Married too soon

Yesterday the Utah Statesman ran a front page article about a man who had stolen 44 books and sold 40 of them back. When he was arrested he said that times were hard for his family, and that they had just had another child.
This got me thinking, and I believe that the LDS church is complicit in this crime. For years the state of Utah has seen it's age at first marriage be the lowest in the nation. For years the LDS church claimed that it was not doctrine that people marry so young, but this is simply not true. This year during April conference there was an emphasis on marriage. The priesthood session was about men needing to "buck up" and marry. If it is coming from the priesthood itself, that is doctrine.
The man in this story was 24 married with children and a recent graduate of USU. I do not think that anyone would claim that stealing is a decision made by a rational or reasonable mind. I have seen the church stance on marriage change, as well as the church stance on self sufficiency become more extreme. This young man had other options, but if he was raised to think that using public assistance was a sign of moral weakness, he would not avail himself of it.
The simple fact is this.
The LDS church's leadership are engaging in reckless and irresponsible behavior by telling young people to marry while they are too young. We are still in a recession, and to tell college age kids to marry and start having children in this weak economy is terrible advice. Nothing is lost if you let these young people grow up and start a family a little later in life, but so much could be gained. The divorce rate within the church would go down, and these couples would have a chance at bringing children into a more financially stable home.
I am not absolving this young man of his guilt, but the religious and societal pressures to marry and start having kids no doubt played a part in his desperate decision to steal for his family.

Food shortage

Fox news is famous for fear mongering, Glenn Beck has been doing it for a year now. The new tactic, is the idea that there is a food shortage. The truth is that this "shortage" is nothing more than a play on the commodities market. The market creates what it wants in order to make money. So even though there is plenty of rice, they say there is a shortage and people begin to stockpile food. This talk serves to help members of the LDS church increase there amount of food storage, and feel justified in the belief that food storage is a good idea.
I am not here to say that food storage is bad, I actually think that if done in a state of calm, it can be a good idea. What I object to, is the idea of hoarding food. I also find it a bit frightening that the same people who hoard food, are hoarding guns. This seems backward to me. If the point is to take care of your family, and if we are all family, why would you need weapons.
Let's back up a bit.
If there is a situation where you are cut off from the food supply, would you really feel good sitting in your home full of food and guns, while your greater "family" is hungry?
It is essential that we take care of ourselves, so that we can take care of each other. That does not include the hoarding of food. If you come across someone who is in need, and you leave them there, knowing that you have a full pantry, what is the point?
I see the need for a 72hr kit, I even see the need for lots of water, and some freeze dried food. I do not see the point in stockpiling things like hamburger helper and mac and cheese. these items will be of no use if you do not have access to milk or meat, so you are saving this just to save it. That seems backwards and selfish.

Strict constitution

I was not going to give this man any consideration at all. Yesterday I went to a lecture given by a man who called himself a constitutional expert. He received his degree from BYU (Brigham Young University), the same place that Sen. Mike Lee graduated from. This makes his degree illegitimate in my view, because they are taught that God helped write the constitution. They are also taught that this country is founded on Christian values, which it is not.
The guy was a conspiracy theorist who had no ideas of his own, so I was not going to write about him. What made me change my mind, was the thought that his popularity might grow if I didn't say something.
So one by one, I will take apart (or attempt to) his ridiculous claims.
1. The constitution is not a living document.
FALSE: written into the document itself is the means by which it can be amended. If the founding fathers had wanted the document to stay the same for time and eternity, it wouldn't be difficult to amend, it would be impossible.
2. The 3/4ths clause was established so that slaves could be free by 1808.
FALSE: This clause was written into the constitution to ensure that the southern states did not gain an unfair advantage when it came to representation. There were many people at the national conventions that wanted to end slavery, but they did not intend to do so via the 3/4ths clause.
3. If we raise the debt ceiling the constitution will become void and we will have to write a new one.
FALSE: Raising the debt ceiling allows us to continue to borrow money. There is no horrible tragedy to follow, beyond accruing debt.
4. The Illuminati want us destroyed so that the French can take over.
You know I'm not going to touch this one. If you want to read about them here is a link. FYI they are not French, and did not morph into the communist party.Or did they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
5. It is cheaper for uninsured people to go to the emergency room than it is to provide Medicaid and Medicare.
FALSE: The cost of one emergency room visit is much higher than the cost of preventative care. I cannot believe that I have to explain this. It is cheaper to let someone visit a primary care physician and get a prescription for his high blood pressure, than it is to admit him after he has had a heart attack and needs major surgery.
6. Global climate change is an unproven theory.
FALSE: Glaciers are melting, strange weather patterns are developing, the fact is the evidence is overwhelming.
7. If corporations could do what they want without regulation, they would bring jobs back to America.
PROBABLE: I would like to just point out that the cost would be great. The health of our food, water, air, would be greatly depleted. Also safety standards would revert to the days of the industrial revolution, so great I have a job, but I work 16 hours a day for $2. Wow that sounds great.
8. Without social programs there would be no need for taxes.
FALSE: We would still need roads, bridges and other infrastructure. We would still need public schools. Also, since this guy claims to be a constitutional expert; our government has the right to tax.
To be fair I will present his hypothesis.
His idea for getting revenue for all the items mentioned above is this. Increase taxes and terr-ifs on imported goods. Also we would have to repeal NAFTA so that we can tax our allies. The other plan is sell all public land for development. So no more wilderness areas, no more national parks. Just a bleak dystopia. A place polluted and overdeveloped where we enjoy 100% employment in the sweatshops owned by GE, LEVI'S and WAL MART.
When I suggested giving everyone access to health care he said I was living in a dream world. I would rather live in my "dream world" where there is clean water, than is his nightmare republic.

Reaction to GOP budget

First of all, as the economist I quoted previously has said, Ryan's idea is not new. It is called privatizing Medicare, and has been tried before. My first problem with this idea of changing Medicare is this. People who now benefit will still get "old' Medicare, meaning those my mothers age and older would still receive medical treatment. For everyone else Medicare would change from a provider of health care to nothing more than a rebate program. People would have to find their own insurance carrier when they retire, and the federal government would give them a rebate on care the individual finds and pays for. Now keep in mind that the GOP want a full repeal of the new health care law which does away with pre existing conditions. So this private insurance that you have to find at retirement, if the GOP has their way, could reject you based on your health. Since that hasn't happened yet lets ignore that for now. Okay so you are ready to retire and you have to find a provider for yourself. That provider could deny any care that you might need because they are a private insurance company. The next problem is finding a doctor. See Medicare is excepted everywhere, this would not be the case with a private insurance. So it puts a lot more stress on the individual to find insurance that they can afford, and that will be excepted by their doctor. Ryan says that this will save money. Well of course it will, not paying for things saves money. This is not a fix to a broken program, this is breaking a program that has a few flaws. With the new health care law costs to individuals and states decreases over time. The problem with Ryan is that he is short sighted. If I can refer to an analogy I made before, if you don't pay your rent you save money. The problem is you end up homeless. By not supporting Medicare more people will end up without insurance. Ryan is not a genius, he's a shortsighted entitled child.

Now on to giving states block grants for Medicaid. This sounds like a reasonable idea right. Why not let states customize Medicaid, they know what their people need right? Well yes and no. States have already cut essential health care to disabled and low income adults. The only thing that keeps them from doing the same to children is Federal mandate. By giving Medicaid as a block grant that Federal mandate would be void. So states could, and no doubt would, cut services to children. Why would they do such an awful thing you ask. Because many people in Republican led states are under the impression that nearly all Medicaid dollars go to illegal immigrants. So to satisfy their voters Republicans will cut dollars to "criminals". I could go on, but perhaps this post is long enough.

Paul Ryan budget.

First let's start with a quote about the budget

I want to join those in commending Representative Paul Ryan, but for a slightly different reason. Representative Ryan has provided a valuable service to the country by tossing out a piece of warmed-over dreck that calls for a massive upward redistribution from the nation's workers to the rich. This is clear to anyone who reads it.

The reason why this is so useful is that there is nothing in the Ryan plan that has not been circulated in policy circles for decades. Almost everything in the plan has been tried and failed. The plan ignores obvious economic realities, such as the bubble-induced recession that has left 25 million people unemployed or underemployed. It doesn't lay a glove on the rich and powerful, while threatening to undermine the limited economic security enjoyed by tens of millions of middle class families.

Yet many pundits will applaud the plan as brave, innovative and creative. In making these pronouncements these pundits will immediately reveal themselves as worthless hacks who either lack the ability or desire to do their own thinking. Their endorsement of the Ryan plan will be like a scarlet letter permanently marking them as someone who has no place in a serious policy discussion. For this reason we owe Mr. Ryan a real debt of gratitude. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, 4/5/11]

Now a link to the budget.

http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
Now let's read it and then I will come back and talk about it.

Utah says “no” to alcohol.

.The state of Utah has decided that in order to save the state 2.2 million dollars, they have to close seven liquor stores. This proposal is being heralded as a cost saving measure. Although many of us here in Utah are finding that a little hard to swallow; especially when these stores bring in a profit that dwarfs the cost it takes to run them. On Thursday March 31, 2011, the first of these seven stores closed. This store made 20 thousand dollars for the state last year. This is the revenue from just one store. When you consider that the total cost of running these stores is a combined 22 million it is hard to imagine that any state claiming economic hardship would turn away profit. It is estimated that these seven stores bring in ten times their cost in revenue from the state. This revenue isn’t the only potential loss for the state either. Utah is a big skiing destination, and many seem to think that making alcohol harder to come by will cause people to ski elsewhere. This could have a huge impact on the Sundance film festival also. One of the stores that are closing is in Park City, what will Utah have to offer a group of partying celebrities in place of liquor?

So now that we have established that this has nothing to do with money; let’s look at the real reason behind this move.

Like many Republican led states Utah is gearing up for the presidential election. They are continuing to pander to their ultra conservative base. In an attempt to show them that they embody the Christian ideal. They have to attack anything that is perceived as anti-family

If you put this “budget cut” in perspective it fits with the Republican plan, at the national level Republicans are fighting abortion, sex education and immigration. They are fighting the demon liquor at the state level. A similar “budget cut” passed in New Jersey.

As an Utahan who values freedom of choice I am first appalled at the idea that my right to engage in a legal activity is being infringed upon.. Since getting mad has no real impact, I will instead ask a question.

Will the LDS churches give the state the 18 million dollars it is set to lose with this “cost cutting” measure?