Both and Neither

If I had to bet on the most prevalent reason that Mormons are Republicans instead of Democrats, my wager could be summed up in one word: Abortion.  It's a lightening rod, black and white issue for most Mormons.  On this matter, Mormons may think that Democrats are the evil party of "abortions on demand," while Republicans virtuously defend the rights of the unborn.  Some Democrats, on the other hand, vilify those who are pro-life as forcing women to endure the psychological torture of carrying a baby which is the product of rape or incest.
For that reason, I've never done a post on abortion before. The extremists on both sides are wrong in many ways.   My brothers have a tried and true rhetorical technique which I'm going to use in this situation.  If someone asks me "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?"  I will respond with "yes."  The black and white categories don't adequately capture my views.  I am both and neither at the same time.

I am pro-life because I believe that we should value life, and the unborn should have advocates because they cannot speak for themselves.  I am pro-choice because I don't think the government should invade my body, or the body of any woman, like that.  And yes, I am not pro-life because I believe that a cluster of cells is different than a human being (I acknowledge this leaves me vulnerable to slippery slope arguments).  I am not pro-choice because I think that abortion should be regulated and restricted in some ways.

My 8th grade science teacher (who tried, bless him, to make health class for teenagers less awkward), had some wise words that I'm hoping we can all get behind.  Speaking about abortion, he said "the one thing both sides can agree on is that there should be fewer abortions."  Basically this captures my position.  Abortion should be legal, and rare.  We should create a world where women don't feel they have to get an abortion, but if they do, it should be done safely instead of in a back alley by a black market doctor.

Ironically enough, it's the position of 1994 Mitt Romney.  Then-candidate Romney discussed how someone he knew had died from an illegal botched abortion in the 1960's before Roe v. Wade.  More recently, Savita Halappanavar, a woman who was allegedly denied an abortion under Ireland's very strict anti-abortion laws, may have died as a result (the case is still being investigated).  The Mormon church's statement is that abortion is only allowed in cases of rape, incest, when the mother's life is at stake, or when the baby has severe mental defects which would not allow it to live beyond birth.  That is my own personal position, but...I still think abortion should be legal in this country.

Suppose in 2016 that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, or another pro-life Republican is elected and manages to stack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges.  Suppose further that in a few years after that, the court gets an abortion case and overturns Roe v. Wade so that abortion is illegal again in this country.  To me, the result of this would be that rich women go to other countries and get abortions anyway, and poor women die as a result of illegal abortions.  This does not actually reduce the number of abortions, but just compounds the misery by resulting in needless deaths of women.  What will reduce the number of abortions?  This is the subject of another post.  For now, I am both and neither in the abortion debate.  I want a better and less extreme position.

Here are some better written posts on this subject that have got me thinking about this topic:
- By a former supporter of abortion who is now pro-life
- By a former pro-lifer who is now pro-choice (sorta?)

I encourage you to read *both* pieces no matter where you have a position on abortion.  They are both thoughtful explanations of a topic that for too long has been reduced to shouted slogans and nasty exchanges.

Take A Bow

I don't know what songs are on your election day playlist, but I'm thinking of this song:



Take a Bow, America.  We have survived our first election with a Mormon presidential candidate as a serious contender.  With some minor exceptions, there have been no ugly anti-Mormon tirades and no sustained attacks on Mitt Romney because of his faith.  As a Mormon and political junkie, I just want to say: Thank You, America.  Thank you for respecting my beliefs enough to consider Mitt Romney just a normal American.  I know we're a bit unique (we like to refer to ourselves as a "peculiar people"), but thanks for respecting religious pluralism.

Well done.

Oh, and DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

Adult Themes

Being an adult is highly overrated.  You have to do your own laundry, cook your own meals, buy gas, pay utility bills, go to work, and generally do other "adult" things that do not generally make it into X-rated movies (not that I would know).  When I was a child, I thought that being an adult would be awesome.  I could do anything I wanted!  I could drive!  I could eat chocolate for breakfast (and sometimes I do)!  I could stay out after curfew!  Sure, some of these things are fun, but somewhere along the line, being an adult became less fun and more responsibility.

One of the most difficult things for me about gaining adulthood (at least in age, if not maturity) is learning to deal with nuance.  I like my world divided into black and white, with stark lines between good and evil.  Obviously, sometimes it is!  But as I grow up, I find that often, the world isn't as black and white as I would like it to be.  There is gray in the world, and it's learning to live with that and understand it that really makes you an adult, in my opinion.  I was reminded of this by a song from "The King and I" called "A Puzzlement" (YouTube video linked below).

The line "There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know" has resonated with me.  I can't speak for others, but for myself the world gets a lot more confusing when I try to see others' points of view or understand complex, non-black-and-white issues.  So often in politics, people seem SURE that they have the right answer and there is only ONE right answer.  We are right, they say, and the "other" party is completely wrong.  

Of course this was on display at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, and I'm sure it will feature prominently at the Democratic one in Charlotte this week.  Republicans blasted Democratic ideas and policies as failures and blamed them basically for everything bad that happened in the last four years.  Both sides seem determined to demolish the other party, and are not interested in governing or compromising with them.  However, by demonizing your opponents, you make both sides more ideologically entrenched and unwilling to give quarter.  This just further reduces the level of honest debate that we can have, meanwhile turning off people from the political process.

The truth is, this country is pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and you are never going to get the other party to go away.  Ignoring them and assuming that their ideas don't count will not make them go away.  You are holding on to a black and white world in which all members of your party are saints and the other party is full of heretics and devils.  It's childish.  There was a depressing article in the NY Times Magazine recently - "Feel the Loathing on the Campaign Trail."  One of the anecdotes featured the author questioning the Democrats on what made them think that the Republicans in congress were any more likely to work with Obama if he won re-election.  Their response was to say "Our winning will teach them a lesson."

Somehow, I don't think either the Republicans or Democrats are likely to "grow up" and learn that lesson, no matter who wins in November.  Neither party seems willing to govern and compromise with the other side.  But instead of blaming the other side, let's work on our OWN attitudes.  WE can start by trying earnestly to listen to the other side and see the good in it.  By trying to accept that we don't have all the answers, and that there are plenty of good and bad ideas in both parties.  That's why I watched so much of the Republican National Convention over the past week - I really do think that some of the ideas they have are good, and I hope Obama will listen too.  

If you missed it because it wasn't in primetime (unlike a ridiculous, chair-wielding maniac Hollywood star who shall remain in the priceless hands of the late-night comedians), here was my favorite part of the convention, where some ordinary Mormons got to talk about how Mitt Romney helped them when he was their Bishop - I found it very moving.  It was nice to hear from some ordinary people who seem real.

Mitt really does seem like a good guy - which is why I'm not voting for him, I want him to have plenty of time to serve in his church callings (wink, wink).

What Romney's VP Pick Says About Him

It's probably pretty clear from the title of this blog that Governor Romney didn't have much chance of winning me over with his pick of Vice Presidential candidate.  I think he would have had a shot at my vote if he had picked Hillary Clinton, but even that was a long shot.  Today it was announced that Romney is picking Paul Ryan as his VP candidate, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin.

Now, of course, everyone is going to have an opinion about the pick.  Is Ryan risky?  Does he know enough foreign policy?  Is he too young?  Too conservative?  Already the handicapping has started, but here's my two cents: it's quintessential Romney.  It's a calculated risk, but I think a smart one.  Romney seems to have analyzed the data, and realized that any candidate brings risks, but that the pros outweigh the cons.  Ryan brings a lot to the campaign - he comes from a midwestern swing state and brings a fresh energy and ideas.

One of the big things Ryan is known for is his budget plan.  While I may strongly disagree with it, I admire Ryan's budget because it actually presents ideas in concrete form.  Politicians (in both parties) seem afraid during this campaign to talk about trade-offs, but Ryan's budget presents ideas and shows the actual trade-offs we have to make to get what we want.  Ryan seems like a smart, capable guy - and he looks even better when compared to Palin (who, let's be honest - was a mistake).  I just hope he won't be flogged for actually presenting a plan.  Let's debate the merits of the plan without destroying the man who had the political courage to put it forth.

I think this pick says that Romney is data-driven who doesn't take crazy risks, but that Romney is drawn to people who are problem-solvers and "doers."  I'm currently watching Romney introduce Ryan, and it's interesting - one of the things he's saying is that Ryan doesn't demonize his opponents.  Imagine that!  Wouldn't it be wonderful if both parties could *actually* do that?

The media think that maybe this will be a chance for the campaigns to actually debate issues.  I remain pessimistic on that point, but wouldn't it be great if it were true?

P.E. (not the class in school)

Private Equity.  What do those two words evoke for you?  Fear and loathing of corporate greed?  A misty eyed view of the invisible hand that inexorably leads towards efficient allocation of economic resources?  Or, more commonly: "What?"  Of course, if you have been following the Presidential campaign, you know that Private Equity has become a story because it's part of Mitt Romney's background.

Governor Romney founded and worked at Bain Capital, a private equity firm.  Here's my understanding: essentially Bain Capital would buy stock in privately-held companies.  They would pick companies which they thought had potential to grow and expand, and use their business expertise to help them grow.  After improving the business for several years, Bain would then sell the company (hopefully, at a profit).  The company that Mitt Romney likes to use as an example is "Staples," the office supply chain.  That was an early investment for Bain which paid off.

Seems non-controversial - until you look at the non-success stories.  One of the big criticisms of private equity is that it emphasizes "quick turnarounds" at the expense of long term goals - PE firms buy and sell companies relatively fast, which may lead them to employ an ax instead of a scalpel.  PE firms sometimes do things like fire a lot of people or load up a company with debt before selling it off.  These types of measures may not be in the long term best interests of the company the PE firm is buying.  People who run the PE companies also have incentives to maximize their own profit and they don't have to worry about what happens to the company after they sell it.

I don't think private equity is good or bad, really.  It's a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused.  I do worry that Mitt Romney does not seem troubled by the havoc he terms "creative destruction."  The destruction caused by capitalism is massive and disruptive - it truly destroys lives through layoffs and business failures.  The question is whether what it creates is "worth it" - is the destruction caused by this particular breed of capitalism outweighed by the positive economic growth it creates?

Personally, the answer for me is no.  I think private equity is not a builder of long term economic growth.  It emphasizes all the wrong things, and I think it fosters a "get rich quick" mentality.  We need economic growth for the long haul, and I don't think private equity has that focus, drive and discipline to get us there.  Private equity isn't to blame for every economic problem we have, and I'm certainly not saying that Mitt Romney is evil.  I just don't think his private equity background makes him the arbiter of all that is right for the economy.

Sorry, this post was kind of lame.  Better thought out next week, I promise.

The Vocal Stylings of Mitt Romney

So I finally had to do it.  Had to watch an entire speech by Mitt Romney.  I realized I had only heard the little sound bites that they throw out on the news, but I had never listened to an entire speech from him.  Here's the one I listened to:


Things I liked:
- We will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friend's businesses.
- The part where he talks about getting to know us and what we care about (I genuinely thought this sounded  genuine).
- Being American means something different to each of us, but it means something special to all of us.

Things I didn't like (note that Democrats can be just as guilty of these):
- The implication that as president he could control the economy.  I generally don't think the president can control the economy - he (or she, someday!) can tinker at the margins, but a lot of the economy depends on larger trends beyond the President's reach.
- He spent most of his time bashing President Obama instead of expounding his own ideas.  A subset of this is that he continually implied that President Obama's views were anti-American.  It really really REALLY bothers me when politicians of any stripe accuse the other side of anti-American views.
- Running for government office while disparaging the role of government!  I mean, you are going to be the most visible member of the Federal government, yet you don't think it can do anything good?

All in all, I didn't think he was as stilted and stuffy as the media make him out to be - sure, he's not the most charismatic guy EVER, but I thought he did a pretty decent job of getting his points across without sounding like a robot.  So, have you all watched an entire speech of someone who you disagree with?

(Note: I realize this speech was short, only 15 minutes.  But, it's better than a 30-second sound bite.  I'm baby-stepping it to a full blown speech someday, maybe)

Taxman, Yeah, Yeah, He's a Taxman

I know you have all been waiting in breathless anticipation of part 2 of my evaluation of Mitt Romney's tax plan(s).  Well, wait no longer!  Pull up your beverage of choice (you know, the one that helps you stay awake) and join me for an exciting conclusion.  You can read part one here.



Today we discuss Governor Romney's plans for corporate taxes.  These are taxes paid by businesses which are organized as corporations.  I should note that this is probably most "big businesses" that are household names, but not all businesses are organized as corporations.  Your local businesses down the street may operate as partnerships or pass-through entities, and they are taxed based on the individual tax rates of those who own them.  So this tax plan would not apply to them.

[Begin tangent] Some people have a problem with taxing corporations because they view it as double taxation - the income is taxed once when it is earned by the corporation and again when it is distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends.  Suffice it to say, I do not really buy this argument, because I think corporations (while not people, ahem, Governor Romney) do need to contribute to society, and the benefits they enjoy (an educated workforce, enforcement of contracts by law, a highway system, among others) are all things that they should pay for.  But we will assume for purposes of this post, that corporate taxation is likely to continue to exist [End Tangent].

Governor Romney's corporate tax plan has four parts, let's examine each of them.

Part One: "Cut the corporate rate to 25%."  My question: why?  The top statutory rate is currently 35%, but VERY few corporations actually pay tax at this rate.  There are so many ways around this that corporate taxes paid are actually significantly lower than the relatively high rate would suggest.  Why make a low rate even lower?  What loopholes are you going to close to make this possible?  Lowering the rate will lower the amount of tax collected, so you've got to offset that by stopping some of the tax breaks to industries that are favored in the current tax system.  Governor Romney's website doesn't elaborate on this, but he needs to find a way to pay for this.

Part Two: "Strengthen and make permanent the R&D credit."  The R&D credit is a tax credit that reduces the tax bill of companies that invest in Research and Development in the U.S. by building labs and employing engineers and scientists here.  This makes sense to me, and I agree with this - having an research & development credit encourages businesses to build labs and employ people in this country, and encourages innovation.  If companies are going to make a multi-million dollar investment, they want the certainty that this tax credit will be available to them over the long term.  Right now the R&D credit is haphazardly renewed whenever Congress can find the time to do it on a year-by-year basis.  A long-term R&D credit would, I think, be a good idea.  President Obama has also signed on to this - so they actually do agree on something!

Part Three: "Switch to a territorial tax system."  I'm conflicted about this.  Currently the U.S. is one of the few countries which employs a worldwide tax system.  That is, if you are incorporated (organized) in the U.S., you eventually pay tax on your worldwide income.  You can keep profits offshore, but when they are repatriated (i.e. brought back to the U.S.) you pay tax.  People argue that the U.S. is unfairly burdening corporations with U.S. taxes on their worldwide income.  However, through tax accounting magic (stupid tax accountants!), many companies can hide income that really relates to the U.S. offshore, so it's argued that it should all be taxed in its "home" country.  This one I'm holding out as undecided, but until we can come up with a system that better allocates income between countries, I'm going to be skeptical of any "tax holiday" that lets companies bring back money to the U.S. and skip the taxes due.

Part Four: "Repeal the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax."  The AMT, as its known, is levied at a lower rate than regular taxes but requires companies to addback certain items - so if a company isn't paying regular tax in a year, it may very well have to pay a little bit of AMT.  This is a disagree from me, which is surprising because I am all for getting rid of the individual minimum tax.  However, I think that the corporate AMT requires corporations to pay at least a little bit of tax in most years.  As I noted above, I think corporations get a lot of advantages in our society, and they should pay the price for these benefits.  Corporate AMT provides a carryforward benefit - so if you pay AMT, and in the future your tax bill rises above the AMT threshold, you get to reduce tax in future years.  What can I say, I'm a Democrat who has an inherent anti-corporate bias, so I'm okay with the corporate AMT.  Let the hypocrite allegations begin.

So overall, somewhat of a mixed bag on taxes for Romney.  Both candidates, however, need to do a better job of explaining the costs and benefits of their tax policies - for every tax "goodie" we receive (or someone else receives) there is a cost - usually higher rates overall.  Obama and Romney need to have a frank discussion of trade-offs.  Sigh.  Why do I feel like an intelligent conversation is the LAST thing that's going to happen this election cycle?

Romney, Show Mother Some Love

And by Mother, I mean Mother Earth.  Yesterday was Earth Day, in case you missed it.

Google's 2012 Earth Day Doodle

I'm a big fan of the earth, and I'm operating under the assumption that you are also a fan.  I mean, we all like to breathe, right?  Simply put, I think that we need to take good care of our Mother Earth.  It's a precious place, and from a religious point of view I believe it's a sacred trust.  We need to leave this earth clean and healthy for all the generations that will follow ours.

That is why I find it sad that Governor Romney literally has no environmental policy on his website.  He doesn't even have time to devote to policies that safeguard our Mother Earth!  The closest thing that he has is to an environmental policy is an energy policy.

So let me start by saying, I think it's extremely sad that Romney is only looking at the earth with a "what's in it for me?" mentality.  D&C 59:18 states that one of the primary purposes for which God created the earth is "...to please the eye and gladden the heart..."  In other words, earth is not just here for us to exploit and pillage - we should be in the business of conserving and caring for Mother Earth, and keeping it beautiful.

So, because he lacks an environmental policy, let's examine Romney's energy policy.  It has three main prongs.

Significant Regulatory Reform
Romney wants to streamline energy regulations.  I actually have no problem with this.  Too often projects that will create jobs and be good for our country are hampered by regulations.  I think this is a good and smart thing to do, with the caveat that we don't use this as excuse to weaken environmental regulations.  These rules are there to prevent market forces from doing something that may make money in the short term, but in the long term is bad for the earth.  Too often, "regulatory reform" is used as code for "no regulations."  I think we need sensible regulations, so I'm with Romney on this, I would just like to see more specifics.

Increasing Production
This part of the plan is all about increasing production of gas and oil.  Again, this is emphasizing only the "me" in environment.  And, as constant online ads have been reminding me, under President Obama we have increased oil and gas production every year.  I have two problems with Romney's policy (which, to be fair, isn't laid out in much detail, so maybe he has plans to mitigate the negatives here).
#1: Romney's website states that he would "open America's energy reserves for development."  To me, this means opening up ecologically sensitive areas to drilling, which would harm wildlife, landscapes, and leave behind chemicals for generations.  I believe that we have a duty to protect God's creations, even if that means we pay higher prices for gas.  There are reasons that certain areas are off-limits - it's because they would harm this amazingly beautiful world we live in!
#2: Under this header, Romney's website also contains a bullet point that he would "prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction."  What the what?  Actually, shale gas development is very LIGHTLY regulated right now.  I'm not a huge fan of "fracking" - which is basically pumping water with chemicals into the ground in order to get gas.  I think if you're doing this, you should be subject to some regulations.  This is an activity that can pollute groundwater - THAT IS THE STUFF YOU DRINK, PEOPLE!  So, I am not a fan of this policy either.

Research and Development
This prong of Romney's plans has some innocuous sounding bullet points, and a subtle jab at Obama for seeking to fund specific energy alternatives like wind and solar.  I'm happy to see, however, that Romney does believe that government can be a helpful force in energy policy, so I'll give him a few points for that.  BUT, I really do believe that if we're going to beat China (which is heavily investing in alternative energy sources) then, we will need government investment in making energy alternatives like wind and solar more cost effective.

Bottom Line: Romney has some good ideas in this area, but when I read here (on Fox News, no less!) that Romney opposes stricter emission standards for cars, I realized once again that I will be voting for President Obama in November.  I'll save the greenhouse debate for another day, but I'll state here that I believe in man made global warming, and I believe it will destroy the delicate balance of earth if we let it continue.  If you're curious, you can read President Obama's policy on energy AND the environment here.

Just for fun, here's a beautiful hymn about the earth (you deserve it if you've read this far).

Into the Belly of the Beast

It’s the time of year when tax accountants bear only a passing resemblance to sane people.  They have minor breakdowns over lack of paper clips, and major psychiatric episodes ensue if the tax software crashes.  But, tomorrow is the tax deadline, so Wednesday will be a day of delight!

Even though the last thing I want to do right now is think about taxes, I have gone into the belly of the beast, and read Governor Mitt Romney’s tax plan.  You can read the plan for yourself here.  I’m going to split this post into two parts, one part about Romney’s plans for individual taxes, and another about his plans for corporate taxes.  This first post deals with several provisions Romney has proposed for individuals.  I should state the obvious here, and note that these are my personal opinions and not those of the firm I work for.

#1: Romney proposes to cut individual tax rates by 20% across the board.  This would return the top tax rate to 28%, which was the top rate in 1986.  This is a clear contrast with President Obama, who proposes to repeal the Bush tax cuts for top earners and return the top tax rate to 39.6%, which is what the tax rate was under Clinton.  The tax policy center estimates that the top 0.1% of earners would pay more than $1 million more under Obama’s plan versus Romney’s.

Ok, let’s make clear that I have no problem with tax cuts per se.  I just think that you have to be honest about how you’re going to pay for them – there is no free lunch (Likewise, raising taxes is not a panacea that solves our problems).  I think the biggest problem I have with this proposition of Romney’s plan is that he says that’s pro-growth.  This is linked to the failed supposition that all you have to do is lower taxes and jobs will magically be created.  It didn’t work for President Bush in 2001.  Romney’s plan also promises to “limit deductions, exemptions, and credits” for upper income earners.  Which ones?  The very popular mortgage deduction?  The charitable contributions deduction?  The exemptions for dependents?  (those  will be all popular with house-owning, tithe-paying, large Mormon families!)  I’ve blogged before about how it is very hard to take away so-called “tax expenditures” – tax breaks that are popular but cost the government a lot.  My fear is that Romney will cut taxes without being able to have corresponding cuts to these tax breaks.  The lack of specificity is troubling, to say the least.

#2: Romney proposes to cut capital gains taxes on Americans making less than $200,000 per year and keep the rates at 15% for everyone else.  My problem with this is simple: the financial crisis.  This rewards people who make risky financial decisions that may destabilize the whole system.  It values one type of work (financial intrigue) over the steel worker.  In other words, a Morgan Stanley investment banker would pay a lower tax rate than I do on my salary.  I don’t think that’s right.

#3: Abolish the “death tax.”  This is another example of the Republican penchant for ridiculous names.  This tax hits only those estates worth more than $5 million.  The tax also provides a step up in basis, which means that when you sell those assets you inherit you don’t pay tax again.  It’s a question of taxing the gain now or later, so I guess this one is just a matter of policy.  I am okay with the death tax.

#4: Abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for individuals.  This point I actually agree with.  The AMT is a complex tax on top of a tax, and it’s not indexed for inflation so it hits more Americans every year.    Given the rest of Romney’s individual tax plan, I feel like it’s not specific enough, or in line with my views on tax policy. I feel like it is doing nothing to help with the growing income inequality gap.  You can read some more in-depth analysis of Romney's and Obama's plans here and here.

Don’t forget, your taxes are due tomorrow!  A little tax humor: 

Take a Deep Breath

My facebook feed has both liberals and conservatives, so it's always funny when one side or the other makes a ridiculous remark.  Those disagreeing with the political views of the person who made the remark instantly ascribe the most vicious and sinister motives to all members of the speaker's political party or persuasion.  This has been true this week, as the comments of Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen have been under fire for saying that "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life."*

But for me, this remark, and the accompanying charges that Democrats hate stay-at-home moms, are so utterly ridiculous.  The difference is that this is ONE remark, which was widely condemned - by Michelle Obama, David Axelrod, and many others, while the Republicans have engaged in some actual policies that harm women.  The real question is, which party is supporting policies that matter to women and really make a difference in their lives for the better?  Hmmm....let's see.

Pay Equity
Republicans opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act, which gives women more time to sue employers who discriminate against them by paying them less.  The Democratic congress passed it and Barack Obama signed it into law in 2009.  Republicans in Wisconsin recently repealed legislation that allowed punitive damages in cases of gender discrimination.  I'm sorry, but unless we make it painful for employers to pay women less, they're going to keep doing it.  Right now women make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes.  This is wrong, and I'm with the Democrats - we need to stop it.

My Body
Recent attempts by many Republican legislatures have led to proposed laws requiring women to have ultrasounds before having an abortion.  In some cases, this would require a transvaginal probe inserted into a women's body.  This, from a party allegedly based on personal liberty.  No thank you, I'm old enough to make my own medical decisions.

I don't have the time to blog about all the issues I see regarding women.  But until the Republicans start supporting paid family leave, reduced work requirements for poor moms on welfare, or government policies helping women who work with childcare, I think it's disingenuous at best to suggest that one remark by a Democratic strategist constitutes a war on women.  So, everyone just take a deep breath - Democrats like myself do NOT hate stay-at-home moms or think that they're freeloaders.  I'm grateful my own mom made the choice to stay home with us crazy kids and raise us right.  But the point is, it was her choice - we need to support women who make a different choice too.  Hooray for moms!  They're awesome!

*For the record, I think Rosen was quoted out of context - she was saying that Ann Romney doesn't understand the concerns of those women who have to work a paid job while raising kids.  But I know I'm not going to win that battle, because any remark can be taken out of context and blown out of proportion.  So we'll just deal with it on it's face.

Let's Talk About It

Sex.  It's not really a word most Mormons are comfortable discussing in public.  Myself included.  But since it's "just us girls" tonight while the men are at Priesthood session of General Conference, let's talk about it.  Sex Education is a vitally important public health issue.  This is especially true for women!  Stephen Colbert was joking about one of the recent attempts to limit access to birth control, and he noted that there's only one way to avoid becoming pregnant: "Be a man."  The joke reveals that often the consequences of sex seem to fall disproportionately on women and girls.

So, one of the reasons that I'm not voting for Mitt Romney is that he thinks "abstinence only" sex education is what should be taught in public schools.  That is simply bad public health policy no matter how you slice it.  Recent studies of "abstinence only" programs have found that it DOES NOT discourage teenagers from having sex.  It actually just discourages teenagers from having SAFE sex.  Abstinence education doesn't work.

Believe me when I say, I do believe in personal abstinence.  Mormons follow the law of chastity, which means no sex before marriage.  But as my conservative friends are always telling me, government can't force people to do things.  The government can't force teenagers or anyone else to do this.  What it can do, is equip young Americans with the knowledge to have safe sex if they are going to have sex.

I think a lot of Mormons are uncomfortable with sex education because, deep down, we feel like it is encouraging people to have sex before marriage.  Somehow, we think that we are transmitting the message to our kids that "it's okay, everybody's doing it."  I've heard this analogy several times, but I think it's helpful to think of comprehensive sex education as a tetanus shot.  We all get our tetanus shots (and other immunizations) and once I have kids you can bet I will be signing them up for these shots too.  Giving your kids tetanus shots  doesn't encourage them to step on rusty nails.  But in the event they do, it gives them protection.  I encourage you to think of sex education the same way - it doesn't encourage kids to have sex (and this has been statistically proven), but it does encourage them to have safe sex - reducing unwanted pregnancies (and abortions!) and decreasing risks of STDs.

Don't know why I picked this topic.  But there you go.

Crushing the DREAM

"What happens to a dream deferred?" asked Langston Hughes in his famous poem.  He theorized that it could "sag like a heavy load" or "explode."  The immigration issue in American politics seems to be a hot-button one. Many people feel strongly that illegal immigrants should be given a chance to come out of the shadows and pursue their dreams.  Others have a strong "Americans First" policy and oppose all forms of amnesty, instead focusing on deportation of illegal immigrants and border security.

This post is the first in the "Why I'm Not Voting for Mitt Romney" series (see the ground rules here in my original post).  I'd like to talk about why I disagree with Governor Romney on immigration.  Governor Romney opposes the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (aka the DREAM Act).  You can read about the details of this proposed bill here.  This bill would allow children, whose parents brought them here illegally when they were children, to attend college or join the military in the U.S. and put them on a path towards citizenship.  An aside here, I think for once, a cause I support has hit upon an apt name for this bill that makes it difficult for opponents to speak against it.  Who wants to crush dreams?  Yet, Governor Romney opposes the DREAM Act, saying it would increase illegal immigration and be an amnesty.

First of all, the DREAM Act would apply only to those illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years already.  I don't see how we can encourage illegal immigration when these people are already here.  Secondly, as Mormons, "[w]e believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression" (Articles of Faith 2).  Not supporting the DREAM Act seems to be punishing children for the sins of their parents.  The DREAM Act applies to illegal immigrants who were brought here when they were minors.  Do you really think that a three year old is culpable for the transgressions of his or her parents? 

Some of the stated reasons that people have opposed this bill include that it will require states to grant instate tuition to illegal aliens or require taxpayers to fund the education of these students.  However, the latest versions of the bill have not included provisions regarding in-state tuition.  Also, the program would stipulate that these students would not be eligible for federal grants.

More broadly, opposition to "amnesty" for illegal immigrants seems wrong to me.  Do you really think these people are just going to go away?  Many of them have lived in the United States for years, and see it as their home.  They are not simply going to leave.  People who oppose bills to grant illegal immigrants citizenship seem to think that these people had some kind of choice between coming here legally and coming here illegally.  The simple truth is that many more people want to come to America than are allowed to come legally by the current immigration system.  If you were living in poverty with no opportunities for education or jobs, wouldn't you want to come to America, even if it meant breaking the law?  It's a dangerous thing to do, but wouldn't you risk it for your family?

We Mormons believe in obeying the law.  However, giving these people a chance at citizenship does not have to mean that they are not punished for breaking the law - they should pay a fine, pay back taxes, and get in line behind those who followed the rules.  I believe that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, and exporting people to a life of crushing poverty and zero opportunity seems a heavy price to pay for crossing a man-made border to improve one's life.  

Increasing border security, while it may seem like a good goal, is somewhat of a red herring.  We will never be able to fully secure our borders from anyone - there's just too much territory to cover, and too many ways that people can come here legally and stay illegally.

To be fair, Governor Romney does support increasingly legal immigration, which is laudable.  However, I just can't support his position on the DREAM Act.  This is a chance for innocent people to become educated or support our armed forces.  For this among many reasons, Governor Romney will not be getting my support this November.

Why I Won't Vote for Mitt Romney (Even Though I Just Did)

I've decided to do a series of posts about why I am not going to vote for Mitt Romney (who I think will be the eventual Republican nominee).  This message is somewhat undercut, however, by the fact that I actually voted for Governor Romney in my state's primary today.  I know this is completely and utterly the wrong reason to vote for someone, but nonetheless it was cool to be able to vote for a fellow Mormon.  I'd feel the same way voting for Harry Reid (actually, I'd probably feel better about voting for Harry Reid, who should probably get his own series of posts).

The point is, I voted for Mitt Romney as the lesser of three evils.  Of those Republican candidates still standing, I think Mitt Romney would make the best president.  Plus, I promised my roommate I would vote for Romney if Santorum or Gingrich were still in the race by Super Tuesday.

However, stack Romney up against Barack Obama, and I feel it's a pretty obvious choice on who to vote for.  Romney and I share cultural and religious history, but my political beliefs line up on President Obama's side.  So I'm going to do a series of posts on why I'm not voting for Romney.  Before I start, I want to make two ground rules very clear:

(1) Mitt Romney is a good guy.  I don't have anything against him other than policy positions.  He seems to be a genuinely good husband, father, and friend.  I truly admire his faithfulness to his wife throughout her battle with M.S. (*cough cough* unlike Newt Gingrich *ahem*).  This series will simply be used to lay out the political issues on which Governor Romney and I disagree.

(2) While I may quote scripture or modern-day prophets in these posts, I do not make a claim that my political belief system is the only "Mormon" perspective or that my political beliefs are inherently "true."  I think that Mormons can be Republicans, Democrats, Independents or anything in between.  Politics and religion intersect for me because they both stem from my personal beliefs which are deeply held but which should never be forced on others.  In not voting for Governor Romney, I am not judging his righteousness or adherence to the beliefs of Mormonism (see point #1).

Next up: topics.  I'm thinking about doing a post later this week on immigration and how my views differ from Governor Romney's, but I would welcome any suggestions as to what types of policies I should examine.  I hope also to include some posts about areas where I agree with Romney.

Let He Who is Without Sweeping Generalizations Cast the First Label

Have you heard the biggest religion and politics story of the past few days?  Here's Anderson Cooper's interview with Robert Jeffress, the pastor who said Mormonism is not Christianity, but instead is a cult.

I have a few reactions to Robert Jeffress:

Anger: How dare he claim to know and understand MY religion!

Disbelief:  How can you call a church "not-Christian" when its name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the Christ that you claim you believe in taught love and acceptance of others?

Skepticism:  Is Jeffress serious?  Or is he just using inflammatory language to get attention?

Cynicism: It's yet another example of using your beliefs to browbeat your political opponent.

Yet, Jeffress' assertion that Mormonism is a cult (not a "sociological cult" but a "theological" one, as if the media is able to make such fine distinctions) is not unusual.  It's part of what I call the "Mormon Weirdness Factor" - we have "secret" temple ceremonies, believe that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ, and call our church leader a "Prophet."  Any way you slice it, Mormons are weird to a lot of Americans.  We like to think of ourselves as peculiar in a good way, but we are simply very different than mainstream Americans and many other Christian churches.

What Jeffress said was just plain wrong.  When I hear this story, however, my prevailing sentiment is pity.  How tragic that Pastor Jeffress can't see past his own labeling.  Does someone who's "Christian" by Jeffress' definition automatically get his vote?  What a sad way to live.  How often do we label others because of their background?  Haven't we all, at one time or another, made sweeping generalizations (and yes, that is a broad generalized statement!)?

Fill in the blanks:

Liberals are ____________.
Families with a lot of kids are ________.
Conservatives are __________.
University of Utah students are ____________.
Young people are ___________.
Fat people are ____________.
Gay people are ____________.
People from the east coast are __________.

It's a lazy way of categorizing - assume that one group has certain characteristics, and it allows you to write off an entire group of people without knowing them.  The more I read about Jeffress' statements on Mormons, the more I want to avoid judging.  I want to have charity towards all, and malice towards none.  I want to have enough humility to admit that I do not fully understand others' religious beliefs, but I respect them as sincere people of faith.  I want to see others as my brothers and sisters, who are earnestly striving to live by the light they have found.  I want to avoid labeling other people.  Anyone who wants to call themselves Christian?  Let 'em!

Mormon(s) For President

Now that two Mormons have entered the Republican primary, it seems inevitable that we'll have a lot of hoopla over this question: "Is America willing to elect a Mormon President?"  I was reminded of this by a recent article at Feminist Mormon Housewives, which provided an overview of the anti-Mormon arguments being made.  You can read the article here - it links to some of the anti-Mormon articles in various places.  I do hope, as an American Mormon, that someday there will be a Mormon President (I just think it should be a Harry-Reid-type Mormon, not a Mitt-Romney-type - but that's another post).  A significant number of people are less likely to vote for a Mormon, but that number has been dropping in recent years, which I think is a sign of progress.

There shouldn't be a religious test for office - any other argument on this matter is simply bigoted.  Any Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist or Agnostic should stand or fall on his or her political arguments.  It's part of what makes America great: equal opportunity and separation of church and state.

The question essentially asks: how do Mormons prove their "loyalty" to America?  How can we prove we are not a bunch of robo-tronic zombies secretly intending to create a theocratic state with President Monson as supreme potentate?  The thought that we are mindless minions of Monson stems from the church's involvement in the Proposition 8 fight in California, which created the illusion that all members think and act alike, and do so at the behest of church leadership.  I think, paradoxically, the Utah immigration debate may help prove that American Mormons are not tools of their church in the political world.

It seems simple: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put out several statements saying that compassion was needed in the immigration debate, and supporting the Utah compact on immigration reform (read the statements here and here).  If Mormons really were the blind followers that the bigots claim, it seems like the Republican party in Utah (overwhelmingly Mormon) would toe the line and support the Utah compact.  However, recently Republicans voted to strike down one of the key provisions of a the Utah compact, a guest worker program.

It's sad that a lack of compassion by Utah Repblicans for the plight of illegal immigrants might end up helping Romney or Huntsman, but I think they can point to this as an example of how Mormons do not think or act in lockstep with church political statements.  Also, it's sad that they even have to make a case for Mormons at all, because we should be judged at the ballot box on our political ideas and plans, not on our religious beliefs.  Being Mormon isn't relevant to how a person will do as President.