Are The Poor Responsible For Their Poverty

Liberalism vs. Conservatism part 3- taken from video series I am doing with my son

In the first installment we covered one basic difference between liberals and conservatives which is the role each groups believes the government should take in the major issues of our day. Someone on YouTube asked this question “are the poor responsible for their poverty?”  This question gives us another opportunity to review some of the differences between liberals and conservatives.

In our 2^nd topic in this series, while talking about the proper role of government, we touched on the topic of the moral responsibility to care for the truly needy, but today let's consider the poor a little more, and lets be specific while we talk about the poor- we are not talking about the truly need (those who have mental or physical issues preventing them from taking care of themselves).  We are talking about poor who are capable of taking care of themselves.

Why would someone ask such a questions as “are the poor responsible for their poverty” in the first place?  Many have learned from the liberal viewpoint that the rich only got rich by taking advantage of the poor. To put it in the words of Ronald Regan “We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!”  This is the liberal idea that economic growth is a zero sum game, or if I get richer someone else must be getting poorer.

Conservatives recognize that economic growth is not a zero sum game.  Notice I didn't say that conservatives believe, but that conservatives recognize, because economic data does not support the idea that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor.  

In my state JR Simplot became a billionaire starting out as a farmer and getting into a lot of other businesses.  It can be temping to vilify those wealthy thinking “why should he have so much when I don't,” but what is the reality?  Because of JR’s efforts there were 10s of thousands of jobs created over his lifetime.  He branched out into electronics at one point by being the major funding partner for someone else's idea for a business.  That start of a small electronics company became one of the leading memory companies in the world with 10s of thousands of jobs created in a totally different industry from where he gained his initial wealth.  No matter how I twist it I cannot think of any way that JR Simplot’s wealth hurt the poor, but just the opposite- his success resulted in a great deal of economic growth, jobs and the improved economic condition of very many.  Through his ventures he did not end up as the only one with wealth, but there were a large number of people who have become well off because of his ventures and this spawned many more business ventures.

So are the poor responsible for their own poverty.  Well… Yes.  Who else can be responsible for it, and herein is another fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals teach that the poor are victims of the rich and that the wealth of the rich should be re-distributed to the poor because they only got it by taking advantage of the poor.  Conservatives on the other hand show that when given liberty the poor do not have to stay that way.  JR Simplot started out very poor- he quit school and left home when he was 14 and started working on a farm- not the typical blueprint for a future billionaire, but he was free to work hard and try for success until he found it.  Only in a free society can the poor move upward.  If we eliminate the free society, we also eliminate the ability of the poor to move upwards.  One final point to consider President Lyndon B. Johnson started “the war on poverty” and now 46 years later and nearly 17 trillion dollars poverty is winning.  The federal welfare programs which amount to an income re-distribution program have succeeded in keeping the poor poor and making poverty worse… 

So, we have two ideas- the liberal idea that the poor are victims and need to be given handouts through re-distribution of wealth.  Or, we have the conservative idea that the poor and everyone else should be given liberty and the opportunity to improve their own situation in life.

Where do you stand?

Proper Role of Government

Liberals vs. conservatives part 2 taken from video series I'm doing with my son'

In our first installment we talked about one major difference between liberals and conservatives which was their ideas on the role that government should take in addressing the issues of the day. Today we will look a little closer at the proper role of government.

We'll start with a little story that I have adapted from someone else- let's say there is some land far from any city and outside of the boundary of any state.  We decide to move there because of the opportunity available in this land.  As several of us move there and start productive business opportunities a little community develops, but we don't have a government.  As individuals we have the right to guard our property and protect our families, but as time goes on we find that we have to spend too much time on protection.  As a result, we can't be very productive, so we get together and hire a sheriff to provide the protection of life and property and government is born.  We only have the right to delegate to the sheriff what we have the right to do for ourselves.

In our community, let's say that you have two cars and I need a car, and I think that you should give me your extra car.  I have no right to demand that you give me your extra car.  Even if everyone in the community thinks that you should give me your extra car, we have no right to demand it.  If we don't have the right to demand that you give me your extra car, we also cannot rightly have the sheriff confiscate your extra car to give it to me. Again we can only delegate to the government whatever we have a right to do ourselves- anything more than this is tyranny. 

This short story illustrates the conservative constitutional view of the proper role of government- that government has delegated to it only the powers to protect our basic rights of property, life, and our own pursuit of happiness.

Ezra Taft Benson said “The government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. It's only source of authority and power is from the people who created it.”

Where do the liberals fall in this story?  Liberals believe that it is right for the government to confiscate your car and give it to me.  They teach that it is good for the government to forcibly take your possessions to distribute them to others.  In their view the liberals think that government bureaucrats can better determine where the product of you efforts should be directed.  They tell us that this is how you “care” for the needy by forcibly taking from some to give to others.

Ezra Taft Benson again said “Any attempt through governmental intervention to re-distribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.”

Does compassion for those in need have any place in this?  Yes. Conservatives believe that we are morally obligated to care for the truly needy, but that people must be free to choose to help.  Liberals also believe in the obligation to help those in need, but feel it right to use the government to forcibly take your possessions to hand out to others without any say from you at all.  Liberals have the desire to do good, but want to do good with other people's money.

We discussed the proper role of government from a conservative and liberal perspective. The conservative idea that government can only rightly do those things that we have a right to do ourselves vs. the idea that government is unlimited and can do and take anything that they choose.

Where do you stand?

Liberal vs. Conservative Part 1

This is part 1 taken from a series of YouTube videos that I am doing with my son.

Many mistakenly think that the difference between liberals and conservatives is what they care about. For example if I were to ask you- what do liberals care about, you might say- the poor, the environment, education, clean energy and other problems in society?

Thinking about it this way leads people to believe what they hear in the media that conservatives don't care about those things that they want to have dirty air and water; they are OK with poor education and so forth.  The reality is that both liberals and conservatives care about these same issues…

If that is true then what really is the difference?  It all comes down to how liberals and conservatives believe that these topics should be addressed.

Today I'm only going to focus on one main difference between liberals and conservatives (in the next installment we will discuss some other topics).  The liberal philosophy, when it comes to the environment, education, or any of the topics of the day, is all about the government. They believe that the government should be larger, have more power, control the economy and manage the lives of the people. 

Conservatives on the other hand believe in limited government and that the purpose of government is not to have power over our lives or control over the economy, but that government exists to protect our rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Conservatives believe that the important topics of our day can be addressed better outside of government intervention and control.

Let's look at energy as an example. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter (a liberal) signed legislation creating the department of energy. Initially the DOE was tasked with making the US energy independent…  Let see it has been 35 years and the DOE budget goes up every year significantly growing the size of the government and adding volumes of regulations and controls onto every company in the energy industry, but we are no closer today at being energy independent than we were then.  The liberal idea we hear much of today is that the government should “invest” in “clean” or “renewable” energy, and that sounds so good what could possibly be an issue with that?  In a free market system (supported by conservatives) technology winners and losers are determined by the market- which is to say by whatever technology is economically viable (whatever technology can deliver the energy for the lowest cost).  This one is highly important, because energy is the life-blood of the economy.  If we want a strong growing economy we must have cheap abundant energy.  The liberal view, however, is that the government should pick winners and losers based on some higher or more enlightened values (really it is based on political favorites), but what we end up with instead is wasted taxpayer money and higher energy costs.  The Solyndra debacle is the poster child for what happens when the government tries to pick winners- we waste 500 million dollars and the company goes out of business.  In my state we are installing windmills at a break-neck pace, and I'm sure this makes many feel warm and fuzzy when they see these windmill farms stretching out in the horizon, but the fact is that wind power is not economically viable in a free market environment, so they get installed with government subsidies and the government tells the local power companies that they have to use the power from these wind farms.  In my state the power company is now asking for special tax incentives to offset the higher costs of having to utilize these wind farms.

So, we have two major differing views on how to address the major topics of the day. Which one is right? If you look at the results… they speak for themselves.  The examples of big government failures are piling up all around the world.

Where do you stand?

Steve Appleton Remembered

It is an extremely rare occurrence when you see a confluence of high intelligence, advanced athletic ability, tenacious drive, fierce competitiveness, and earnest concern and compassion for others all in one person.

This was Steve Appleton in spades. From competitive (nationally ranked) collegiate tennis player to titan of the semiconductor industry to CEO of a fortune 500 company to Baja 1000 winner and regular competitor, to top level stunt pilot and jet pilot, to karate black-belt holder and champion, to motocross racer, sky diver, water skier, basketball player, multi-linguist, not to mention devoted husband and father and philanthropist, Steve did more in 51 years than most people could imagine in multiple life times. He truly lived larger than life, but at the same time demonstrated great care and concern for others.

What follows are some of my thoughts and experiences as well as things that I've learned about Steve over the years.

I was not a personal friend of Steve's or anything, but I have been an employee at Micron for about 23 years. When I started at Micron Steve was the manufacturing manager and he would come into the production area on a regular basis and hold meetings while we stood in the hallway. That's where I first met him, and I watched as he quickly rose from there to the company president just a few years later.

Over the years I had sent Steve a half dozen emails or so, and to my surprise he responded to every one (I learned that this was typical of anyone that sent him an email). He would respond even when the email written did not require a response. One time after attending an air show in Boise that he performed at doing stunt flying. His aerobatics were absolutely amazing and mind boggling to watch. I sent him an email the next day and just said that I enjoyed the air show and mentioned that the pilot in a certain plane was crazy! He responded with a simple "thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it." Some time later my dad, who is a pilot himself, happened to meet Steve's father in law. He told my dad that his son in law was a pilot and that he just had a special edition of a book about planes that he was in and on the dust jacket. I sent Steve an email and asked how I could get a copy of the book to give to my dad, and he responded "I have one here that I would be glad to give to you. What is your dad's name and I will sign it for him." He signed it and I went by his office to pick it up. He wasn't in at the time, but his secretary had it ready to give to me. I also emailed him during the short time that the board fired him telling him that it had been an honor to work under his leadership to which he thanked me for my support. He was hired back just a few days later when all the rest of the executives threatened to resign if the board didn't bring him back...

Jillian works at the library in Boise and had an experience meeting Steve at a reading event for kids, and in the short time that she had to talk to him she mentioned that she was sorry she didn't have time to ask him more questions, and he told her to send him an email and that he would be glad to answer all her questions. She sent him an email later and just thanked him for taking the time to do the reading event. He responded saying that it was his pleasure, and he set up a lunch meeting with her in a month so she could get answers to her questions- this led to Steve doing another reading event for the library. You can read her account here.

In my early years at Micron a lot of people were trying to learn Japanese since our major competitors were there. Someone that I worked with signed up for a Japanese class and it turned out that Steve was in his class, but after a couple classes Steve never came back. At one point someone finally asked why he was no longer coming to class. The answer was that the class was too slow, so Steve just decided to teach himself. A few months later he was traveling to Japan and was not using an interpreter to communicate. I suspect that he probably later learned Korean quite well too...

Micron one time had a dinner down at the Grove for people who had participated in the Micron Challenge. My wife and I walked in and there was already a bunch of people sitting at all the tables. I mentioned that it looked like there were some empty tables up at the front, so we walked up to one in the front and sat down. Shortly after we sat down I realized that there was a sign on the middle of this round table that said reserved. We were going to get up and move, but as we started to stand up someone said to us not to leave because they didn't know who else was going to show up (this turned out to be one of Micron's VP's and his wife). As we sat there Joe Parkinson came and sat down. Someone put his hand on my shoulder and I turned in time to see JR Simplot say "son, I'm JR Simplot how are you tonight." He sat next to us with his wife. Finally Steve came and sat down, and as he greeted everyone at the table he looked at me and said "Hi Roger. I don't believe that I've met your wife." I wouldn't have thought he would have known my name either, but he made me feel like I fit in at this table of executives where I was definitely out of place. It turned out to be a fun and memorable evening.

Under Steve's leadership Micron changed from a small local Boise Idaho company to a large global corporation with facilities in Idaho, Utah, California, Virginia, Singapore, Italy, Japan, Korea, and China just to name a few. His vision and leadership for Micron will not be easy to replace...

He was a scholarship tennis player for BSU and lettered every year. One year he broke his thumb just before a tournament. He cut the cast off his hand so that he would be able to compete at the event and ended up taking second in singles and first place in doubles. After that tournament and having to get the cast put back on he taught himself to play left handed so that he could compete during the rest of the season- change hands and still compete at the collegiate level!

Steve wanted to learn Karate, so in typical fashion he obtained a black belt in about half the time that it normally takes an adult to do so. He went to a tournament in somewhere like Portland and won a gold metal in his category.

Recently on a vacation trip flying though Mexico Steve and his friends landed along the beach. There was a little shack on the beach where a family was cooking shrimp and fish tacos for fishermen to make a few dollars to try and get by. Steve quietly found out information about the family and when he got home he sent them a very large care package. When a lady that worked for him with a cleaning service died he paid for all the funeral costs for the family.

I have never seen such a diverse group of speakers as those who spoke at Steve's memorial service. There was the president of SCORE national Baja off road racing organization, the governor of Idaho, the BSU president, the BSU tennis coach, A CEO of an aviation company, and the president of the national Semiconductor association. All of these people were greatly impacted by Steve and expressed how deeply people in their respective worlds would miss him.

I'm sure that my thoughts hear only begin to scratch the surface of all the peoples lives that were touched by Steve over the years, but I think anyone who had the opportunity to know him at all were blessed to see something very rare... Rest in peace Steve.

Support for Obama

I've read some reasons why some young people support Obama- Let's look at some of those here-

Health-care- Eliminated no coverage for preexisting conditions; made coverage more affordable for small businesses; raises age kids can be on parents policies; removed lifetime caps.

This one is so huge it could consume volumes, but lets consider the items listed. Why have preexisting condition clauses existed in the first place? It's simple economics- the plans get more expensive for everyone if they have to take all preexisting conditions. This does not mean there are not some ways to deal with gaps, but it does not need to take a whole national health-care to do it. The comment that it has made it more affordable for small businesses is just silly. We are talking about businesses that cannot afford to offer health-care in the first place, so how does forcing them to do so make it more affordable? What it does is causes them to go out of business or lay people off. This does not even start to take on the fact that many businesses will drop coverage all together because for many it will be more affordable to pay the fine for not offering coverage than it will be to offer coverage and those will have to be covered by the government. Now, why is it a positive thing for kids (no that's adults) to be on parents policies until they are 26??? That's just silly. What's so magic about 26? Why not 30? Why not 40? This again will cause insurance prices to go up. How is it right, or a good thing, that the government walks in to my employer and tells them that they have to keep my children on their insurance plans until they are 26? At what point should a kid (adult) earn their own way and provide for themselves? Finally the removal of lifetime caps- like preexisting conditions, this can be dealt with in other ways rather than all this national health-care. Again just removing these caps by decree will just make everyone else's rates go up. We have not even touched on the subject of what national health-care does to liberty or the fact that we can't afford it...

Ended war in Iraq and drawing war in Afghanistan to a close like he said he would.

Really? We are going to give him great credit for this? He didn't withdraw as soon as he said he would when he ran for office. Why? Because there was actually some objectives that needed to be achieved, and when done, war is supposed to end... Don't give me the tired phrase of him ending worthless wars. Did we do everything right in executing these wars? Probably not, but we did topple the Taliban which was harboring and colluding with Al Qaeda, finally got Osama, killed many terrorists outside of our country, got rid of Saddam who was funding Hamas, and fought Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq rather than in the US.

Thinks women should have access to free preventative health-care

Why do women, or anyone else for that matter, deserve "free" health-care of any kind? Nothing is free, so if some segment of the population is being given "free" health-care someone else is paying for it. I can't find any way of justifying that as being right. No matter how good it may make you feel, why should I have to pay for someone else's health-care. Honestly, do some actually believe that there are things that can given "free" without first taking away from others?

Believes in equality for all people-

This one is so false it is laughable! How is it equality for ~47% of people to pay zero taxes and everyone else is expected to cover all the expenses of the nation? OK, that's probably not what this comment was about, but really do people actually think that conservatives do not believe in equality for all people? The difference is what is meant by equality. Conservatives believe in the equality of the Constitution that all men are created equal and should be treated equally under the law (no special treatment for some groups), and that everyone should be free in their pursuit of happiness. Obama believes that everyone should be equal in the distribution of things- no that's not quite right- He believes that a few elites, who get to have more because they are above the masses, will benevolently take (by force) the product of other peoples labor and distribute it "equally" as those most noble elites decide best how to care for the masses. My wife tells me that this statement may be referring to Obama changing his stance on gay marriage, so just a couple comments on that. I have friends that believe that supporting gay marriage is more enlightened, shows that you are not bigoted, and demonstrates your strong stance on equal rights. I don't agree with those thoughts. Aside from my religious beliefs, the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. That definition predates our constitution, our country, and all other countries. To try and redefine the meaning of marriage is to make marriage have no meaning at all (maybe that's the end goal...).

Signed the fair pay act-

Who was not getting fair pay, who determines what is fair pay, and who's pay is now different as a result of this legislation? Just saying it doesn't seem to stand out as noteworthy...

Promoting and investing in clean energy jobs-

Do I really even need to say anything more than Solyndra? First, no matter how many times you hear the words "investing" from the president, the government does not invest. Government only spends spends spends. The debacle with with the solar company is a perfect example of why the government should never be in the "investing" business for clean energy jobs or anything else. When the government picks winners and losers politics enters into it and money is wasted. If this is left to the free market real investment dollars will be focused toward those technologies that are economically viable. When the government subsidizes someone's pet technology we end up with bankrupt companies, 100's of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and windmills dotting the landscape. What's wrong with windmills? Just like several decades ago when the government subsides dry up the windmills will go away. If we were serious about wanting to increase the use of clean energy we would be focusing on building more nuclear power plants (maybe I'll address that in another blog).

Supports education by giving flexibility to no child left behind and by making college aid more available

For the flexibility with "no child left behind." If it's not a good policy why not just end it altogether? Making college aid more available? That comment doesn't make any sense. He eliminated most options for college aid. Now you can only get it though the government, but you used to be able to get it through lots of other lenders as well.

He thinks millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us-

Like the rest of us?? I would wager that the person that wrote this statement doesn't pay a penny of taxes, so what could they possibly be getting at? Do today's brilliant thinkers ever stop to look at reality? Just to be clear- the top 1% of wage earners in the US pay 38% of taxes and the top 5% pay 59% of taxes, so under what justification can you assert that they are not paying their fair share? Look it up for yourself... What's more insidious about this is that the liberal elites are teaching a hatred of anyone who has more by making you think that the millionaires and billionaires only got that way by somehow taking advantage of everyone else. It really is the whole reason for the existence of the occupy crowd- the gimme gimme crowd.

Despite inheriting the worst economy since the great depression he added 2.6 million private sector jobs

Why do people constantly look for ways to give failed policies a pass? The economy was not at the worst since the great depression when he "inherited" it, but it was certainly going down quickly. What did Obama do? He made it worse with all his failed government spending. There is, in recent history, a direct economic comparison. When Regan took office we were in the midst of a severe economic recession, and in some ways it was worse than what Obama faced- Regan had high unemployment, but also had to deal with double digit inflation and interest rates that were about 20%. Regan and Obama enacted policies that were poler opposites of each other and the Regan recovery was rapid and lead to one of the longest times of economic growth in the US. Obama's failed policies have lead to a very anemic recovery and the prospects are not good for future growth either. Do we really believe we can avoid the economic realities that are facing Greece? Obama's latest budget proposal will take us quickly there to join them in the ranks of defaulting countries. You think this recession was bad, just wait for what is to come if we don't change direction soon...

Capitalism a Problem?

My daughter has just started college at BYUI. She is taking a sociology class and sent me a text that said "I need help with a sociology question: Why does the rise of capitalism effect how our society functions and how can we stop capitalism from becoming a problem?"

My jaw dropped; I didn't even know where to start. I felt slightly better to hear that it was a question from another student that she was supposed to respond to and not from the instructor. What I find so disturbing about this question is that it comes from a student at BYUI, because the student is most likely LDS and we believe (and teach) that the Constitution of The United States was inspired by God. Our Constitution is what sets up capitalism, because in order to have liberty you must also have economic liberty. Without the freedom to engage in commerce (or not); freedom to try; freedom to buy; freedom to sell; and freedom to fail there really is not liberty. Capitalism is fundamental to liberty- liberty does not really exist without it.

Let's take a look at that question in its parts- "Why does the rise of capitalism effect how our society functions..." Why? Because it is an integral part of our society from the beginning. It is the economic system that was brought into existence by the Constitution. Why? It is the only economic system that leaves all people free to improve their station in life. To move during a lifetime from the poor to the middle class to the wealthy is only possible under capitalism. Under all other ism's people are segregated into classes and the opportunity to move upwardly is nearly impossible. The question seems to be asked as if it is a bad thing that capitalism impacts our society, but on the contrary, its impact is positive. With this system products and services are offered based on the demands of the customer rather than a central planned economy where products and services are provided at the direction of a government bureaucrat.

The next part of the question "... how can we stop capitalism from becoming a problem?" It doesn't become a problem, however, there probably is some confusion on this given all the recent economic trouble our country has experienced. Our economic meltdown was caused, not by capitalism, but by government regulation, interference, and medaling in the markets. Yes greed becomes a problem when, driven by government mandates, men act in ways that they would not otherwise act. Very quickly- the government and regulators were threatening banks if they did not start lending more to minorities and poor action would be taken against them. When coupled with pressure from the government and implied associations that if it all went bad that the government would bail them out, many were driven to behave in non-capitalistic ways. The whole housing finance economic meltdown is a perfect example of the serious dangers when you leave capitalism and embrace government involvement in the markets. Under capitalism the decision to give someone a loan is solely based on an individual's ability to pay- this is not how lending institutions were behaving.

Capitalism is what made the USA a great nation. It is the system we have brought to many parts of the world and, to the extent that other countries have instituted capitalist principles, they have prospered. For more on the Lord's economic plan check out my blog with that title.