The problem of truth

 I'll admit that I am a social media junky. That is not saying that I do anything reckless on social media, I am saying that I enjoy the exchanges that can occur. I am a 46 year old man who has worked almost exclusively from home for the past 14 years, and so exchanges with other adults (even if virtually) is a mental and emotional need that finds some relief in online spheres. My only other real source of adult conversation is my wife and my barely adult daughters.

There are many problems with social media. From trolls to hackers, and from political incivility to religious (and anti-religious) bigotry, all of these problems will greet you in the online spheres. While all of these problems are frustrating and painful, these may be but symptoms of greater problems. The root problems I see are 1.) that we no longer have a shared belief of objective truth 2.) sources of religious or moral development have been marginalized by nonbelievers and exploited for power consolidation by some purported believers 3.) most Americans live in isolation (even if they are in the center of civilizations) and we no longer look at our neighbors as friend but rather as strangers (I am fully guilty of this). The problem that has been on my mind this week has been the problem of truth.

Twitter was originally, my least favorite form of social media. The idea of dumbing down public discourse to 140 characters or less seemed insulting to the idea of thoughtful conversation. I started my experience in social media through the blogosphere of the early 2000s (this blog having started back then). The blogosphere was full of often thoughtful analysis of public issues, civic problems, and social debates. Even though the comment pages could be harsh, the comment were almost always well thought out (because if the logic was not thought out, you would be humiliated LOL)

However, Facebook killed the blogosphere with Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and blog comments dried up soon after followed by regular blog postings. As Facebook became insufferable with advertising, Twitter became a diverse sphere where opposing voices could argue. The commentary stayed comparably sane if often uncivil until Musk decided to buy Twitter a few years ago.

I still visit X on a semi daily basis, but the thing that is most glaringly apparent is that there is a massive gulf in defined objective truth that is making American political polarization almost impossible to correct. The average visitor that defines themself as conservative on X or Twitter appears to believe that the United States is run by a cabal who is out to destroy people in their tribe, they believe in massive conspiracies, and that Donald Trump has always been an honest and successful businessman whose only crime has been to expose the cabal (often the cabal seems to me to simply be anyone who disagrees or criticizes Trump). They seem to sincerely believe that there is definitive and irrefutable evidence for this worldview. I'll be frank in that I may be narrating this view incorrectly because it seems to be in such opposition to my objective truth.

My understanding of the truth about the world in this regard is so diametrically opposed to the apparent "conservative" view that I don't even try to converse with them about it. It is depressing and frightening. 

Depressing because defining the truth in current events should not be difficult. These are happening right now, or they happening the recent past - something we all experienced together. I watched January 6th unfold live in anger and (I still feel) righteous indignation. The idea that this was an offense against the constitution that I believe in seems completely obvious to me. The election was run just like every election before it, the vote count was more skewed in one direction than it was when Romney lost to Obama, and all of the alleged evidence has always failed Occam's razor (the simplest explanation is usually the true explanation) and the whole conduct of Donald Trump and the GOP officials that supported his actions were in direct opposition to almost all post presidential conduct for 200+ years.

Frightening because such large segments of society cannot agree on current (what should be objective) fact or truth. Voltaire allegedly said "If you can make people believe the absurd, you can make them commit atrocities". Given the wide chasm between the object truth about our current state of affairs in US government, one clear truth is that one side must currently believe absurdities. If this is true, how far away are we from seeing atrocities committed? The German's accepted the absurdities of Nazism and committed the atrocities of the Holocaust, the absurdities of communism led to countless atrocities. Currently, Putin has used this to great affect. He and his machine has done all they could to make the Russian people (and shockingly to me many "conservative" Americans) believe absurdities about their Ukrainian neighbors, and they are committing atrocities right now. Some member of Congress and the Senate are committing similar the atrocities of withholding aid to Ukraine right now.

What can be done?

I hate to say it, but the time may have come for tighter control on ethical journalism. I don't say that I think this network or that is full of liars, I mean there may need to be some form of truth auditing for legitimate journalistic organizations (this is seriously just spit balling). Annual reviews of stories written along with retractions and apologies to determine whether a journalistic organization can be relied upon. Maybe something like the CPA audit opinion of a corporations financial statements. This may help increase public confidence in the journalistic organizations that have and do try and maintain integrity. The narrative that the "mainstream media is corrupt" has decimated the sources of agreed upon ethical truth in America. Liberal Americans only believe news reported on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and the New York Times and maybe their local news, and conservative Americans what they agree with on Fox News, and the stuff reported on the news outlets like OAN and Newmax and sometimes their local news. Since conservative Americans are the least likely to trust traditional media, they are far more prone to believe heavily biased blog-type articles that often fail to adequately research and vet the stories they tell. This seeking truth from obscure sources has had a devastating effect.

The other thing we need is a new emphasis in education and in public on epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge, justification, and rationality. This will help give American's the function machine that will help them decide in an effective manner whether information should be believed or disbelieved. The remainder is admittedly from Chat GPT, but I think it highlights how to develop a good epistemology.

Good epistemology involves articulating a framework for how knowledge is acquired, justified, and evaluated. Here's a simplified explanation:

Reliability and Rationality: A good epistemology should prioritize methods that are reliable and rational. This means relying on processes that consistently lead to accurate beliefs and conclusions.

Empirical Evidence: An effective epistemology places a strong emphasis on empirical evidence. This involves using observation, experimentation, and sensory experience to gather data about the world. Empirical evidence helps to ensure that beliefs are grounded in reality rather than speculation.

Logical Reasoning: Logical reasoning is another essential component of a good epistemology. This involves using principles of logic and deduction to analyze evidence, draw conclusions, and identify inconsistencies in arguments. Logical coherence helps to ensure that beliefs are internally consistent and free from contradictions.

Open-mindedness and Critical Thinking: A good epistemology encourages open-mindedness and critical thinking. This means being willing to consider alternative viewpoints, subjecting beliefs to rigorous scrutiny, and revising beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments.

Skepticism: Healthy skepticism is integral to a good epistemology. It involves maintaining a cautious attitude towards accepting claims or beliefs without sufficient evidence. Skepticism helps to guard against credulity and encourages careful evaluation of sources and claims.

Peer Review and Verification: A good epistemology values peer review and verification. This involves subjecting claims and research findings to scrutiny by other experts in the field. Peer review helps to identify errors, biases, and weaknesses in arguments or evidence, leading to more reliable knowledge.

Consistency with Well-Established Knowledge: A good epistemology ensures that beliefs are consistent with well-established knowledge and principles. This involves building upon existing understanding and avoiding beliefs that contradict firmly established facts or theories without compelling evidence to support them.

Overall, a good epistemology is characterized by a commitment to rationality, empirical evidence, critical thinking, skepticism, and the continual refinement of knowledge through rigorous inquiry and evaluation.

Divorce and Taxes - Form 8332

It is still mind blowing how often men in divorces are led to believe they can simply claim their children as dependents simply because the divorce decree says they can.

If you are divorcing, the other spouse will have custody (meaning the child sleeps at their house) for more than 183 days of the year, and you negotiate trading off claiming the child, you MUST have the other spouse sign one Form 8332 that indicates what years you can claim the child. 

If you do not get a signed Form 8332, your ex-spouse has all power as far as the IRS is concerned to claim the children every year. You may be able to sue in family court proceedings for breaching the decree, but the ex-spouse will win the point with the IRS everytime.

Divorce attorneys please get this form signed everytime and keep it on file.

2024 Impending Presidential Election

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! The fact that Republicans are consistently polling for Trump over any of the GOP primary challengers is beyond me. The reasons why Trump should have never been considered a fit candidate are myriad and they were obvious to 2015 Utah Republicans. Today? I don't know where the 2015 Republicans have gone.

I just finished the book Overreach by Owen Matthews. In the book, it discusses the Kremlin's metamorphosis from communism to liberal democracy to pseudo-conservative authoritarianism in regards to how the Ukrainian war started. 

The book it mentions a Russian conservative organization that has the goal of creating a conservative version of "The International" the communist organization that tried to coordinate the communist revolution throughout Europe. It has an eerie plausibility to its existence and (in debatable degrees) success. 

Russian conservatism today values the Russian Orthodox church, Russian greatness and imperialism, neo-czarism, violent rejection of western liberal ideals, highly accepting of conspiracy theories and highly suspicious of traditional journalism, encouragement of nationalistic clubs and organizations that are sometimes violent against opposition, and traditional family values (which apparently includes the right to beat a spouse without facing repercussions). Putin is unassailable in political rhetoric.

American conservatism is leaning towards authoritarian-leaning leadership that appears to be almost unassailable inside party political conversation, highly accepting of conspiracy theories (Q), growth of clubs like Proud Boys, III percenters, and other nationalistic organizations that do seem willing to pursue violence against opposition, almost entirely unaccepting of narratives presented by traditional journalism outlets. 

Last but not least, conservatism seems to be backing Putin's invasion of a smaller weaker neighbor. Not even 30 years ago, George HW Bush heroically stood against Iraq doing the same thing against Kuwait.

The GOP of today is more reminiscent of Russia's All- Russia Peoples Front or the United Russia Political party than the GOP of 2016 or even the GOP of 1984-1988 when Reagan was president. If there is a conservative version of the old "Commonturn", they appear to have been successful in Hungary, the UK with Brexit, and in the US with the GOP.

Thank you Senator Romney - Term Limits

I watched the impeachment trial. The only real reason was that I was bored at work for the past few weeks, late tax laws have pushed the start of tax season back for a lot of people and I just needed something to occupy my mind. 

One thing that I think is apparent is that Congress needs term limits. Out of 53 US GOP senators, only 2 of them dared to vote for simply hearing witnesses in an impeachment trial of a man whose morals (the lack thereof) can be best illustrated by the transcript of a deposition he gave prior to his election regarding his net worth (a figure that does have some actual importance in finance):

Trump: My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try.
Attorney Ceresney: Let me just understand that a little. You said your net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?
Trump: Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day ...
Attorney Ceresney: When you publicly state a net worth number, what do you base that number on?
Trump: I would say it's my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked. And as I say, it varies.

Trump's lack of honesty and morals is nothing that can be dismissed as "fake news". From his well known extramarital affairs to his off-color comments to Billy Bush about grabbing a lady's nether regions, he is clearly a debauched lecher. From his well documented history of corporate bankruptcies to the many documented allegations of defaulting on contractual obligations both personally and in business, we know that he is a charlatan and a mountebank. In the words of Shakespeare, "he's an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise-breaker".

There would have been nothing lost in hearing witnesses. In fact, the majority of American's were in favor of hearing witnesses. The accepted history of Donald Trump's past conduct would have provided enough circumstantial evidence to warrant subpoenas in a criminal or civil proceeding, and it should have been enough for the US Senate. 

The GOP of my youth would have rejected such a man as unworthy to be considered for public office. Indeed, the GOP of 2015 and 2016 tried to keep themselves distant from the man in the hopes that his candidacy would come to naught. However, the GOP learned to play mental gymnastics and to turn a blind eye to the man's utterly corruptible nature. 

While writing this, I can hear Trump-licans already keying the epithet "liberal" in this essay's comment feed. Ironically, with the exception of the xenophobic GOP view of undocumented aliens (which helped elect Trump) I am in lock-step with most conservative policies. If you want me to narrow it down, I am fine with gay marriage - the fact that men can marry men and women can marry women doesn't diminish the value of my marriage in the least. However, the fact that I cannot ignore the rank odor than permeates Donald Trump's character, has now made me an irredeemable liberal in the eyes of a vast majority of the current GOP. Indeed the zeal of some Trump supporters has echos from followers of another world leader from 80+ years ago.

The recent vote on witnesses in the impeachment trial illustrate how Mitt Romney and Mike Lee provide a good case study that supports the need for term limits. 

Most senators on both sides of the isle try and follow the Orrin Hatch career path. They get elected, the pay and benefits far exceed their pay in the private sector, the develop notoriety, and in the end most of them will make connections that will guarantee a great deal of wealth once they are either voted out of office or when they decide to retire from politics. This is their career, if the majority leader says vote this way - you do it. 

In Mitt Romney, I believe we find the antithesis of this career path.

He is worth a trustworthy 250 million dollars that can in fact be verified with numbers (not the wind that blows between his ears).  He doesn't need his Senate seat to support his family or secure a fortune - his has already been earned. He would like to serve another term, but it he is voted out of office (which is likely with Utah's rabid GOP) he can go back to his fortune without any real problems. Mitt Romney in the Senate has the ability to step back and vote according to his conscience (and to see Trump as he is). I would argue there is a de facto term limit in the case of Mitt Romney.

Counter that with the younger senior senator from Utah Mike Lee. As of 2015 (the most recent numbers I found) his net worth was 218k. He short sold a home when he decided to run for the senate 9+ years ago. Compared to Mitt Romney, he needs his career in Washington. He depends on the high pay that a career senator receives and he is counting on the astronomical income he can make as a lobbyist when he retires. There is no political oxygen for a senator like this to cross the Senate majority leader or a President that uses Twitter with the efficiency of a middle school mean girl. He is left to squirm about how Trump's Billy Bush comments made him uncomfortable as a father, while doing everything he can to stay in the President's good graces. He has no choice. 

The only way to bring Congress back is to enact limit terms. This will provide representatives and Senators the political oxygen in their careers (at least for one term) that will allow them to vote for what is right even when party leadership insists that they are wrong. Members of Congress with political oxygen would have the ability to bring reasoned debates and compromise back to our countries decision making processes - if only in my dreams.

Utah HB0215 - Education Opportunites

 It looks like the UT legislature is trying a new approach to school vouchers. Remember back in 2007 HB 148 passed the legislature but was then taken to a ballot referendum which was rejected fairly soundly by voters see Ballotopedia here.

This new bill takes a carrot and stick approach, by offering an 8,400 dollar raise to teachers if the bill is passed which will also create an 8,000 dollar scholarship which parents could use for private or home schooling. If the bill is not passed, the teacher raise will be half that amount.

I will need to do more reading of this bill to see where the "scholarship" money comes from and some of the criteria for schools that get the money. For now, I am left to consider the bill on principles.

1.) Everyone has school choice. You can choose to keep your kids home, and you can choose to spend between 10k and 12.5k on private school tuition. 

2.) Article XIII of the constitution of the state of Utah requires that all tax on intangible property and all income tax dollars should be spent public schools, and 5% of the proceeds from the sales of US public land in the state. In Article X, Utah's public schools are defined as having to be free of cost and nonsectarian, and nonpartisan. 

We're American. We love having choices and freedom. I get it. The existence of public schools that are funded in a constitutional manner doesn't remove that choice. If I am fearful that ideas which I oppose are being taught in the free public school offering, I can decide to educate my kids at home or budget my money so that I can send my kids to a school that shares my ideals. That is the choice.

I think we should be leary of diluting the money set aside for public schools for many reasons. 

First, the state constitution has set out the parameters of school funding and how public schools qualify for that funding. Funnelling tax and public money to individuals and private organizations with less oversight is not ideal.

Second, we have ceased to have the ability to agree on objective truth as a society. 

From politics to sexuality and race to the environment and medical science - the perception of objective truth is nonexistent. Half the country believe's Joe Biden is a criminal in league with China, there can be no toleration of transgenderism or historical narratives that highlight racism in American history, we should continue burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon, and that vaccines are a conspiracy to reduce the surplus population. While the other half believes Donald Trump is a criminal, we should have broad support of all non-traditional sexual preferences and identities and white people should pay reparations for the slavery perpetrated by their ancestors, all fossil fuel options need to be stopped now regardless of the cost and you should take every vaccine offered without question. 

I am leery of public funds being used to fund home and private schools that are indoctrinating children in any manner.  

Why I am voting for McMullin.

 In my 45 years, there have only been 5 senators (all Republican) from my home state of Utah. Everyone of those senators was elected with statements about how there needs to be term limits, and that 10-40 years (and longer) is too long for anyone to be in the Senate. That claim dies by the second term, and everyone of those senators focuses on the need to maintain party majority, and their seniority becomes the unassailable reason we "need them in Washington". Almost without fail, whether the Senator is popular or unpopular we re-elected (almost) everyone of those senators until they want to retire. Almost without fail, we end up with senators that perpetuate the status quo. Voting party lines and complaining that the Democrats are to blame for every single negative thing extant. Nothing changes when we keep doing the same thing over and over again. 

Mike Lee gives us a prime example of the problem. He was lucky enough to run for senate as Utah legal/political aristocracy (the son of a BYU president and a former US Solicitor General) in a mid-term election after the worst financial disaster the US has seen since the Great Depression. He is the rare example where he successfully unseated a long term Senator in convention. In his convention/primary campaign for the GOP nomination, he promised he would pursue term limits saying 2 terms is a long enough time for a senator to serve. By the 2nd campaign, his term limit promise expired.

The most concerning actions of Mike Lee relate to his views of our right to vote. He has declared that the United States of America is a republic not a democracy. This is a half truth. The United States is a democratic republic. A pure republic doesn't need public votes, there just needs to a leader that is not a monarch and a body of representatives of the people. For example, China and Myanmar are republics. Bringing up authoritarian republics as mentioned above may seem like hyperbole. However, keep in mind, Mike Lee touted the repeal of the 17th amendment (the amendment that allowed citizens instead of legislatures to elect senators) and he suffered zero consequences from it. If that is not troubling enough, he willingly participated in some of former President Trump's dubious strategies to overturn a landslide popular election loss.

The two party duopoly has polarized American politics to the point that a portion of Americans were willing to consider civil war. Mike Lee has, as a whole, chosen to exasperate the polarity. Complaining that Democrats are always the problem without offering an answer, choosing to vote against the other side of the isle on nearly every vote - including votes as benign as almost every ambassadorship appointed by both Democratic administrations during his two terms in office. He also takes (albeit not as bad as many GOP officials) occasion to exploit dog-whistle issues for social-conservatives. As early as May, he advocated new TV ratings that would block children's shows with LGBTQ+ characters. After the post-Roe verdict protests at conservative SCOTUS justices homes, he recounted an unverifiable anecdotal tale of being bullied by a bus load of pro choice activists protesting at his home when he was 11 years old in Washington DC. Like Trump and many current GOP leaders, he seems to be seeking the best Fox News sound bite of the day. Ambition and stature often seem to be his chief aim.

I am voting for Evan McMullin because he is a legitimate conservative with overseas intelligence service in the CIA, several years of being a senior Republican congressional advisor for the House Republican Conference. Most importantly, when taking a stand was needed, he stood. He walked away from his job as Chief Policy Director of the House Republican Conference and ran a long shot race for president against the worst two options which the GOP and Democratic parties have offered the American public in history. Although that race was not successful, it provided an outlet for thousands of Americans to express their discontent with the two ruling parties' offerings. Among his voters were Jeff Flake, and two Trump sycophants Lindsey Graham and none other than Mike Lee. 

That's right, Mike Lee knows Trump was bad for America - he knew it from the start. However, his protest vote against Trump was as far as the pusillanimous Lee dared venture from being a sheepish follower. Considering the remaining threats to the democratic part of our republic, we need senators that value the constitution more than party status. We need senators who not only study the constitution, but who will defend it when it matters. Mike Lee failed us on this point after the 2020 election, he failed on this point in the impeachment trial after January 6th (it took him almost 2 months to realize how unconstitutional Trump's strategies were) and we cannot trust that he will find the fortitude to defend the constitution if and when we have another potential democracy killing moment. Electing Evan McMullin will give us a conservative that has proven he will stand up when everyone else on the right is cravenly sitting down

Revisited: Student Loan Repayment and Education Costs - Tax Benefit Approach to Encouraging Loan Repayment without FORGIVENESS

Revisiting an idea from a few years ago.

As student loan debt reaches unprecedented levels, it will become important that government officials find methods to reduce the cost of a college education, encourage repayment, and allow debtors a way out if repayment is simply impossible. While reducing the cost of a college education and allowing debtors a way to receive a discharge of student load debt are issues that are beyond the scope of my expertise, utilizing the US tax code to encourage borrowers to repay their loans could be a powerful and beneficial tool to get student loan debt repaid.

There are a couple of misguided principles that currently rule how the tax code encourages American's to get a college education. First, education credits currently end up benefiting parents who  (in many cases) may not pay a dime of the student's educational expenses, or they are only available to the student in years where they have no income. Second is that student loan interest is the only benefit available to student's who are making their loan payments. Unfortunately, the student loan interest deduction is limited to a paltry 2,500 dollars and the deduction is completely eliminated if your income is more that 80,000 dollars (160,000 for taxpayers filing married joint returns). The first principle wastes tax benefits for the student who is going repay the debt, and the second principle doesn't provide a strong enough incentive for students to diligently repay their student loan debt.

Tax Credits for Graduates

Education tax credits would be better utilized if they were carried forward, usable by the student borrower only, and only allowable after graduation from a bachelor or graduate program. This would reduce the number of tax credits that are taken each year by making graduation a prerequisite for claiming the tax benefit. It may also reduce the number of students that attend college each year who lack the direction and intention of graduating with their degrees.

This would also provide new graduates with an income cushion that would make loan repayment a less stressful proposition in the early years of their new careers while their income is lower.

Unlimited Student Loan Interest Deduction

The student loan interest deduction could be made fully deductible. Doing so would provide incentive for repaying the loans and increase the repayment percentages. The deduction could also be tiered between borrowers who finish their degrees and those that do not graduate. If the borrower graduated, the interest deduction could remain a adjustment from income. Borrowers who do not graduate would be eligible for an itemized student loan interest deduction.

Revenue Neutrality

In order to keep this proposal revenue neutral, limits that have been in place against student loan interest (at different levels possibly) should be made to apply against the mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction has been a special interest loophole for the mortgage industry and realtors for several years. Unfortunately, it has been a contributing justification for unsustainable increases in home prices across the country for the past 10-15 years and ballooning debt. If we take a utilitarian approach to providing individual income tax benefits, it is clear that providing more tax relief to college graduates is of more value to society than rewarding mortgage debtors. The cost of a completed college education benefits the country with a more competitive workforce and taxpayers with a high earning capacity, while bloated mortgages benefit big banks and the bottom line of realtors that make thousands of dollars on every sales transaction that they close.

Student loan defaults are a major problem facing our nation's budget. Congress must find better answers to encourage loan repayment, and this issue needs to be solved sooner than later. Current student loan default rates are at 11%, but the true rate of non-repayment is far higher if the number of borrowers on reduced or income based repayment plans are taken into account.

Response to Reps Owens, Stewart, and Curtis

Dear Sycophantic Congressmen, 

Here are some facts:

1.) Lee worked tirelessly to encourage, and fabricate a facade of constitutionality to the former president's attempt to overturn a popular election defeat of more than 8 million votes. (14 hours days by his own account). READ: Mark Meadows' texts with Mike Lee and Chip Roy - CNNPolitics

2.) Lee willingly misappropriated a hero from my scriptures in praise of a man who is the antithesis of everything that hero represented. See here

3.) Lee has continued to support the former president's position. Most recently by arguing the merits of the pseudo-scientific documentary 2,000 Mules.  '2000 Mules': Sen. Mike Lee says it raises questions about ...

4.) Lee's record is hardly the beacon of bipartisan accord. The man refuses to vote yes on even the most benign presidential appointment. See here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/voting-record-1 and here for clearer explanations of the votes: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/66395/mike-lee

5.) Calling a refundable tax credit a legislative triumph is a bit of a stretch. You would be hard pressed to find a single senator a congressman who would vote against a gift to voters when their party is in power and they can gain the credit. Proving the point, Mike Lee noticeably did not support child tax credits under Biden.

6.) Nothing McMullin has actually said is incorrect. Lee joined the sycophantic likes of Cruz, Paul, Hawley for the majority of Trump's tenure. He votes on the far right, as McMullin has said, and that may not be a huge problem if Lee maintained any dignity during the Trump years. But he didn't, he prostituted his dignity for every scrap he could get the president to throw at him. 

But then again, two of you Congressmen have been nearly as sycophantic as Lee.

Biden and the Blood Red Independence Hall

 The first things I saw in regards to the Battle for the Soul of America speech from last night was the crimson-lit Independence Hall with two Marines standing in the shadows. From an optics perspective, I don't know that the backdrop was the wisest decision. It may have looked cool, but it looked a bit sinister.

I finally listened to the speech this morning. 

Positives

He called out the sycophantic portion of the GOP that has chosen to vilify the FBI for doing something that every American believes should be true. The FBI treated a former president as it would regular citizen who is under suspicion of committing a crime while executing a search warrant. Every single one of these sycophantic "conservatives" would be talking about the "heroic" FBI if the warrant was exercised on Hillary Clinton. They all know that is true.

He called out absurd hyperbole from people like Lindsey Graham claiming "riots in the street" will follow from the indictment of Donald Trump and from Ted Cruz, arguing that the IRS new agents will be weaponized against humble middle income GOP Americans.

He did call for a more united country, for the need to be vigilant about voting and keeping election deniers from taking local and state election offices where they could be in positions to perpetrate actual election interference and fraud. 

Bad Moves

The decision to refer to hard Trump followers and sycophant GOP congressional reps and senators as "MAGA Republicans" was ill-advised. I understand he was making a political statement, but he will end up alienating a large number of Republicans (the ones who thought Trump was a good president, but did not agree with Jan 6 actions). He could have made the same impact by pointing the figure with a simple epithet like ultra-MAGA or referring to sycophantic congressional reps and senators by name. For example, shaming Senator Graham directly for his threats of "riots in the street" after a Trump indictment.

He also made things more divisive by pointing to social-conservative beliefs as extremist. Things like pro-life and traditional marriage are not new Trumpian conservative values. Lumping those beliefs with anti-democratic extremist will lead to more circling of the wagons around the GOP banner, and to re-embracing strongman authoritarian style leadership. 

Those two moves, were the most divisive things his speech did.

Missed Opportunity

He should have made this speech a more direct call out to the most offensive GOP sycophants that are still in office. Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Cruz, Graham, Hawley, and others who have done nothing but defend the indefensible behavior of Donald Trump and those that have sought to vilify the FBI, the DOJ, and the IRS. He should have called out specific upcoming elections where election-conspiracy promoters are in position to take positions where they could overturn elections. These are the most important things to fight against.

Overall, the optics and overly broad attacks in the speech will unfortunately drown out much of the unifying rhetoric he intended to give. Biden, I look at him like the steward of Gondor - not worthy to be King, but he is a better occupant of the White House than a puppet of Sauron (or Putin) like Trump. 

GOP: I don't want to vote for Biden in 2024 - I don't. However, if you persist in trying to bring Trump back, you leave me and many other clear seeing centrists and conservatives no choice.

Whipped Cream - The War on Drugs (Whipped Cream Recipe For NY Teens)

 After Trump was elected and embraced by Republicans, I changed affiliations from GOP to Libertarian in UT. I'll admit it is a pointless political affiliation - especially in Utah. I want to see a 3+ party system, or a no party system. I tried to believe in Libertarianism and their party, but their hyper focus on dropping all vice (and sometimes safety) related laws makes them unelectable. Legalizing prostitution, drugs, and no seat belts will never be a winning platform. Abolishing all (we mean ALL) taxes sounds nice, until you consider the things for which taxes are necessary and helpful.

However, this article in the Deseret News made the Libertarian inside me scream, laugh, and cry a little. The war on drugs is like most government programs, well-intentioned ideas with poorly executed operations, and potentially unattainable objectives. People like to get high, drunk, gorked, or jacked. They have sought ways to alter consciousness since time began, and will do so until the end of time.

Some aspects of the war on drugs may be helpful. Educational campaigns like DARE have helped many kids make smarter decisions about drugs. However, enforcement has done little but increase prison populations, empower and enrich cartels, and led to more inventive, less indictable, but potentially dangerous ways to get high.

The article provides the example of the approach NY state has taken to keep kids from getting high from legally obtainable items. NY has banned canned whipped cream for people under the age of 21. Some teens have been using the nitrous oxide in whipped cream cans to get high, and it is potentially lethal if excessive amounts are inhaled (although I would be surprised if a can of whipped cream has enough NOS to be lethal).

What are we doing? 

To be straight, I think it makes more sense to legalize and tax less harmful drugs like marijuana. If whipped cream cans need to be banned - I think the war on drugs may have been lost. 

For NY state teens that just want whipped cream for non-drug reasons, here is a quick recipe from All Recipes

Mike Lee - My Issues

 Between his election and now, I have been able to find commonality with him on a few items. For example, financial responsibility, health care, and defense. He has made (maybe rash) but right moves to prevent excess Federal debt and excessive spending. Affordable Care Act was a mistake on many levels, and he has shown commitment on working to get out (and stay out) of foreign wars. These are aspects of his career that I support.

There are many aspects of Mr. Lee that give me pause.  In addressing my concerns, I guess I should start with the small stuff and build to the items that raise my blood pressure. 

Back when he was elected in 2010, I was annoyed with the primary-less ousting of Senator Bennett. To be fair, this issue alone is more to blame on the Utah GOPs control over the state than Mike Lee. He said the things that the Tea Partiers at the time wanted to hear and beat an incumbent in convention. In a GOP state, that was a sure path to victory.

I believe his campaign promise to pursue term limits was a wholly disingenuous that was clearly going to popular at the convention that would have tossed Senator Hatch if he had been on the ballot at that time. From what I can see, his legal capabilities are not as stellar as he would have people believe. He only lasted a few years in each firm or in various judicial clerkships, and his most notable case was a failed attempt to use the commerce clause to get EnergySolutions around the contract they signed with the state of Utah regarding the storage of foreign nuclear waste. He had to short sale a home in the financial collapse of 2008-2009. He needed a long-term stable career move, and what can be more long term and stable than a US Senator in what has often been the most Republican state in the union. The path was reasonably sure – he could ride the coattails of his former BYU president and US Solicitor General father, and (largely on account of his father’s credibility) he styled himself as a “constitutional scholar”. 

His early rhetoric regarding immigration was at times offensive. He was fond of the term anchor babies – meaning babies who are born to noncitizens that “anchor” a family in the US with a citizen baby. Ironically, for a “constitutional originalist scholar”, the fact that this is a specifically legal provision of the constitution seems to have troubled him. I get that he was trying to express an issue he saw as a problem, but the term “anchor babies” seemed more like an attempt to demonize immigrants and their children. Should people come legally? Yes, but the demonization of immigrant families was ugly and hateful. 

Under the Trump White House, he often showed no integrity in politically difficult situations. In the beginning of Trump’s candidacy, he (like many in the party) would express his discomfort “as a father” at Trump’s p@$$y comment – but that was as far as he dared to go. During the presidency he seems to have backed Trump either whole heartedly, or quietly refused to speak out when things were dicey. There is one exception: he did vote to prevent military action against Iran after Trump killed a Iranian general under circumstances of questionable legality.

During the 2020 campaign, he crossed the Rubicon and descended into full blown sycophancy. In an AZ rally he made the inappropriate comparison of Book of Mormon warrior hero Captain Moroni as an archetype of Donald Trump. The many ways the comparison falls flat on its face are numerous and do not need full attention here. To summarize the biggest issue with this comparison, Moroni was said to have been a man “that if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever”. A better comparison would be King Noah (the indolent, petty, Nephite provincial king) or Moroni’s archnemesis Amalikiah (a wannabe autocrat who raised an insurrection to overthrow a popularly elected government, that led to 14+ years of war). Although this gaffe was foolish, he compounded his apparent sycophancy after the election.

After the election and to this day, he embraced the conspiracy theories and lies. As shown by text messages, he brought John Eastman and Sidney Powell into the White House orbit (https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/read-mark-meadows-texts-mike-lee-chip-roy/index.html) he worked “13-14” hour days evaluating paths to overthrow the election and trying to pursue alternate slates of electors from states that were being challenged, and seems to have only relented after the president made a comment that seems to have wounded his pride. However, even after experiencing the events of 1/6 he still voted no on conviction, and as of a few months ago touted merits of the 2000 Mules documentary as evidence that the election was stolen. Last week he joined other GOPers in questioning the legitimacy of the FBI search warrant on Mar-a-Lago.

I believe Mike Lee to be an average attorney from a Utah family with dignitas. His initial election was fueled by Tea Party disdain for lifetime politicians under the false banner of championing term limits, he has chosen to appeal to the more racist inclinations of the party from his election until today in regards to immigration (he could have focused solely on drug smuggling as more legitimate border concern) and he willing participated and tried to lend a veneer of constitutional legitimacy to the effort to overturn the constitution he claims to adore. These are my biggest issues with Mr. Lee.

Lee v. McMullin - Bio Comparison

 Now that Mike Lee has managed to keep the GOP Senate nomination, it is time to compare and contrast Mr. Lee with Mr. McMullin. 

For today, let's stick to two biographical aspects: net worth and careers:

There is available net worth information on Lee from 2010 to 2018 from opensecrets.com. In 2010, his net worth was 16,000 dollars. Not surprising since he had to short sale his Alpine home before running for Senate - I assumed he was overly leveraged at that time. Since that time, his net worth has risen to a high of 539,000 in 2016, and from there down to 414,000 in 2018. His net worth has multiplied exponentially as a senator, but it is still smaller than the average net worth of most senators. If he is profiting from his office, he is not as bad as many other members of Congress or members of the Senate.

Evan McMullin's net worth information is less available. I found a few generic hits, the top result came from a website called celebritynetworth.com (reliable?) with a net worth of 1 million dollars. Not sure if that should be considered high or not. The largest chunk of his career is in public service. He may have been a good saver, he may have made a large chuck on cash working for Goldman Sachs, not sure what to make of a net worth figure of that amount.

Mike Lee's education and career. He is a graduate of BYU for both his BA in Political Science, and his Juris Doctorate. He attended BYU while his father was president of the university. His career has included multiple clerkships, first for a year under Judge Dee Benson in Utah right out of school, and two stints as Samuel Alito's clerk, once early in his career while Alito was an appeals court judge for a year, and then before he was elected to the senate while Alito was a new member of the Supreme Court. He also served for three years as an Assistant US Attorney in Utah, and as general counsel to Governor Huntsman for one year. Looks like he spent roughly 6 years in private practice. His most notable case I can see is when he represented Energy Solutions in its quest to accept Italian nuclear waste in violation of agreements the company signed with the state of Utah.  Yes this is from Wikipedia.

Evan McMullin's education includes a Bachelors from BYU in international law and diplomacy, and a MBA from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. His career seemed heavily geared towards the CIA. While at BYU he interned with the CIA each summer, his degree is focused internationally, and that was the first job he took. He worked from the CIA as an operations officer from 2001-2010. He attended Wharton after the CIA and worked for Goldman Sachs for a year and half, worked for the Romney campaign in 2012 and then was recruited for the House Committee on  Foreign Affairs where he worked from 2013-2015. His highest position was chief policy director for the House Republican Conference when he resigned to start his 2016 presidential campaign. After the elections, it appears that the 501(c)(4) he created "Stand Up Republic" has been his primary occupation. Again a Wikipedia article.

Observations:

Mike Lee has had a very (let's say) mobile career - spending 3-4 years at a maximum in any job besides senator. In his non-elected career, he does not seem to have enjoyed much upward mobility seeming to move laterally through most job changes. I am not sure on his success as a student - could not obtain class rankings. He graduated from a major university, but he was also the son of the university president and a former US solicitor general. It would be hard to deny that he likely benefited from some privilege as a student at BYU. Did that play into his success at school? Maybe, maybe not. 

Evan McMullin's CIA career is not exactly a negative or a positive. He apparently was at least adequate at his job - staying in the CIA for 9+ years. However, of government jobs, CIA is not one of the most respected agencies in my view - just a step higher than the IRS. However, after the time in the CIA he has had a few decent career moves. Apparently, Goldman Sachs did not suit him, but he was well suited to serve the US Congress as an international affairs advisor (rising to the level of chief policy director of the House Republican Conference). In regards to education, I would assume he must have had an impressive transcript to be given CIA internships every year of his education. While the CIA (as an agency) is a little smarmy, they are (from my understanding) generally picky on their recruits and he must have proved himself to be given a position.

Evan McMullin - 2022 Campaign Priorities

 Let’s look at Evan McMullin’s priorities if elected:

1. Strengthen our democracy and stand up to extremist - This included a few specific items. These are as follows:

a. Ensuring voting rights for all eligible Americans

b. Ending partisan gerrymandering, and other election corruption

c. Toughen transparency and ethics laws

d. Reducing the influence of money in politics

e. Uniting Americans on common ground.

Ensuring voting rights is (on its face) a sentiment that most people would obviously agree with. However, given the current election conspiratorial beliefs of the Trumpists in the GOP, this is likely a position that may be viewed with suspicion by those pseudo-conservatives. I cannot fault this position. If an individual meets the requirements of citizenship and legality to vote, government has the responsibility to make voting accessible.

Ending partisan gerrymandering is wishful thinking. Defining voting boundaries is a state’s right, and this right benefits Republicans in red states as much as it benefits Democrats in blue states. Would stiffer rules be a good thing? Sure. However, he will be hard pressed to win a vote on this issue. The other portion of the second item is vaguely defined, and I assume it is up to individual voter interpretation. Yes, ending election corruption is ideal.

Toughening ethics and transparency rules (especially with members of Congress) should be pursued. From the 1/6 committee hearings, it has been revealed that a gaggle of Senators and Representatives requested pardons for their participation in Trump’s post-2020 election strategy. This could be a sign that there are not clear boundaries for elected officials on things they can and cannot do within the bounds of propriety. Ideally, we would elect individuals that have internal ethical compasses – but in post-Clinton and post-Trump America, we cannot rely on this.

Democrats would likely support controls on money in politics more than McConnell’s GOP Senate, but this is something I would have to say I support. It is good centrist policy, policy that John McCain and Mitch McConnell parted ways over many years ago.

Uniting Americans on common ground is flowery language without substance. How will you accomplish this Mr McMullin?   

2. Lower health care costs – The McMullin campaign are fans of bullet points. On this subject, there are six items

a. Negotiating lower drug prices

b. Promoting competition in the prescription drug market

c. Improving patient choice in insurance and care providers

d. Requiring hospital price and quality transparency

e. Cutting administrative waste

f. Expanding telemedicine

His healthcare priorities seem to be a smorgasbord of ideas from the right and the left that have been offered in the past. Of these suggestions, negotiating lower drug costs and promoting competition in the drug market are two popular items. However, both items are difficult to accomplish without stifling innovation. If drug innovators are not allowed just profits for the pricy R&D they put into new drugs, how can we expect the medical innovations of the last century to continue? These two items are a tough quandary to solve. I hope he would support capitalistic models to accomplish this, but time would likely tell.

There is not really a clear view on how he would improve choice in insurance options. Some would argue that ACA has accomplished that feat, but those same people would need accept the fact that the cost has been very high to try and do so with the Obamacare model. Health insurance across state lines or other forms of health care cost sharing might be more innovative, but the website doesn’t expound on these ideas.

It is my understanding that a recent bipartisan law that has come into effect has already accomplished much of the goal of hospital price and quality transparency. I’m sure improvements can be made, but this new change is a leap forward.

Cutting administrative waste sounds good, but again no real substantive explanations of how he would accomplish it and he is not clear on where the waste is coming from – hospitals and doctors, or the government?

     Not sure how I feel on whether telemedicine is as helpful as the McMullin campaign believes. I cannot believe that it accomplishes qualify healthcare better than an office visit and it seems like it is more of a band aid to make healthcare seem more efficient. 

3. Reduce Reckless Government Spending and Inflation – 5 more bullet points:

a. Finding consensus solutions to overcome the pandemic

b. Supporting Americans return to work

c. Encouraging the return of critical manufacturing to America

d. Passing balanced budget legislation

e. Avoiding unnecessary wars.

  To start, the McMullin campaign started with a blurb that the national debt tripling since 2010 to 30 trillion. Clearly a not too subtle jab at one of Lee’s core appeals to conservative Utah voters – mildly amusing.

  Finding consensus solutions to overcome the pandemic seems like a priority that may have outlived its relevance. It seems that the consensus has been achieved organically, Americans will live with the virus in all its ever-changing forms. However, I suppose the campaign could mean establishing consistent plans for future pandemic control we could do better on establishing laws that require states to follow CDC and NIH guidance with less politics?

  The idea of supporting American’s returning to work sounds great. I would love more details on how he plans to achieve this goal. This was one of the strong suits of Bernie Sanders’ campaigns – very clear details on how he would run an administration. This sounds great, but what will he do about it?

  Encouraging the return of manufacturing has been a long-time goal of politicians on the left and the right. Again, it would be wonderful if there was clearer information on how he hopes to accomplish the goal.

  He would support balanced budget legislation. This is something I think the right still generally supports. One of the main arguments against it, is that it would prevent the government from using spending as an anti-recession tool and that the government could not intervene in markets unless the budget balanced. Personally, I am not sure market intercessions by the federal government have really been wise. All of us experiencing the pains of inflation are enduring a side effect of the stimuluses of 2020 and 2021. Pumping 900 billion dollars (payments to individuals alone) into the money supply has economic consequences.

  Avoiding unnecessary wars. I think this priority may have been written pre-Ukraine war. McMullin seems to have a lot of issues with Putin, and I wonder if this priority holds water if things heat up on that front. War with Russia would be horrible. Putin has tried to play the mad man for years regarding his nukes, and calling his bluff is not something I hope we try. However, if there has been any worthy causes for the US to go to war over the past 50 years (save for the initial invasion of Afghanistan) the invasion of Ukraine may actually be one of those worthy causes. 

4. Protect Our Air and Water. There are 5 more bullet points here, but I am only going to comment on one.

a. Improving western forest management

b. Developing water conservation practices and infrastructure

c. Investing in innovations that decrease harmful emissions

d. Encouraging job-friendly conservation in industry

e. Strengthening diversified economic development in rural areas

    All these items sound good and important, but only one item is critical. Improving western forest management is needed to reduce the wildfires that seem to plague the mountain west every year. Increasing spending on solar and (dare I say it) nuclear energy would be solid investments in clean energy (yes, nuclear energy can be a great source of clean power). Finally, diversified economic development in rural areas and business friendly conservation sound good (but not a lot in the details). 

   The critical item is water conservation. This is my third or fourth straight year where we have gone several months without a good rainstorm (even a hard short cloud burst) in St. George. Yet, there is not one single water restriction in place (that I know of). Golf courses and lawns are all still green. Jon Oliver put out an arguably fair (but extremely offensive) critique of the situation a few weeks ago. He targeted Utah, and he has a point. The Colorado River Compact needs to be fixed to accurately handle water usage, and states need to take action to deal with water shortages. How Mr. McMullin will affect change on this front is another question.

5. Keep America Safe. Last 5 bullet points

a. Modernizing and reforming the military

b. Strengthening alliances with other free nations

c. Protecting funding for police funding, accountability, and safety

d. Countering violent extremism

e. Securing borders and treating immigrants humanely

f. Improving digital safety for children

The first bullet does strike an important chord. China has surpassed the US in the size of its Navy, and it may be surpassing the US in some of our technological superiority as well. It has been most of a century since there has been a major war between large powers, and there is more saber rattling every year between NATO bloc countries, Russia, and between Pacific Asian nations. The US and, now that our NATO seem to be awaking to Russian dangers, our allies need to make sure the military edge is held by liberal democracies and not the autocratic nations who seem to grow more confrontational each year.

Trump made a lot of problematic moves in relation to allies during his tenure. However, the largest gripe of his may be remedying itself due to Putin’s Ukrainian aggression. Strengthening our alliances with NATO in Europe and Japan, South Korea, and other free nations in Asia is crucial. Russia and China have been seemingly flexing martial muscle, a weak alliance between the NATO alliance is a weaker deterrent to keep China from following Russia’s lead in its desire to annex Taiwan. 

The police bullet point is oddly phrased. You could read it as a call to protect police funding, or as a call to devote funding to increase police accountability. Meant to appeal to voters on both sides of the political spectrum. I think it leans more towards protecting police funding, but it also may call for some desired reforms to help reduce shootings.

Countering violent extremism is a large grab bag of things that can be included. In the first part of the century thus far, we would have mainly considered Islamic extremism. Post-Trump era, I think most would agree we should include political extremism of all kinds. Pre-January 6th right wingers would point to BLM/ANTIFA protesters as the real political extremist problem in America now. Sure, it can be granted that the instances of arson and vandalism were damaging to the cities where they occurred. Post-insurrection, I would have to say the BLM protests don’t hold a candle to damage that January 6th did. That extremism had the potential to end free and fair elections as we know them forever, and it did become the poster event for autocrats for how liberal democracies are failing. All violent extremism needs to be countered, but we need to be vigilant of the kind of extremism that seeks to overthrow the constitution.

On some level, I would say the 4th bullet point is a good contrast (as well as can be with short bullet points) to Mike Lee’s view of immigration. Securing the border is a good thing, but so are reasonable immigration statutes. I could almost have supported a wall, if the wall was coupled with simplified immigration procedures – immigration that doesn’t cost a fortune and exclude the poorest and most needy. The worst part about excessively harsh immigration is that is leaves the poorest at the mercy of exploitive profiteers who often lead them to their death (as we saw in San Antonio a few weeks ago). 

Mike Lee - 2010 Campaign Promises and Execution

Today, considering Mike Lee's campaign promise fulfillment from 2010. The campaign seems to have maintained the same campaign website between 2016-2022, however they stopped making promises – and just talk results. That website – maybe next time.

(2010 Campaign Site)

(Voting record)

2010 - Fulfilled or at least attempted:

Ending deficit spending - I think he has tried to do what he can to end deficit spending. The only blemishes I can see, is the 2014 vote to kill the Ryan budget and the vote against the No Budget, No Pay Act. From what I understand the reasoning for killing the Ryan budget was a resistance to any tax hikes on the wealthy to achieve the goal of deficit reduction (I’m not sure that is really an issue, there are better deficit options other than tax hikes). 

I find the vote against the “No Budget, No Pay” act more problematic. Sure, the bill may have been childish, but so is Congressional stonewalling and bickering. Decreasing Congressional pay with maybe a reduction in Congressional sessions (to a month or two) could do wonders to reducing the Federal deficit. 

Strengthening National Security – For me, this one is more difficult to define as succeed or failed so I will leave it in the tried category. There are some national security paths he has taken that I find distasteful (his approach to immigration for one) but there are some items that I can applaud (like voting to stop Trump from acting against Iran without Congressional sanction). I cannot say I believe he has pursued any policies that are prone to damage national security. 

I may caveat here, that I think his alignment with Trump (and I’ll be honest I have no tolerance here) 2020 election conspiracy theorists is arguably one path he took that either damaged, or had the potential to damage, national security. He (at least initially) sanctioned Eastman’s wildly unconstitutional January 6th plan – which is unforgivable for a “constitutional scholar”. 

Reform the tax system – Whether or not he can be credited (in any manner) with the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that tax change was a reformation of the tax system. There are some things I think may bite taxpayers in future years (like the loss of exemption deductions) but it was a positive tax change for now. I could see it being costly under a wrong president who has a firm and amicable congressional majority.

Reduce government regulations – This is a mixed bag. Economic regulation (which, to be fair, seems to be the focus of this promise) he has arguably succeeded. There are other types of regulation where his votes are a mixed and sometimes Putin-esque bag. In 2013, he voted against a Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (have not read the bill, but it reminds me of the Kremlin legalizing wife-beating a few years ago). He voted for a 20-week abortion ban; this Federal bill would be unconstitutional under the recent overturn of Roe. He also voted for the border fence. 

Illegal Immigration – Although I disagree with his approach and much of his rhetoric (the fondness he has for the term “anchor babies” comes to mind) I would have to say he has pursued the policies that he promised to pursue. 

2010 – Failed, or no effort

End the era of the lifetime politician – One of Mike Lee’s 2010 pitches was that Bob Bennett had been in office too long, and that lifetime members of Congress (like Utah’s two senators at the time) was a problem that needed to be rectified. 

The runaway growth of the federal government will continue as long as we retain a system that assures the existence of lifetime politicians. A career member of Congress inevitably will come to believe that that body has the answer to all social problems. The Constitution should be amended to limit service in each house of Congress to 12 years.

I agreed with him then, it was one of the only things that made the ousting of Bennett (a centrist like me) more palatable. I still agree with that sentiment now. 

It seems like he has sense changed his mind on that. This was noticeably absent from his current campaign website is the assertion that there should be 12 year or 2 term limits for senators.  

2010 – Items not addressed by me.

The 2010 issues page listed an additional 11 items. Most of them, I have not covered. The list includes illegal immigration, health care, US-Israeli relations, Afghanistan, entitlements, education, fiscal responsibility, abortion, gun rights, public lands, and energy. I addressed the illegal immigration item earlier. 

Some items were simply right-wing window dressing. You will not go anywhere as a GOP candidate if you don’t support Israel, overturning Roe, gun rights, and cheap oil policies. I did not feel the urge to analyze Lee’s influence on most of these items.

One item I agreed with him on here was his position of Social Security. He seems to have been advocating social security means testing or phase out of Social Security. I have not seen much success on this type of reform or if he has really tried to push it.

The 5 main campaign promises have had successes on all but term limits. Term limits seem like it may have been a bait and switch promise (at worst) or just a concession he made because no one in their right mind would ever try to limit their ability to hold power. He could never get it to pass, so why try. From what I can see, it looks like he made this assessment very early.

Health Care Reform - Tax-Based Changes

Part of the GOP is currently making a last ditch effort to get a repeal and replace healthcare bill passed, while some factions are insisting on a full repeal and others insist on keeping a great deal of Medicaid expansion in place.

While my family and I benefit from some provisions of the ACA, I cannot fully disagree with stepping away from Obamacare. Using the US tax code to help taxpayers cover their health care expenses seems to be a good place to make concessions that could make Trump-care more palatable.

Health Insurance Adjustment for ALL Taxpayers

In Donald Trump's campaign promises regarding health care, he mentioned making health insurance "fully deductible". Currently, the tax code allows for health insurance provided by employers and health insurance for the self employed as adjustments to gross income. However, anyone who is employed and buys health insurance on their own gets the 10% of adjusted gross income limit shaved off of their deduction. This is one example of a glaringly inequitable result in the tax system - especially under Obamacare. If health insurance is an adjustment from income for those who have employer provided coverage and for those that are self-employed - it should be an adjustment for all taxpayers.

Remove the 10% Limit For Certain Medical Expenses

When my boys were diagnosed with Autism, the most effective medical treatment for the disease was not covered by a vast majority of health insurance plans. The cost is high enough that it was impossible for families with incomes under 50,000 dollars to afford. These factor's led my wife and I to pursue her graduate education. We needed to raise our income in order to pay for these major expenses out of pocket.

Unfortunately, when you raise your income your raise your tax debt as well. While we have more money to pay for medical therapies, the IRS eats up a substantial portion without realistic allowances for additional financial costs associated with special needs children.

There are many situations where families that care for special needs or ill family members end up with a major tax bill that they cannot pay because medical expenses devour all available savings and investments. These people either get in deeper debt to pay the IRS, or they pay tax professionals (more debt) to help them request installment arrangements or request offers in compromise (offer's to settle tax debt for less than the amount owed).

If the 10% limitation was removed for catastrophic medical expenses (medical expenses from a single event that exceed 5,000 dollars or more) and medical expenses of the uninsurable chronically ill and/or disabled individuals, these families would be paying taxes on amounts that are more reflective of their actually financial position.

If we are going to get rid of Obamacare, let's provide some real incentives for people to be able to take care of their own medical issues. Taxing people on income with a health insurance adjustment would make health insurance a less painful expenditure. Allowing full medical deductions for those who have to pay medical expenses out of pocket, would make being self-sufficient a much easier pill to swallow for families with disabilities, pre-existing conditions, and other chronic medical problems.

Health Care Reform

As we stand on the brink of the GOP repealing the ACA and replacing it with there own version, I am forced to grapple with the personal and societal impact of government involvement in health care. When Obama was elected, me and my family was relatively healthy, I considered myself far more conservative than I am now, and I believed that the ACA was something that would grow government to an unsustainable size. As the ACA is about to be repealed, my perspective has been broadened due to health issues of my children and my own health problems. However, I still see the problem of government health care - it increases the size of government and gives Uncle Sam more of a hand in your personal life. The biggest thing that the ACA has done for my family is requiring insurers (including Medicaid) to cover treatments for Autism like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Conversely, the ACA has stretched the budgets of American families that have either paid more for health insurance than they need, or have incurred tax penalties because they did not comply with the ACA mandate. What is the optimal solution for allowing all American's the right to healthcare, or is it a even a right at all? The one thing that is patently clear is that unilateral reform initiatives will leave American's in limbo as power will continue to change hands every 4-8 years.

Tale of Two Brothers

To illustrate the difference of being with and without affordable coverage that covers all our healthcare needs, I would like share my sons' story.

I have two boys that are severely Autistic. Quinn was born in 2006, 4 years before the ACA was passed. Milo was born in 2009, 1 year before the ACA was passed. ABA has been the prescribed treatment for the entire period from Quinn's initial diagnosis in 2008. The problem then was that ABA was not covered by any insurance companies  and it cost more than 30,000 dollars per year. On salary of a Bachelor degreed accountant, that sum would take nearly 75% of my annual salary. In the meantime, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that required a financially painful medication regimen and my second son was also diagnosed with Autism a few years later.

My wife and I decided to change our situation the best we could. Since my long-term health had come into question, we determined that we should invest in my wife's education with the intent that she can be the breadwinner. This took 6 years, but we sacrificed and got my wife through her masters degree. She is now the breadwinner with a good health insurance plan.

Luckily, a few things happened toward the tail end of her education. State law required insurance companies and court rulings related to the ACA required Medicaid to cover ABA. My boys finally started getting therapy in 2016. This is almost 8 years after Quinn was diagnosed, and 5 years after Milo was diagnosed.

Sadly, time is your enemy with Autism. The older a child gets, the more difficult it becomes to treat them with ABA. By the time my wife finished her education, Quinn was almost 10 years old and Milo was 7 years old. The ages 2 to 5 are the most impactful years for Autism treatment. 

The differences in the boys' progress is striking. 

Milo has improved immensely. He is able to participate in mainstream classes at school, makes some eye contact, speaks clearly, is a great problem solver, and can take care of almost all of his functional needs. 

Quinn has also improved as well, but his improvement has not been nearly as drastic. While he is now partially potty trained (a feat that I greatly appreciate) he is still very much trapped in his own world. He still doesn't speak clearly, he requires assistance with most of his functional needs, he makes no eye contact, and spends almost zero time in mainstream classes.

Autism treatment is most valuable at younger ages. From Autism Speaks:

In the study, researchers at The New England Center for Children enrolled 83 toddlers diagnosed with autism in the school’s Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention program. The program, based on the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), provided 20 to 30 hours of one-on-one therapy each week. The children were between 1 and 3 years old at the time they began therapy....

While all age groups showed improvements, a much larger percentage of the youngest participants made significant gains in skills during the year of therapy.
* Among the toddlers who entered the therapy program before their second birthday, 90 percent (11 out of 12 children) made significant gains.
* This was true of 70 percent (26 of 36) of those who began therapy between 24 and 29 months of age.

* By contrast, only 30 percent of the children who entered therapy after 30 months of age (11 out of 35) made significant gains across the year. 

Prior to ACA, poorer Autistic kids were generally out of luck because of a lack of services and affordability. In Utah, there was both a lack of services in our home town and the available services were unaffordable until the past few years. Since the ACA and the court ruling that required state Medicaid cover ABA, more children are receiving therapy than ever.

I have concerns that the GOP ACA will make treatment unaffordable and unattainable for many other families of autistic children during the formative developmental years when treatment has the best chance of providing the Autistic child with a normal life.

Big Brother

Socialized healthcare has been a bogeyman in the US since the Cold War. In the fight against the ACA, the right used the popular image of Orwellian death panels that would be tasked with coldly allocating healthcare to only the most important members of society. Other images that socialized healthcare conjures are DMV styled hospitals, where patients are dying in inefficient and poorly managed lines by uncaring bureaucrats.

The ACA definitely has some majorly intrusive requirements for individuals. For a family of six to buy minimum coverage under the ACA, you may be forced to spend between 1,000 and 2,000 dollars per month or face a penalty of 2,128 dollars for 2016 (for income of 100,000 dollars). High earners were required to pay an additional medicare tax on their wages and investment income to help subsidize health care costs.

Worse still, is the fact that health premiums rose drastically each year for almost all Americans and insurance companies are starting to drop out of the ACA Marketplace because it has not been profitable insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

Unilateral Healthcare Reform

The ACA and now the AHCA were both crafted unilaterally. The GOP complained for nearly eight years that they were not given a voice in regards to Obamacare, and in a "tit for tat" move they are doing the exact same thing.

It is this "tit-for-tat" politics regarding health care that is most disturbing. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that the Democrat's will reinstate Obamacare (possibly a far more left leaning version) as soon as they regain power (which is almost assured to happen with Trump's popularity). This leaves the American people in limbo in regards to healthcare every 4-8 years wondering how will something as important as healthcare change.

Healthcare should not be used as a political pawn.

Making Healthcare Affordable

Principle not politics needs to guide the discussion of healthcare, and until that happens the American people are getting the raw deal.

Personally, I think there must be a better way to help people get healthcare than handing the reins to the Federal government.

As tax professional, government can subsidize healthcare in a less intrusive and more cost efficient manner. If I had the power to enact regulation, I would move to use charitable giving and medical expense deductions to make health care more affordable to more people.

Special status could be given to certain 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance for the healthcare expenses of the poor. For contributions to these organizations, a taxpayer could be given a generous credit (without income limits) instead of a deduction. Making the credit available for contributions up until the filing deadline (like with the IRA) would allow tax payers to make contributions based on their tax situation (the time when people are most interested in saving tax dollars). This way more healthcare would be subsidized outside of entitlement programs.

Necessary medical expenses should be fully deductible, and health insurance should be an adjustment from income for all taxpayers (not just the self-employed). This would alleviate the burden that people face when they have high medical bills and a tax bill in the same year.

Student Loan Repayment and Education Costs - Tax Benefit Approach to Encouraging Loan Repayment

As student loan debt reaches unprecedented levels, it will become important that government officials find methods to reduce the cost of a college education, encourage repayment, and allow debtors a way out if repayment is simply impossible. While reducing the cost of a college education and allowing debtors a way to receive a discharge of student load debt are issues that are beyond the scope of my expertise, utilizing the US tax code to encourage borrowers to repay their loans could be a powerful and beneficial tool to get student loan debt repaid.

There are a couple of misguided principles that currently rule how the tax code encourages American's to get a college education. First, education credits currently end up benefiting parents who  (in many cases) may not pay a dime of the student's educational expenses, or they are only available to the student in years where they have no income. Second is that student loan interest is the only benefit available to student's who are making their loan payments. Unfortunately, the student loan interest deduction is limited to a paltry 2,500 dollars and the deduction is completely eliminated if your income is more that 80,000 dollars (160,000 for taxpayers filing married joint returns). The first principle wastes tax benefits for the student who is going repay the debt, and the second principle doesn't provide a strong enough incentive for students to diligently repay their student loan debt.

Tax Credits for Graduates

Education tax credits would be better utilized if they were carried forward, usable by the student borrower only, and only allowable after graduation from a bachelor or graduate program. This would reduce the number of tax credits that are taken each year by making graduation a prerequisite for claiming the tax benefit. It may also reduce the number of students that attend college each year who lack the direction and intention of graduating with their degrees.

This would also provide new graduates with an income cushion that would make loan repayment a less stressful proposition in the early years of their new careers while their income is lower.

Unlimited Student Loan Interest Deduction

The student loan interest deduction could be made fully deductible. Doing so would provide incentive for repaying the loans and increase the repayment percentages. The deduction could also be tiered between borrowers who finish their degrees and those that do not graduate. If the borrower graduated, the interest deduction could remain a adjustment from income. Borrowers who do not graduate would be eligible for an itemized student loan interest deduction.

Revenue Neutrality

In order to keep this proposal revenue neutral, limits that have been in place against student loan interest (at different levels possibly) should be made to apply against the mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction has been a special interest loophole for the mortgage industry and realtors for several years. Unfortunately, it has been a contributing justification for unsustainable increases in home prices across the country for the past 10-15 years and ballooning debt. If we take a utilitarian approach to providing individual income tax benefits, it is clear that providing more tax relief to college graduates is of more value to society than rewarding mortgage debtors. The cost of a completed college education benefits the country with a more competitive workforce and taxpayers with a high earning capacity, while bloated mortgages benefit big banks and the bottom line of realtors that make thousands of dollars on every sales transaction that they close.

Student loan defaults are a major problem facing our nation's budget. Congress must find better answers to encourage loan repayment, and this issue needs to be solved sooner than later. Current student loan default rates are at 11%, but the true rate of non-repayment is far higher if the number of borrowers on reduced or income based repayment plans are taken into account.

Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Inauguration

The church has accepted an invitation to sing at Donald Trump's inauguration. The church has a long standing policy of singing at the inauguration of any president that offers an invitiation. There has been 10 inauguration performances since their very first invitation from Howard Taft. The presidents that have offered invites include, Taft, LBJ, Nixon,  Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. However, many critical of the move feel that Trump's rhetoric and arguably racist policy proposals should have led the church to reject the invitation as a sign of disapproval of the incoming president despite a nearly century old policy of accepting all invitations. Such an arbitrary snub would be a mistake, and there are many reasons why.

Political bans for charities and the LDS church - Policies are like bricks in a wall: As a charitable organization, the church is strictly banned from being involved in political activity for or in behalf of any candidate or either political party. However, the church may be involved in political activity in regards to public policy proposals and issues. There is a clear dividing line. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints follows this mandate and they have policies to make sure lines are not crossed and they do not take risks in regards to their charitable status. Policies build a wall against legal challenges that keep the church safe from scrutiny and from losing their ability to function as a charity in the US. If policies are followed, the wall is strong and legal challenges against their charitable status are thrown out as being without merit. If policies are followed and ignored arbitrarily, the wall is weakened and legal challenges may begin to look like they have merit.

For example, during the course of the presidential campaign and other immigration debates in the past, the church openly condemned Trump's anti-Muslim proposals and they have condemned harsh immigration proposals that pursued merciless deportation of aliens without consideration of the damage that such harsh proposals can inflict on families. These political statements are within the parameters of the law and the policies of the church. However, the church annually disclaims political affiliation to its members and to the public and they avoid the appear of endorsing candidates to the best of their ability.

The church regularly faces accusations of political violations because of their involvement in anti-gay marriage campaigns. As a whole these accusations have been rejected by Federal courts as meritless and frivolous for one main reason. The church consistently applies policies of engaging in public policy debates that involve issues that are important to the church, and avoiding the appearance of being involved in political activities for or against candidates or political parties.

Arbitrarily saying no to Donald Trump's invite would arguably be making a political statement. Since he is a candidate, this would also arguably be in violation of the political ban in IRC 501(c)(3). Given the evangelical right wing's embrace of Trump and their everlasting disdain for Mormons, I would venture to bet that there would be a lawsuit (one with merit) if the decision to arbitrarily rescind their agreement to sing at Trump's inauguration was to happen. The once strong brick wall of consistent policy adherence begins to erode and the church would risk more scrutiny on this issue and possibly even risk their charitable status.

I have heard the argument that the church needs to say "they don't like Trump, but they are only singing to keep right with the law". This would still be a statement that violates the church's neutrality policy, and arguably violates the statute. 

Making friends and influencing people (and more importantly influencing policy: Donald Trump is not an ideal president. The man has character flaws that shine as bright as the sun. I wish there was someone else being inaugurated next month with all of my heart. However, he will be the president. There is nothing short of a military coup that can keep him from being inaugurated. 

Those that suggest the church should squander an opportunity to build a positive relationship with the man that (unfortunately) will run public policy in the US and (arguably) the free world are ignoring the political price of such a petty snub. 

Presidents have traditionally asked for the input of religious leaders on policy proposals that can have an effect on families, cultures, and religious groups. The church has built up a reasonable amount of clout in the US as one of the largest centralized Christian churches in the world. 

Of the many publicly discernible character flaws of Donald Trump, his tendency to engage in petty feuds is one of the most visible. He has been known to engage in petty feuds with anyone who criticizes him for decades. His past enemies include celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Baldwin, and politicians like Mitt Romney, Marc Rubio, and Utahn Evan McMullin. McMullin ran a barely noticeable independent presidential campaign that was heavily critical of Trump, and McMullin still draws Trump's pettiness to this day (he recently called McMullin, McMuffin at a "thank you" rally).  

Given the fact that Trump will be making major policy changes, I would rather that the LDS Church be one of the religious groups that this buffoon turns to when making decisions like whether or not to go ahead with Muslim registries or deport 12 million individuals.

If the church engages in petty snubs with Trump, we can all guarantee that they will receive petty snubs in return.

Not to mention the fact that pettiness flies in the face of church doctrine. From LDS scripture D&C 121:43, "reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy".  The church has already reproved this world leader and engaging in a petty snub would lead to being esteemed an enemy - not a wise squandering of political capital.

One of the biggest problem in US politics, is that we have become far to willing to be swayed by passions and act rashly in anger and less willing to consider issues dispassionately with reason and wisdom. Assuming the Russian hacking allegations are correct, this is exactly the flaw in the American people that the Russians played upon to help get Trump elected.  I believe my church leaders are being wise by being guided by and in following long standing policies and church doctrines rather than the angers and passions of short-sighted members and the public.