Giving the Senator a Chance

Dr. Ben Carson - #BC2DC16

I started this election season a staunch supporter of Dr. Ben Carson, but have come to the sad realization that #BC2DC16 will not happen.  I suppose in my heart I knew it would not, but I wanted to dream, even if only for a few months.  Dr. Ben Carson is a great, great man.  I am so proud of what he has done these past few months.  I am proud to have supported him and wish him well. 

Thus, it is time for me to move to my #2.  I have not come to the decision lightly, but have done hours of homework.  And here was my litmus test:

I strongly believe this coming election should not be about “personality” or “charm” (a la the Kennedy “Camelot”), but about character, accomplishments, and abilities.  I feel this way because personality and charm will not save our country--character and a commitment to God and the Constitution of the United States will. 

So…I have listened to all of the remaining candidates that even somewhat appeal to me in this order:  Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and Rand Paul.  I have listened to speeches and studied bios, resumes, and accomplishments.  I have worked to get past “personality.”  I have paid attention to endorsements of people I trust. 

This homework as led me to one conclusion.  In the words of the famous conservative, William F. Buckley, Jr.—it is important to support the most conservative candidate who can win.  But today, I think Mr. Buckley might be willing to amend that to, “Support the most conservative. Period.”  (I would hope he would agree that conservatism is now more important than winning.)

Side Note:  Using this definition, Trump is disqualified immediately.  All evidence shows he is not conservative.  If you don’t believe me, trust the 20+ conservative thinkers who submitted essays to the National Review, a leading conservative publication for decades --  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination. 

But Trump is “counted out” for me for an even important reason: character.  This man is a selfish womanizer; he is cruel, uncouth, and certainly not a “Level 5” leader.  He can’t hold a candle to Ben Carson and I do not believe this needs any additional explanation.  As we learn in the Declaration of Independence, his language and behavior reveal his character.  It is self-evident.  And it does not matter that he might could “win.”  A Trump “win” would be a loss for conservatives, Republicans, and more importantly, America and the Constitution.

Fruits of the Homework and Research: Giving the Senator a Chance

After all of this homework, I have come to strongly believe that the candidate who is most prepared to lead our country in the crises that lie ahead, the one who understands the Constitution the best and who has a proven track record of defending it (especially life and religious liberty), the one who knows that it is God and “we the people” that can save this country (and not himself), and the one that happens to sometimes have a grating personality is, drum roll please, Senator Ted Cruz.  Please don’t turn me off just yet.  As I said above, this is not about personality--it is about character, accomplishments, and abilities. 


In the footnote of this blog is a list of "the details," i.e. all of the homework I did to come to this conclusion.  These speeches and interviews total about 3 to 3.5 hours.  If all of that seems like too much to duplicate, please go to Ted Cruz's Facebook page.  There is a nice 8 minute summary speech given at the Linn County Super Caucus that was posted on Monday February 1, 7:43pm.  In business we call this an "executive summary."


Yes, Cruz can have a blustery personality.  He can also come across as tough and unyielding.  But politics today is an emotionally violent business.  Don’t we need someone tough and unyielding at the helm to defend religious liberty, life, and family?  The coming attacks will be ruthless in ways we cannot even imagine. 


I truly believe Senator Cruz is for real and meets the full qualification of “the most conservative candidate who can win.”  Please do not listen to ANYONE who says "Cruz can't win," i.e. CNN, Fox, or the RNC or anyone who listens to these guys.  That is what they tried to tell Iowa and...CRUZ JUST WON IOWA!  In fact, he won more votes in the Iowa caucus than any other Republican in history. And he did it by not allowing the media to define him.  He was on the ground meeting people, talking with them, and listening.  As far as I know, he is the only candidate who visited every county in the state. 


I know Senator Cruz’s personality can be off-putting sometimes, but that is because he is so smart and tough.  Shouldn’t compassionate conservatives agree that right now what this country needs is a leader who, more than anything else, smart and tough?  


In the end, my support for Senator Ted Cruz boils down to two things.  These two things are, in my view, the two most important things a president should know, 1) the Bible and 2) the Constitution.  If you choose to do even a little of the same homework I did you will see that the Senator understands both of these better than any other candidate in this race, including Senator Rubio.  That is how Cruz earned my vote.

Resumes matter—or at least they should.  And despite the fact that Cruz and Rubio are the same age, Cruz has had ten times the experience and depth of Rubio.  When placing their accomplishments side by side, there is no contest.  Cruz wins, hands down. 

I will be “sharing” a lot about Senator Cruz in coming days.  I believe in him and I hope I can persuade you to believe in him, too :-)
-----------------
Footnote: The Details

If you want to know the details of how I got here, these are the four speeches that entrenched him as my #2:

1. The Prestonwood Baptist Presidential Forum, Part 1, minute 34:45 to 1:08ish (http://www.prestonwood.org/north-texas-presidential-forum).  His speech was short and sweet, but what I liked most was the Q&A with Pastor Graham.  Of all the candidates I watched at this forum, next to Ben Carson, I was most impressed with Senator Cruz.  (I was also disappointed that Senator Rubio was a no-show.)  After listening to a the aforementioned candidates who were at this forum, Mr. Cruz became my soft #2.
2. The Glenn Beck Program: A Conversation with Ted Cruz, October 26, 2015, (I know Glenn can be irritating, too, but, again, please get past the personality and into the substance): http://www.video.theblaze.com/video/v522620283/1026-glenn-beck-program  Glenn can ask hard questions and he did.  It was during this program Mr. Cruz became my solid #2.  If you do not have TheBlaze it is worth spending $1 for the 30 day trial just to watch the interviews with all the candidates.  He interviews Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Paul, Santorum, and Jindel (I think).  I am not sure which ones are still posted.
3. Speech given at Ankeny, Iowa.  Available on Glenn Beck’s Facebook page dated January 23 at 2:13pm.  Intro by Glenn Beck starts at about 47:00 minute mark. If interested, Glenn Beck’s speech at this rally is very good—informative, enlightening, and passionate.  It starts about minute 8:00.
4. Very similar to 3), but not as moving as Ankeny: Speech given at Waterloo, Iowa beginning about hour/minute 1:19 with GB intro: http://www.c-span.org/video/?403551-1/ted-cruz-campaign-rally-waterloo-iowa (Glenn’s full speech starts at minute 24:00).

In addition, this sealed the deal:  if you spend the $1 for 30 days of TheBlaze, watch the middle hour, 1^st 15 minutes of the January 25-28 episodes.  Glenn does a nice job of summarizing Cruz’s background and resume. 

Firework or Sunbeam (2014)

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 first hit the charts in 2010, I finally paid attention to it a year or so later 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 one of 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 naturally curious mind in gear 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 endorsed homosexual behavior, “parties,” and immodesty.

I eventually learned two things from the song Firework.  The first came when I compared it to For the Strength of Youth. Here 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." The idea 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. This led me to my second lesson. 

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 just seconds. The light created by a firework will not even last a full minute. And in order to keep the excitement going once the light from one firework fizzles out, another must be fired and then another and then another. Usually, the best fireworks shows last about 30 minutes, go through a few hundred fireworks, 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 has 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 true light in the lives of everyone 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 also 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.

Happy 4th of July everyone! Let true freedom ring!!

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.

Stare Decisis and Becoming a "Law Unto Themselves"

President Joseph F. Smith, prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1901-1918, once made an interesting statement about "False Teachings."  He wrote:

Among the Latter-day Saints, the preaching of false doctrines disguised as truths of the gospel, may be expected from people of two classes, and practically from these only; they are:

First—The hopelessly ignorant, whose lack of intelligence is due to their indolence and sloth...those who are afflicted with a dread disease that may develop into an incurable malady—laziness.

Second—The proud and self-vaunting ones, who read by the lamp of their own conceit; who interpret by rules of their own contriving; who have become a law unto themselves, and so pose as the sole judges of their own doings. More dangerously ignorant than the first.

Beware of the lazy and the proud; their infection in each case is contagious…[1]

The phrase that caught my imagination in this quote is "who have become a law unto themselves."  

You should know I am not a trained attorney, although law school is in my life plan.  In preparation for that goal I have done some research on law and legal thinking.  That research led me to one thing in particular that concerns me about the practice of law and the legal culture--the doctrine of stare decisis.  According to the Cornell Law website:

Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand by things decided." It is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).[2]

Read any legal opinion.  What does it contain?  "The court ruled this way because 'case A' was decided that way and 'case B' was decided this way, etc. etc. etc."  To me this says that lawyers are arguing cases and sitting justices are upholding (or overturning) our laws based on what other former sitting justices have said about this law or that law.  And you know what this sounds like to me?  A group of people "who have become a law unto themselves." A group of people who are "making" laws that are disguised as good, true laws, but in actuality are the philosophies of men (which is the topic for another essay--judges are to execute the law, legislatures make laws).

In truth, what is the very foundation of "good laws?"  A hint...a prophet once came down from a mountain with ten of them in his hands.  If you mentally said, "God's Commandments" or "God's Laws," you are right.  We have laws against stealing because God once told us that it was a commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."  That wisdom still exists in our laws today (thankfully at least a few have survived).

This is one of the key reasons our founders decided to break away from England and form a new nation.  They wanted us to become a nation of people who did not believe laws came from a king, but from "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."  In a way, that vision did not last very long and may have been dying even before it was canonized.  The practice of stare decisis actually started taking root about 70 years before the Declaration of Independence was written and thus about 80 years before our Constitution was adopted.  

Here is my dream....here is my vision...that one day we will live in a nation of people who cite God's law in all legal decisions.  "The court has ruled this way because God has taught us, 'Thou shalt not steal,' and it is very clear in this case that the defendant stole from his company."  In my view, and in the view of a lot of like-minded people, God's laws make good law and a society that embraces His laws will be blessed and prosper.

---

[1] https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/false-teachings?lang=eng (downloaded 3-21-14)

[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis (downloaded 3-21-14)

Lincoln and Same-Sex Marriage: He Would Not Agree...

Many years ago in a Wall Street Journal Editorial, Richard A. Epstein (Live and Let Live, July 13, 2004) essentially argued that same-sex marriage was not a big deal--that conservatives should just “leave same-sex couples alone.” Since then,  the state of New York has decided to jump on the ‘marriage’ bandwagon.  In all, about 11 other states are also on that wagon.  Today, the Supreme Court weighed in as well.  So, the question can be asked anew—Could “leave them alone” work?

In his address at Cooper Union (ironically, in New York) in February 1860, Abraham Lincoln said that those who promoted keeping slavery legal would refuse to be "left alone" because it was not in their nature. I think he might say the same thing to Mr. Epstein, New York legislators, and all others who believe in “live and let live.” The primary reason I believe this is that I was on the front lines in Hawaii in 1998 when the same-sex ‘marriage’ crowd tried to force the issue on that state. It went down in flames. But, as Lincoln predicted, the proponents of this lifestyle have refused to be left alone. Over the past 15+ years they have just taken their fight to other states (including back to Hawaii).

So, what might Lincoln say today about this issue? Here is what my imagination says, using paraphrased remarks from his famous speech at Cooper Union. (I basically replaced slavery with same-sex ‘marriage.’):

Will leaving same-sex couples alone satisfy them? No. Some policy-makers have tried for years to “live and let live” (i.e. by not enforcing sodomy laws) but this has not satisfied them.

What will satisfy them? This and this only: cease to call the practice of homosexuality wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly—done in acts as well as in words—acts that include the overthrow of state constitutions that already outlaw same-sex marriage. Silence will not be tolerated—we must place ourselves avowedly with them.

Their thinking homosexual behavior right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, who can blame them for desiring its full recognition? But thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Let those of us who know homosexual behavior is wrong (i.e. we love the sinner, but hate the sin) not be diverted by sophistical contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between right and wrong (i.e. “live and let live”). This is as vain as the search for a man who is neither living nor dead. “Live and let live” is a policy of “don't care” on a question about which all true men do care.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction ... nor of dungeons to ourselves.

Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. (The full text of Cooper Union can be found here.)

I personally believe Lincoln was right--those who argue that same-sex marriage should just be "left alone" do not understand the nature of those who promote this behavior. They do not want to be left alone—they want to be right. They want to defeat what is right and replace it with what is wrong. Therefore, those of us who believe in preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women will continue our fight.

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)