracy? Which of you believe morals and knowledge are subjective?

Goodlad then proceeded to get BYU to become a founding member of the National Network for the Renewal of Education (NNER). From their website we find these quotes.

"The NNER pursues the Agenda for Education in a Democracy [the Agenda] and its implementation in member settings, with other educators and partnerships…"

"Why Do We Focus on Democracy? Many different forms of government have tried to meet this challenge: fascism, socialism, communism, and democracy, to name a few. Democracy, while certainly not without its flaws, seems to offer the best hope of enabling us to live together in relative peace and prosperity. This is because democracy has a great virtue that the others generally lack: real democracy strives to ensure that everyone in a society contributes to the decision-making processes that affect their lives."

In other words, the NNER has an ultimate Agenda. Part of that Agenda is to promote democracy as our form of government and to make societal decisions democratic (ie. moral relativism).

Do you as a parent want this for your child? Do you want Goodlad's and Dewey's Agenda "enculturating [your child] into a social and political democracy"?

Ezra Taft Benson said, "I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, John Keynes and others. There are much worse things today that can happen to a child than not getting a full education."

So is enculturating our young into a social and political democracy harmless? Hardly. When a group of people set on a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society in the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man, we come to the crossroads of our culture, and must make that final decision as to who the God of this land really is.

The question we must now address is, with this knowledge coming into in the public space, will those who accepted the good parts of Dewey's and Goodlad's teachings which no doubt attracted them in the first place, now recognize and reject the poison (Agenda) that came with it. If there is not a purging of the poison from the well, the 99.9% crystal clear water, will still continue to harm and kill those that partake of what deceptively appears to be a cool and refreshing well of truth.

Oak Norton

ObamaCare and the Constitution

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575140063408610580.html

The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.

The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.

View Full Image

Associated Press

A pocket sized copy of the U.S. Constitution

***

The most important legal challenge turns on the "individual mandate"—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that "I absolutely reject that notion" that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, "Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society." The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.

Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that "taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.

All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida's constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress's health-care intrusion.

As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers' attempt to restrain government under Article I.

The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution's federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it.

Florida already spends a little over a quarter of its budget on Medicaid, and under ObamaCare that will expand by at least 50% as some 1.3 million new people enroll. Those benefits, and the burden of setting up the new exchanges, will cost Florida $149 million in 2014 and $1.05 billion annually by 2018. The state will either have to cut other priorities or raise taxes. In legal essence, ObamaCare infringes on state sovereignty and unconstitutionally conscripts state officials.

Less potent, at least to our reading, is the challenge on behalf of state laws that bar or exempt their citizens from the mandate. Virginia passed such a law earlier this year, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing on those grounds. But while such efforts serve as healthy political protest, federal laws that are constitutional are supreme under the 10th Amendment, and states can't "nullify" a Congressional action.

***

Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states's rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.

The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground. Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law's constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don't give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.

Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn't be able to trample the Constitution as well.

UVU's US Senate Debate: Youtube

Thank you for those of you who showed up to UVU's US Senate Debate!  Every candidate, with the exception of Sam Granato (D), attended the debate.  One hundred and thirty GOP state delegates were counted but we estimate that number to be at least 150.  We didn't anticipate such a large and enthusiastic crowd to show up. We're sorry that the event went longer than we advertised and we're also sorry for those of you who had trouble finding parking or a place to sit.  In the future we won't underestimate the involvement of GOP delegates!

If you couldn't attend for any reason click on the links below to watch the debate on youtube in its entirety.  We had difficulties filming/editing/posting the videos so Mike Lee's campaign was generous enough to allow us to use their videos.  Each candidate was given an opportunity to respond to the questions asked.

Introductory Comments Part 1

Introductory Comments Part 2

Introductory Comments Part 3

Question to Bob Bennett

Question to Scott Bradley

Question to Tim Bridgewater

Question to David Chiu

Question to Merrill Cook

Question to Cherilyn Eagar

Question to Leonard Fabiano

Question to Jeremy Friedbaum

Question to Mike Lee

Question to Christopher Stout

Closing Statements

We conducted an unannounced exit poll.  While there were some who declined to participate these are the results of the nearly 200 who did:

Mike Lee: 49.4%

Cherilyn Eagar: 16.6%

Tim Bridgewater: 16.3%

Scott Bradley: 7.3%

Bob Bennett: 6.7%

Merrill Cook: 1.9%

Christopher Stout: 1%

Leonard Fabiano: .5%

Jeremy Friedbaum: .3%

David Chiu: 0%

Gratefully,

James Davis

On Behalf of UVU's Student Government, College Republicans, & Young Americans for Liberty

More on "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy."

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/article_7bccc151-cb34-5dd2-ae52-fab607b81b17.html

Some local parents are leveling serious charges against Alpine School District and Brigham Young University.

Parents are saying district and university officials are participating in "a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society with the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man."

These parents acknowledge their argument is both complex and far-reaching. If true, the charge means the school district is either wittingly or unwittingly part of a nationwide socialist movement. Parents say it is the manifestation of a specific warning given by LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson, who had named names in the warning. More on that in a moment.

Depending on your point of view, the parents may just be making much ado of nothing. Whatever you believe, concerned parents are asking other district parents to form their own opinion about whether the district is working to remove God from the classroom -- and history.

 

Conspiracy?

Oak Norton, one of the most outspoken critics of Alpine School District and founder of UtahsRepublic.org, begins with the premise that truth can only be defined by God. He sees BYU and Alpine School District as part of a national conspiracy working to carefully teach the nation's children to believe that the United States government is based on the power of people, rather than the power of God.

This effort, he said, is guided by "the motives of those who are trying to change our language and remove the notion that we are a republic with natural rights bestowed upon us by God."

As proof of his accusations, Norton offers a detailed logic.

Emblazoned about 30 feet across one wall of the school district's headquarters is a plank of the district's motto: "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy." District officials acknowledge this comes from a BYU initiative on education associated with national education writer John Goodlad. Norton said that Goodlad is a proponent of John Dewey, one of the original signatories on the first Humanist Manifesto, a document that describes itself as a religion meant to transcend and replace deity-based religions. The manifesto was based on the Communist Manifesto.

According to Norton, John Goodlad is the recipient of an award named for Dewey, and also has been a keynote speaker as a conference focusing on Dewey.

"Goodlad came to BYU in 1983 to establish the Public School Partnership with five surrounding school districts," Norton said. "Goodlad has done this numerous times with universities and school districts around the nation. BYU's education department drew heavily on his book entitled 'The Moral Dimensions of Teaching.' One of Goodlad's 'moral dimensions is entitled 'enculturating the young into a social and political democracy,' which is the text and controversy surrounding Alpine School District's large plaque inside their teacher development center."

Goodlad, according to Norton, taught that parents do not own their children and they have no natural right to fully control their education.

"Education is a task for both parents and state," Norton quotes Goodlad as teaching. "The state, parents and children all have interests that must be protected ... Education, public schooling, is necessary to maintain citizenry capable of maintaining a democracy. The knowledge of how to run a democracy is not possessed by all parents equally ... In the quest for learning, educators must resist the quest for certainty ... So it is with morals and patriotism ... [There is a] belief in some that there exists 'objective knowledge' and a 'correct' view of the world. This is incorrect.All knowledge is partial and subjective."

 

To some, alarm bells sound

To Norton and many other parents, all this rings alarm bells.

"Which of you believe the state has a right to your children and has interests that must be protected in the education of your child?" Norton told the Daily Herald. "Which of you believes it is up to the schools to educate your children because parents don't understand how to run a democracy? Which of you believe morals and knowledge are subjective?"

Goodlad "proceeded to get BYU to become a founding member of the National Network for the Renewal of Education," Norton said. According to that group's Web site, the NNER "pursues the Agenda for Education in a Democracy ... Democracy, while certainly not without its flaws, seems to offer the best hope of enabling us to live together in relative peace and prosperity. This is because democracy has a great virtue that the others generally lack: real democracy strives to ensure that everyone in a society contributes to the decision-making processes that affect their lives."

Norton sees all this as skewing toward moral relativism.

"Do you as a parent want Goodlad's and Dewey's agenda enculturating your child into a social and political democracy?" he said.

As proof that his alarm is more than just alarmism, Norton offers this quote from LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson: "I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, John Keynes and others. There are much worse things today that can happen to a child than not getting a full education."

That should be enough to give local parents pause, Norton said.

"So is enculturating our young into a social and political democracy harmless?" Norton said. "Hardly. When a group of people set on a deliberate course of action to subvert the moral fabric of a society in the goal to eliminate the worship of deity and replace it with the worship of man, we come to the crossroads of our culture, and must make that final decision as to who the God of this land really is.

"The question we must now address is, with this knowledge coming into in the public space, will those who accepted the good parts of Dewey's and Goodlad's teachings which no doubt attracted them in the first place, now recognize and reject the poison agenda that came with it? If there is not a purging of the poison from the well, the 99.9-percent crystal clear water will still continue to harm and kill those that partake of what deceptively appears to be a cool and refreshing well of truth."

 

The rebuttal

The Daily Herald provided both BYU and Alpine School District with the accusations of Norton and other parents and asked both the university and the district to respond.

"The teacher preparation programs at Brigham Young University strive to prepare educators who act with moral integrity and possess social and academic competence," said Richard Young, dean of the BYU David O. McKay School of Education. "Our goal is to graduate future teachers who can safeguard the learning of all students by teaching and caring for each student as an individual. We expect our graduates to be educators who can prepare today's youth to think deeply, to read and write well, to analyze and solve problems, and to be responsible citizens.

"As one enters the west doors of the David O. McKay Building on our campus, the center of attention is a display featuring the educational philosophy of President David O. McKay. The quotes displayed represent the core mission of the David O. McKay School of Education. Among these quotes we read: 'The teaching of religion in public schools is prohibited, but the teaching of character and citizenship is required.' On another occasion President McKay stated, 'It is well for educators everywhere when teaching the young to have in mind the three C's as well as the three R's mentioned so proverbially. By the three 'C's' I mean character, conduct, citizenship.'

"These values have long formed the basis for BYU's teacher-education program, with the goal being to build a foundation of better-trained educators and better-educated citizens throughout the United States and the world."

Rhonda Bromley, spokeswoman for Alpine School District, said the district "will continue to move forward focusing on student achievement and progress. We will continue to include parents and respect the roles each of us play in the education of students. We will continue to have stewardship in preparing students to become contributing members of society. The school board will continue tofollow processes in making future decisions as well as reviewing things that are already in place.

"If anyone has concerns about the direction and goals of Alpine School District, we invite you into our schools to see for yourself what is going on. We invite you to speak with members of the PTA as well as school and district community council. We are excited about the wonderful things happening in our classrooms every day between teachers and students. Alpine School District is transparent and committed to our mission, vision, values and goals."

 

What it means

Coming along with the broader questions about moral relativism and control of a child's education is a heated discussion of the meaning of a single phrase -- the last four words of the district's mission statement: "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy."

This phrase has sent chills through many parents.

Concerned parent Jared Carman points out that social democracy is defined by Merriam-Webster as a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means, or a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

"As an example, Western European countries, while casually called 'democracies,' are more accurately described as 'social democracies,' wherein the people have voted for themselves a socialist welfare state," Carman said. "Such a state is characterized by a powerful central government that provides for the 'equitable distribution' of the citizens' wealth. These European forms of government are quite different than America's Republic, where the government has enumerated and limited powers, mainly the safeguarding of the rights of the American people.

"In response to public outcry, the ASD school board explained that for them, the phrase 'social and political democracy' refers to the social and political skills children need to successfully contribute in America's culture of freedom. This explanation defies reason, in light of universally accepted definitions of the words, and especially given the origin and context of the phrase 'Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.' "

Norton saidthe word democracy does not appear in the Constitution at all; rather, the Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government.

 

The basics

Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are each types of republics, said F. Dennis Farnsworth Jr., professor of political science at Utah Valley University. The most important component of a republic is "the adherence tothe rule of law, which means that especially those in high places may not with impunity break the law," he said.

Democracy is governmentby the people.The people votethe officials into power or fulfill the responsibilities of public policy themselves.

Ancient Athens was an example of a government which was both a republic and a democracy. The rule of law was enshrined and law breakers were punished. Atheniansvoted officials into power in some cases, butin many cases,did the work of government themselves: fought the wars, manned the juries, served in the senate, etc.

The U.S."began as a republic -- an aristocratic republic. Washington, Adams, Jefferson,Madison, etc., were all aristocrats," Farnsworth said."During the days of Andrew Jackson the aristocratic republictransformed itself into a democratic republic, with the common peoplehaving a say in things and getting elected to politicalpositions. A democratic republic is what the U.S. remains to this day, with the people having a voice in the formation of public policy.This evolution of the political system in the United States should be viewed as natural and normal and not the result ofconspiracy.It's OK to educate the youth to the effect that the U.S. is a democracy as well as a republic because, in fact, it is."

 

Words matter

That the U.S. form of government is a Republic is indisputable, said concerned parent Jared Carman. The Constitution states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government."

"By contrast, the meaning of the word 'democracy' depends entirely upon the context in which it appears," Carman said. "Unfortunately, modern sources give two very different meanings. Merriam-Webster defines a democracy as 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.' "

According to Carman, the first definition is the original meaning of the word "and was both warned against by America's founding fathers and promoted by America's enemies."

Both Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifest, and communist leader Vladimir Lenin taught that democracy is the road to socialism, Carman said. In contrast, John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned that democracy is fleeting.

"While some speak loosely of the American form of government as a democracy, doing so invites ambiguity, as one never knows which definition is intended: the first, direct democracy, as meant by Adams, Marx and Lenin, or the second, representative democracy," Carman said. "The squishy term 'democracy' appeared 13 times on the mission statement page of the Alpine School District Web site, prior to March 9. In an effort to clarify, the board recently offered their own definition of ademocracy as a 'type ofrepublic.' This unique definition only adds to the confusion."

Posted in Education on Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:40 am Updated: 7:47 pm. | Tags: Brigham Young University, Alpine School District

Consumers in U.S. Face the End of an Era of Cheap Credit

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/business/economy/11rates.html

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ

Published: April 10, 2010

• SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

Even as prospects for the American economy brighten, consumers are about to face a new financial burden: a sustained period of rising interest rates.

Multimedia

Graphic

Household Debt vs. Interest Rates

That, economists say, is the inevitable outcome of the nation's ballooning debt and the renewed prospect of inflation as the economy recovers from the depths of the recentrecession.

The shift is sure to come as a shock to consumers whose spending habits were shaped by a historic 30-year decline in the cost of borrowing.

"Americans have assumed the roller coaster goes one way," said Bill Gross, whose investment firm, Pimco, has taken part in a broad sell-off of government debt, which has pushed up interest rates. "It's been a great thrill as rates descended, but now we face an extended climb."

The impact of higher rates is likely to be felt first in the housing market, which has only recently begun to rebound from a deep slump. The rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage has risen half a point since December, hitting 5.31 last week, the highest level since last summer.

Along with the sell-off in bonds, the Federal Reserve has halted its emergency $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage debt, placing even more upward pressure on rates.

"Mortgage rates are unlikely to go lower than they are now, and if they go higher, we're likely to see a reversal of the gains in the housing market," said Christopher J. Mayer, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School. "It's a really big risk."

Each increase of 1 percentage point in rates adds as much as 19 percent to the total cost of a home, according to Mr. Mayer.

The Mortgage Bankers Association expects the rise to continue, with the 30-year mortgage rate going to 5.5 percent by late summer and as high as 6 percent by the end of the year.

Another area in which higher rates are likely to affect consumers is credit card use. And last week, the Federal Reserve reported that the average interest rate on credit cards reached 14.26 percent in February, the highest since 2001. That is up from 12.03 percent when rates bottomed in the fourth quarter of 2008 — a jump that amounts to about $200 a year in additional interest payments for the typical American household.

With losses from credit card defaults rising and with capital to back credit cards harder to come by, issuers are likely to increase rates to 16 or 17 percent by the fall, according to Dennis Moroney, a research director at the TowerGroup, a financial research company.

"The banks don't have a lot of pricing options," Mr. Moroney said. "They're targeting people who carry a balance from month to month."

Similarly, many car loans have already become significantly more expensive, with rates at auto finance companies rising to 4.72 percent in February from 3.26 percent in December, according to the Federal Reserve.

Washington, too, is expecting to have to pay more to borrow the money it needs for programs. The Office of Management and Budget expects the rate on the benchmark 10-year United States Treasury note to remain close to 3.9 percent for the rest of the year, but then rise to 4.5 percent in 2011 and 5 percent in 2012.

The run-up in rates is quickening as investors steer more of their money away from bonds and as Washington unplugs the economic life support programs that kept rates low through the financial crisis. Mortgage rates and car loans are linked to the yield on long-term bonds.

Besides the inflation fears set off by the strengthening economy, Mr. Gross said he was also wary of Treasury bonds because he feared the burgeoning supply of new debt issued to finance the government's huge budget deficits would overwhelm demand, driving interest rates higher.

Nine months ago, United States government debt accounted for half of the assets in Mr. Gross's flagship fund, Pimco Total Return. That has shrunk to 30 percent now — the lowest ever in the fund's 23-year history — as Mr. Gross has sold American bonds in favor of debt from Europe, particularly Germany, as well as from developing countries like Brazil.

Last week, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note briefly crossed the psychologically important threshold of 4 percent, as the Treasury auctioned off $82 billion in new debt. That is nearly twice as much as the government paid in the fall of 2008, when investors sought out ultrasafe assets like Treasury securities after the collapse ofLehman Brothers and the beginning of the credit crisis.

Though still very low by historical standards, the rise of bond yields since then is reversing a decline that began in 1981, when 10-year note yields reached nearly 16 percent.

From that peak, steadily dropping interest rates have fed a three-decade lending boom, during which American consumers borrowed more and more but managed to hold down the portion of their income devoted to paying off loans.

Indeed, total household debt is now nine times what it was in 1981 — rising twice as fast as disposable income over the same period — yet the portion of disposable income that goes toward covering that debt has budged only slightly, increasing to 12.6 percent from 10.7 percent.

Household debt has been dropping for the last two years as recession-battered consumers cut back on borrowing, but at $13.5 trillion, it still exceeds disposable income by $2.5 trillion.

The long decline in rates also helped prop up the stock market; lower rates for investments like bonds make stocks more attractive.

That tailwind, which prevented even worse economic pain during the recession, has ceased, according to interviews with economists, analysts and money managers.

"We've had almost a 30-year rally," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. "That's come to an end."

Just as significant as the bottom-line impact will be the psychological fallout from not being able to buy more while paying less — an unusual state of affairs that made consumer spending the most important measure of economic health.

"We've gotten spoiled by the idea that interest rates will stay in the low single-digits forever," said Jim Caron, an interest rate strategist with Morgan Stanley. "We've also had a generation of consumers and investors get used to low rates."

For young home buyers today considering 30-year mortgages with a rate of just over 5 percent, it might be hard to conceive of a time like October 1981, when mortgage rates peaked at 18.2 percent. That meant monthly payments of $1,523 then compared with $556 now for a $100,000 loan.

No one expects rates to return to anything resembling 1981 levels. Still, for much of Wall Street, the question is not whether rates will go up, but rather by how much.

Some firms, like Morgan Stanley, are predicting that rates could rise by a percentage point and a half by the end of the year. Others, like JPMorgan Chase are forecasting a more modest half-point jump.

But the consensus is clear, according to Terrence M. Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy for J. P. Morgan Securities. "Everyone knows that rates will eventually go higher," he said.