Firework or Sunbeam? (2012)

This is the annual update and reprint of a blog that was first published 7/21/11.

For a lot of reasons I do not stay up-to-date on the pop music scene and only occasionally listen to pop radio stations. I prefer gospel music, talk radio (when in the mood), light jazz (when I can find it), and sometimes I’m a little bit country (I grew up in Texas, what can I say?) and sometimes a little bit rock and roll.

However, even though pop music is not a #1 priority with me, because it often permeates society (clips of popular songs often show up in commercials and at ball games, etc.) I learn about songs I otherwise would not know about. 

One such song is Firework sung by Katy Perry. Even though it has been on the charts since 2010, I finally paid attention to it last year at Stadium of Fire in Provo, Utah. (That is kind of an appropriate place for a firework song to show up since Stadium of Fire is the biggest stadium fireworks show in the country, if not the world.) Appropriately, a clip of the song was played during the fireworks display.

Shortly thereafter I heard the song again, with new words, when someone pointed me to a YouTube video. The name of the video was Firebolt and was a BYU Divine Comedy sketch using different words to the Katy Perry song to send up Harry Potter and his firebolt scar. I have to admit, it was a fun video.

This particular video set my curiosity a blaze and I decided I needed to learn more about the song Firework. That led me to YouTube again for the actual Firework music video by Katy Perry. That was an interesting experience. I will admit that it is a fun, energetic song that appears to have a positive message. However, I shut the video off before it even finished because it promoted homosexual behavior, “parties,” and immodesty.

In For the Strength of Youth we read:

While much entertainment is good, some of it can lead you away from righteous living. Offensive material is often found in web sites, concerts, movies, music, videocassettes, DVDs, books, magazines, pictures, and other media. Satan uses such entertainment to deceive you by making what is wrong and evil look normal and exciting. It can mislead you into thinking that everyone is doing things that are wrong.

Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.

While the words of the song Firework are not, on their own, immoral or deceptive, the music video was full of deception. It was clearly making what is wrong and evil look normal and exciting. I, therefore, without fully knowing it at the time, took the advice of For the Strength of Youth—I stopped watching it.

But then I got to thinking about the message of the song—that we are fireworks. That each of us has a spark of light within us and that we should let that light shine “across the sky.” On the surface, that seems like a fantastic message. However, after a while the philosopher in me kicked in.

Think about a firework for just a moment. How long does that light shine? Hours? Minutes? Seconds? Yes, fireworks are exciting and powerful and colorful (and I love fireworks). But they are also short-lived. Even the most beautiful firework fizzles out in seconds. The light will not even last a full minute. And once the light from one firework fizzles out, in order to keep the excitement going another must be fired and then another and then another. Usually, the best fireworks shows go through a few hundred fireworks, last about 30 minutes, and then they are over. The light is gone.

Fireworks are exciting and colorful, yes. But they are also temporary. Is that what our Heavenly Father wants for us? Temporary light? To be a burst of excitement and then we are over?

I believe the answer to that question is resounding “No.” Heavenly Father wants much more for us—much, much more. He wants permanent light. He wants sunshine. That is when the words to a children’s primary song came to my mind:

Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,

To shine for him each day…

These words may seem trite or even childish next to an exciting song by Katy Perry, but think about sunshine. What are its characteristics? It is warm. It is life-giving and life-sustaining. It is more permanent than a firework—much more permanent. In fact, according to scientists, our sun as been in existence for about 4.57 billion years.

The sun is also more powerful than a firework. In fact, there is no question that the sun is the most powerful force in our solar system.

We also know that even the stars are actually suns from other solar systems whose light has reached our planet after many light-years of travel. Imagine the power of a sun that emits a light that lasts 24,000-26,000 years—the distance our solar system is from the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that is just our galaxy—there are a multitude of other galaxies beyond the Milky Way!

Does all of this give a deeper, broader meaning to the phrase, “Jesus wants me for a sunbeam?” I say “Yes!” We can be suns! We can be a light in the lives of those around us. We can warm their lives. We can give them lasting life. All we have to do to be this kind of light is be obedient to God’s commandments. As the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taught in For the Strength of Youth:

Because the Lord loves you, He has given you commandments and the words of prophets to guide you on your journey. Some of the most important guidelines for your life are found in this pamphlet. We testify that these principles are true.

We promise that as you keep these standards and live by the truths in the scriptures, you will be able to do your life’s work with greater wisdom and skill and bear trials with greater courage. You will have the help of the Holy Ghost. You will feel good about yourself and will be a positive influence in the lives of others. You will be worthy to go to the temple to receive holy ordinances. These blessings and many more can be yours.

I truly believe our Father in Heaven wants us to be more than fireworks, which are exciting for a few seconds, but then disappear. Our Father in Heaven wants us to be sunbeams—real, powerful, lasting, life-giving sunbeams. And to have this permanent light in our life, all we need to do is follow Him.

Acknowledgement: A special thanks goes to my friend Valerie Dimick who’s lecture on the subject of “sun” versus “light bulbs” helped to inspire this message.

Stop Looking to the Bench and Start Looking in the Mirror

Today the Wall Street Journal published it's daily editorial entitled "A Vast New Taxing Power" and the writers jumped through as many hoops as they could to skewer the June 28th ACA opinion.  Since the ruling came down last Thursday it has been spin, spin, spin on the left and the right.  


While it is true that ACA is a very bad law, it is a law nonetheless—a law created by the people's representatives.  That fact notwithstanding, almost the moment it was passed, a large majority of "the people" began to cry foul…and then immediately took their wrath to "the bench."

Over the years, the right has complained that the left "legislates from the bench" and the left threatens the right if they dare "legislate from the bench." It seems to me that way too many people are looking to "the bench."

In other words, are we not forgetting something here? Under the Constitution, it is the legislative branch that has law-making powers.  In a case like this one, if "the people" don't like a law, they can elect new representatives to make a new law. No bench necessary. 


Personally, I think it is time that "the people," on the left and the right, stopped looking to "the bench" for salvation from bad laws and started looking in the mirror.  (Next opportunity: November 6, 2012.)

A Brief History of Income Tax and "Fair" Tax Policy

Taxes
What are the purpose of taxes? Why do "we the people" allow our governments to tax us? I believe most people would say that taxes are the primary way "we the people" fund our government. In other words, we allow governments to tax us so they can raise revenue to pay for common community, state, and federal expenditures. The purpose of these expenditures is to, using a line from the US Constitution, "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." These expenditures include building and maintaining roads, fire departments, police departments, armies, navies (i.e. funding wars and national defense), courts, and the list could go on and on (and on and on and on).


Using roads as an example, I would like to think that most reasonable people would agree that if everyone is going to benefit from a road, highway, or interstate, everyone should help pay for it. Seems fair, right? Originally, the Constitution only allowed the federal government to directly tax the population if it, in turn it distributed direct taxes in proportion to each state's census population (Article 1, Section 2). The reason for this limitation is that the framers felt that taxes (head, poll, and property) were likely to be abused, and that many taxes bore no relation to the activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest. 


One Key Problem
One key problem we have faced in the United States since "income taxes" were first introduced in 1861 (to help fund the Civil War) is that only people who made a certain amount of money (or higher) were asked to pay taxes. At that time, only people who made more than $800/year were taxed (at a rate of 3%). Later, in 1862, the income cap was lowered to $600/year (still 3%) and the rate was raised to 5% if income was greater than $10,000.* (It is very interesting to note that once the war was paid for, these taxes were rescinded in 1872. Can you imagine a federal government with that kind of discipline?)


That all changed in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment:


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


With this new constitutional power to tax US citizens, congress enacted the first "permanent" income tax 1913. This new tax was for persons with a net income over $3,000 and was at the rate of 1%. It also included a 6% tax on incomes above $500,000. In order to finance World War I, by 1918 the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% on incomes over $1,000,000 (although the average rate for "the rich" was 15%).


As the informed know, tax brackets have come and gone and tax rates have risen and fallen over the past 100 years.  But the bottom line is this--there has always been a segment of the population that has never paid income tax--never. The federal government has always set a minimum cap.  If you make below that minimum, you do not pay.  So much for the idea that, "if everyone is going to benefit from a road, highway, or interstate, everyone should help pay for it." In essence, many people have been taught that they should not have to pay. 


Briefly, let's assume that everyone should pay, no matter how much they make and that the rate should be a measly 3%. I found an article written by the Urban-Brooking Tax Policy Center in which they estimate that 76.1 million Americans who receive an income pay no taxes. Using their figures, I averaged each income bracket and calculated what revenue would come if all of these income earners paid just 3% a year. The answer? At 3% an additional $46.3 billion A YEAR could be raised--additional revenue! Raise the rate to 4% and an additional and a whopping $61.8 billion A YEAR in additional revenue could be raised. That kind of income would go a long way in paying off $16 trillion in federal debt.


The Main Point
But, in a way, that is not the point, is it? The point is that the founders envisioned limited taxation from the very beginning because they knew how it could be abused.  James Madison said:


...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.


When does a tax become oppressive? That is surely open to debate, but one issue might be when you are taking my money and giving to someone else.  This, I believe, is one reason Article 1, Section 2 was included in the original Constitution. It says, in essence,'if you are going to tax the people of my state, you are going to give it back according to the population of my state.' No taxing the rich states to give to the poor or taxing well-run states to bale out poorly run states. From Article 1, Section 8: "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Hmmm. Now we see how radical a departure the 16th amendment truly was from the original Constitution.


The Bottom Line
Daniel Webster, a lesser known founding father once said, “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy” (17 U.S. 327 [1819]).  Today, that power looms darkly over a country that is approaching $16 trillion in debt.  But I believe it is not just taxes that can destroy this country--it is the debt. Ask anyone who has gone through bankruptcy if they had a pleasant experience. (Side note: I do not know about you, but I suspect our Founders could have predicted our current problems in 1913 when that amendment passed.  Abuse is clearly rampant--on both sides of the aisle.)


A Latter-day Solution
As a Latter-day Saint I see two solutions--one on the revenue side, one on the expenditure side.  As for revenue, I support the much ballyhooed flat tax.  In the church, everyone pays 10%--no matter what your income is.  You earn $10, you pay $1. You earn $1,000, you pay $100. You earn $1,000,000, you pay $100,000. The church has functioned for almost 200 years with that formula.


On the expenditure side--a return to Constitutional principles. Eliminate every branch of government be it local, state, or federal that is outside the original mandate, "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Restore Christian principles such as taking care of our neighbors, honesty, and integrity.  And when the need for a program has passed, end the tax. (Yeah, right, that will be the day!)


In essence, preach of Christ. Teach the world about how He can to influence the hearts of men and women worldwide. As Ezra Taft Benson once put it:


The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ would take the slums out of people, and then they would take themselves out of the slums.  The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.


Reality Check
In reality, I am smart enough to know that the point of no return was probably passed a long time ago. A quote floating the internet right now by Benjamin Franklin has already come true:


I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.


We are now approaching almost fifty years of public policy that encouraged people of all races and ethnicities to be made easy in poverty. These people have never learned or do not want to learn how to provide for themselves.  While I truly hope it is not too late--that reason and love will prevail and solutions will be reached by a new crop of leaders in Washington--I am also aware of what happened in 1860 when the country took a final sharp turn to the right on slavery: the left pushed back--hard.  


Only God knows what the future holds. But, no matter what, I believe he wants us to fight for what is right and at least one "right" principle is a fair tax policy.


*Primary source for all data: Taxation History of the United States (Wikipedia) 

Senator Hatch: His Voting Record on the Federal Debt Ceiling

Recently, FreedomWorks ran a campaign here in Utah that encouraged voters to consider other candidates besides Orrin Hatch for the Senate. One of their claims was that, “He voted 16 different times to raise the debt ceiling by a grand total of $7.5 trillion.”[i] Because I took a few classes in graduate level statistics, that claim intrigued me so I did a little homework myself. What I uncovered surprised me. It turns out that the FreedomWorks figures may be low.

The most fruitful report I discovered was a publication of the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. This report was published in May 2011. The title is Votes on Measures to Adjust the Statutory Debt Limit, 1978 to Present.[ii] While this report contained several tables full of interesting information, the table that is most relevant to this discussion is “Table 1. Roll Call Votes on Enacted Measures to Adjust the Federal Debt Limit.” These Roll Call Votes go clear back to 1978—one year after Hatch took office (January 1977). Therefore, these votes give a clear picture of Hatch’s voting record on raising federal debt for almost his entire career.

What I did was take Table 1 and research how Hatch voted on each bill. My primary source was the Congressional Record. Some of the information was obtained using THOMAS, the online version of the record. The remainder was obtained using HeinOnline, which contains a scanned version of the record going back several decades.

Before looking at the results of my research, a few terms need to be defined. First, a “roll call” vote means the senate asked each separate senator for his/her vote. The results of the roll call are reported as Yes, No, or Did Not Vote. As for voice votes, here is how the senate describes those:

voice vote - A vote in which the presiding officer states the question, then asks those in favor and against to say "Yea" or "Nay," respectively, and announces the result according to his or her judgment. The names or numbers of senators voting on each side are not recorded.

For the sake of this article, a voice vote is considered a “for” by all senators primarily because the Congressional Record almost always included the phrase “There being no objection…” at the time a measure was passed by voice vote. (This implies no senators voiced their dissent.) Another term that was often used was unanimous consent. This was also counted a “for.”

So what about Hatch’s voting record? In short, here is what I learned. Since 1978 there have been 51 resolutions passed in Congress that addressed raising or maintaining the debt ceiling. Hatch voted “for” raising (or maintaining a previous rise) 36 times, against it 14 times, and did not vote once. A table that documents each of these votes can be found at the end of this article. Here is how the yes, no, etc. votes broke down specifically:

Summary of Hatch Votes on Raising the Debt Ceiling

Yes	16	No	14
Voice Vote	16	Did Not Vote	1
Unanimous Consent	4
TOTAL For	36	TOTAL Against	14

Next question, how much did Hatch’s “for” votes cost the taxpayers of this country? That can be looked at one of two ways. First would be to look at his first “for” vote and his last “for” vote and do a simple subtraction. If you accept the voice vote in 1978 as his first “for,” in that year HR 11518 raised the debt limit to $752 billion (from $706 billion in 1977). His last “yes” was a “roll call” vote, HR 1424 in 2008. This resulted in a debt ceiling being raised to $11.3 trillion. That makes a difference of $10.6 trillion dollars ($11.3 trillion minus $706 billion).

If you want to be more literal and only count a “roll call” yes, Hatch’s first “yes” was HR 7428 in 1980. This resulted in the debt ceiling staying at $879 billion (from a previous high of $830 billion). His last “roll call” yes remains HR 1424 in 2008, $11.3 trillion. That makes a difference of a slightly lower $10.5 trillion dollars ($11.3 trillion minus $830 billion).

The second way to look at how much Hatch’s “for” votes cost taxpayers would be to add up the difference between what the debt limit was before and then after a “for” vote. This is a tad more complicated, but it does take into account the fact that he voted “no” on several occasions. This figure equals $6.3 trillion for the 16 strictly “yes” votes and $7.9 trillion for the more liberal 36 “for” votes.

That being said, however, on the few occasions Hatch voted “no,” almost always he eventually rubber-stamped a previous raise in the debt ceiling with another “for” vote. (In other words, he never held steady on a “no” vote.) In my mind, this effectively nullified almost all of his “no” votes before 2008.

The bottom line is this—Hatch’s “for” votes on raising the debt ceiling have cost taxpayers closer to $10.5 trillion dollars since he took office in the late 70’s. This is approximately $3 trillion higher than the $7.5 trillion as reported by the FreedomWorks campaign.

What I obviously learned is that FreedomWorks was partially right. I do not know exactly how they did their math. It appears they may have only counted the “yes” votes because there are 16 of those, but when those are totaled (debt ceiling just before and after the vote), it only comes to $6.3 trillion. Also, they may have only gone back as far back as circa 1990 to get their figures. Whatever the case, I believe Hatch has a much longer record that he needs to be held accountable for that includes unanimous and voice votes.

How should an electorate hold it’s Senator accountable for contributing to $10.5 trillion dollars in federal debt? I think the answer is obvious.

To his credit, Senator Hatch did vote against the last three significant raises in the debt ceiling in 2009 and 2010. In these cases he voted against almost $3 trillion in additional federal debt (because the current debt ceiling is $14.3 trillion). If he is re-elected in November, let’s hope he continues to always vote “no.”

------------------

Senator Orrin Hatch Voting Record on Raising Federal Debt

Year	Bill Number	Debt Limit Amount ($ in billions)	Hatch Vote
1978	H.R. 11518	$752	Voice Vote
	H.R. 13385	$798	No
1979	H.R. 2534	$830	No
	H.R. 5369	$879	No
1980	H.R. 7471	same	No
	H.R. 7428	same	Yes
	H.J.Res. 569	$925	No
	H.J.Res. 570	$935.10	Voice Vote
1981	H.R. 1553	$985	Yes
	H.J.Res. 266	$999.80	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 265	$1,079.80	Yes
1982	H.J.Res. 519	$1,143.10	Did Not Vote
	H.J.Res 520	$1,290.20	Yes
1983	H.R. 2990	$1,389.00	Yes
	H.J.Res. 308	$1,490	Voice Vote
1984	H.R. 5692	$1,520	Voice Vote
	H.R. 5953	$1,573	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 654	$1,823.80	Yes
1985	H.R. 3721	$1,903.80	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 372	$2,078.70	Yes
1986	H.R. 5395	$2,111	Yes
	H.R. 5300	$2,300	No
1987	H.R. 2360	$2,320	No
	H.R. 3022	same	Voice Vote
	H.R. 3190	$2,352	No
	H.J.Res. 324	$2,800	Yes
1989	H.R. 3024	$2,870 $	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 280	3,122.70	Voice Vote
1990	H.R. 5350	$3,195	Voice Vote
	H.R. 5755	same	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 666	same	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 677	same	Voice Vote
	H.J.Res. 681	same	Unanimous Consent
	H,J. Res. 687	$3,230	Voice Vote
	H.R. 5835	$4,145	No
1993	H.R. 1430	$4,370	Unanimous Consent
	H.R. 2264	$4,900	No
1996	H.R. 2924	[special case]	Unanimous Consent
	H.R. 3021	[special case]	Voice Vote
	H.R. 3136	$5,500	Unanimous Consent
1997	H.R. 2015 ≈	$5,950	Yes
2002	S. 2578	$6,400	Yes
2003	H.J.Res. 51	$7,384	Yes
2004	S. 2986	$8,184	Yes
2005	H.J.Res. 47	$8,965	Yes
2007	H.J.Res. 43	$9,815	Yes
2008	H.R. 3221	$10,615	No
	H.R. 1424	$11,315	Yes
2009	H.R. 1	$12,104	No
	H.R. 4314	$12,394	No
2010	H.J.Res. 45	$14,294	No
		Yes	16
		No	14
		Voice Vote	16
		Unanimous Consent	4
		Did Not Vote	1
		TOTAL	51

---

[i] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74062.html#ixzz1pnYJze6z (downloaded March 21, 2012)

[ii] http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40157/ (downloaded March 21, 2012)