Political Views

The political world has changed so drastically over the past few years that it's difficult to make sense of it. Some would say it hasn't been in the past few years, rather reshaping has been going on for a century, and I can see their point, but I have always voted Republican because I could get behind their platform, not so much the candidate, but in more recent years, supporting a certain candidate leaves confusion as to a specific belief system because of the amount of rumors, lies, and flip flops. So, I have decided to state my position on the issues rather than to declare who or what party I support.

Defense - I think the main purpose of the national government is to provide protection from outside threats. In other words, I think a strong military should always be ready to defend at a moment's notice. While it would be nice, it is very naïve and idealistic to think that we could disarm ourselves and then expect every nation to deal peaceably with the US. Alma 43:45-47. D&C 134:11.

Immigration - The problem of immigration falls under the responsibility of the national government to provide safety for all citizens. I am okay with anyone coming to this country, however, I would prefer that they not be murderers and criminals. There should be a record of everyone who comes into the US just as the government has information on me. I have heard that the process to citizenship is expensive and difficult, but it is the law, and it should be enforced for everyone. If this law is not good, then it should be changed. Until then, it needs to be enforced. The problem of so many undocumented citizens being here in the US is a problem of the individuals and their families for breaking the law and the national government for allowing them to break the law, and if they want to stay, they need to be made legal by following the law.

Health Insurance - I was disappointed when Obamacare was passed into law in March 2010. Before that event happened, I had done a bit of research about the health insurance industry. I wondered why there were issues that the insurance companies could not resolve, yet the federal government was going to fix. I started my research by looking under "health insurance" in Wikipedia. I found that there was an organization that set industry standards and was regulated by the federal government. It's possible that it was called the HIAA - Health Insurance Association of America. I first found it under the subject of "health insurance" in Wikipedia, and it was mentioned as an integral part of the industry. I have recently looked again for this information on the internet, and it is no longer there. So, the history mentioned under "health insurance" that is there now is incomplete, has been changed, or is being covered up. How can history be changed? You hear mention of this type of thing happening, and now I have seen it firsthand.

The issues that were going to be resolved were: pre-existing conditions, health insurance for the self-employed and poor, etc. First, just as easily as the federal government has allowed for pre-existing conditions, the HIAA, the regulatory agent, could have allowed it for the industry. Next, I was skeptical that the federal government could do a better job with health insurance for the poor, especially since they already had a program called Medicaid and CHIP, both of which I had benefited from. Early on, 1994, Medicaid was excellent, provided full coverage for everything with little required remuneration ($25/month). I remember getting full payment for hospital bills for Jay's birth as well as new glasses and dental work for myself from excellent doctors. Again, in 2000 we had Medicaid, this time it was difficult to find a dentist who would honor it. Finally, I found one and took one of my children to him to fill some cavities because the dentist I liked, Dr. Gailey, wouldn't take Medicaid. I walked into his office and the wood flooring was buckled from water damage. The teeth were filled with an amalgam, the cheapest way to fill teeth, and a couple years later the fillings had to be redone because they were done so poorly. Medical doctors could not be found who honored Medicaid for other types of ailments. I had to call many places to find help. Also, when I started working at SIPRelay in 2008, the callers mentioned having problems finding doctors to honor Medicaid. The complaints about VA benefits, government run health insurance for war veterans, were similar.

For the past six years every Republican candidate has used the talking point to "repeal and replace Obamacare" as part of their election platform. Voting to repeal it has taken place many times in the Congress. However, the Act has just become more cemented into our society. I wonder if there have ever been laws that were repealed. I know that even in the Old Testament a law that was passed could not be repealed, and the people and even king had to make a law to counter what law they didn't want to live. That is exactly what will be required for us. The Congress needs to start making laws to counter the train wreck of a law that is Obamacare, which I believe has already happened in the problem of financing it.

The health industry gradually has been becoming government run over a long period of time, and it is doubtful if we could put a halt to that significantly, but it should have always stayed within the capitalistic system and stayed within the hands of the doctors. Greed made costs go up and pushed it into the hands of insurance companies, and somehow big business, everyone's employer, was given the burden of paying for it. Insurance should never have been placed under the responsibility of business, but these things have become reified traditions that probably will never change. It was an easy jump to go from the insurance companies to the government.

Constitution - increasingly, presidents are bypassing the constitution to make laws. It's the only way Pres. Obama has operated. Yes, it takes time to create and pass laws, many say too long, but that is the beauty of the constitution in that it allows plenty of time to sift through facts, opinions, and to weigh all sides of an argument. Each one of the amendments is valid for any society and time period and should be safeguarded.

Gun Control – I don’t own a gun, nor have I ever considered it. I can also understand that we would want to stop murders, but if guns were banned, people would find different ways to commit murder. The argument that the guns are causing murders is the age-old argument that an inanimate object has culpability, which I will never agree with. I can understand the arguments of those who support the 2^nd amendment, and I think the populace should be able to defend themselves from outside intruders as well as the federal government, if need be, as it encroaches more and more on our rights. It is ridiculous to think that the government should take care of each person. That is logistically impossible.

Education – Education has gone full circle. Up until 1850 private schools, tutors, and home schooling were the norm. Eventually, reformers organized education to be managed by the states. Then, more recently the federal government offered financial help. Always when someone or something contributes money to a project, they can have a say in how it is run. And that is what has happened. I have seen education change during my lifetime to follow ideologies of progressive thought. For example, the English language is taught in such a strange way. Students aren't learning how to write. For book reports, students can choose to make a poster, draw a character, or write a letter to someone about the book they read. This was going on even in high school. Also, history has been rewritten to cover up social issues of the time rather than reflect actual events, and the points of view of progressivism and liberalism are taught everywhere. Another thing that bothers me is how students are not required to memorize, but "fun" is what school should be all the time. Trust me, I was just as surprised to hear the principal of the school where I was working say that. Changes to the way things are done today will have to start with rejecting the funding provided by the federal government, but that is not happening fast enough causing private schools and home schooling to become prevalent once again.

Abortion – I believe what the LDS church says about abortion.

Terrorism – this subject falls under protection by the federal government, and especially if they are not going to do anything about it, we need to be able to protect ourselves. We have had plenty of infringements, and therefore, it is our right to defend ourselves. The fact that the federal government is not addressing all the terrorism inside the US is Pres. Obama's attempt to get us used to terrorism or chaos around us, and it is working.

Economics – the federal government should stay out of business. They do not sell a product or service, and therefore, they do not have the money to back business. The only money they have is acquired by taxation. Every attempt should be made to keep business in the hands of the people, and people/businesses need to stop going to the government to resolve differences and problems. Yes, people may fail in their business management, but it is up to the people to deal with the consequences of their failures, not the federal government. Dealing with the consequences may involve restructuring of the business, educating on better business practices, kick starting the marketing of the product, tweaking the product to keep up with the times, or, and alas, dissolving the business. Bailing out big business puts the business in the hands of the government, allowing it to monitor and control the business and our buying power. Capitalism is a good thing. It gives people the freedom to do what they want in as devoted a manner as they are inclined. It makes people be decent to each other so that business will thrive. Yes, there will be inequalities, but we should never be working to get rid of inequalities. Inequalities are a result of differences in humans, and trying to make everyone the same is what Lucifer was trying to do. People’s choices reflect differences. The government needs to avoid regulation and taxation to allow business to thrive and ebb and flow as it will. Whenever I hear that a candidate wants to help the economy, I want to say, "stay out of it." Socialism/progressivism/communism are not acceptable solutions to the problems of economics. Distribution of wealth by the federal government is a very dangerous condition which takes away freedom. The evidence against these types of governments can be found in every country that has involved themselves in them. As Cleon Skousen said, "Capitalism has proven to be able to distribute wealth more equitably." It is not a perfect system, but it does allow us to choose how much wealth we want depending on how hard we want to work to seek out information and to get training and to get anything else that is necessary, whereas these other governments take away freedom of choice.