Government Budget

I do not think that the United States will suddenly explode if we let the national debt continue to grow, but I do think that there will be less economic progress.

Specifically, in 2014 $271 billion were spent on interest payments to those holding US debt. That is $271 billion dollars that wouldn't need to be gathered through taxing and more loans if we had balanced budgets.

I think this especially hurts those who don't invest, since they don't hold government bonds and hence don't receive any of those payments. This can hurt liberty and innovation.

In case thinking about the regular effects of the national debt is not convincing, in the light of Halloween we will look at some scary situations : )

Debt is a long-term spending commitment, and the US may find it difficult to adjust should there be an emergency and sudden need for increased funds. The US has been able to quickly increase its debt during previous wars.

If you believe in Keynesian economics,  it is nice to run some surpluses so that running a deficit (selling bonds so that the government can spend a lot one year) can be used to pull out of the occasional recession.

Greece is an example of letting deficits get out of control. A New York Times article today discussed how Greece is being forced to implement austere (strictly low-spending and high taxes) policies by other nations that have been bailing them out. This has led to low morale in the country.

Senator Mike Lee has supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This would require our two-year budgets to have at least as much tax revenue as spending, allowing congressmen to bring deficit budgets to the court; two-thirds of both houses of congress would be needed to raise taxes or run a deficit. I believe that such a structural change is necessary. For some reason, it is hard for politicians to cut specific programs even though they would like government spending to decrease. Bills with higher spending than revenue, like the one passed in the Senate yesterday, would come to be unacceptable and a balanced budget would become the norm, we hope : )

First Amendment Defense Act

The "First Amendment Center" starts the First Amendment timeline in 1215, when some revolting noblemen established that the king had to respect certain rights, of noble and ordinary Englishmen. In 1689 John Locke wrote his Letter Concerning Toleration, stating that "all Men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion."

I believe that these basic ideas began to be lived and led to a lot of love in the world, because tolerating itself can be a loving act and because it allowed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be more freely spread to those who want it.

Laws in the Constitution could theoretically ensure that the government respects this right, but a counterexample is the 15th Amendment about voting for all races, which was passed in 1870 but was not fully realized until Congress passed some relevant voting legislation in 1965.

Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Raul Labrador introduced The First Amendment Defense Act which would "prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

I don't understand all the details, but I do believe that energy and resources should be put into upholding the first amendment. I believe that protecting the freedom for religious people who believe in marriage between a man and a woman is necessary to allowing a continually progressing society. Freedom, respect and love for same-sex couples will continue without using the federal government to harm those who do not condone same-sex marriage.

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will do more than anything else to promote tolerance, creativity, and love in our society, and religious freedom is necessary for the spreading of these gospel principles.

Niches

In order to raise profits, companies try to look for a "niche." A niche is like a small monopoly that a company achieves over some small aspect of a product. For example, most Wendy's products are pretty comparable to any other fast food items. However, they might have some market power (monopoly power)  in the small bacon cheeseburger market. Their exceptional Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger gives them a niche within the fast food industry. You could also say that they have a niche/monopoly on 24-hour service or frosties. Since they are the only ones producing such a service, they might be able to raise prices on people, and people that really want their special product do not have other options.

Despite the possibility of heightened prices, people can still buy the standard products for a competitive price, and so it is beneficial for companies to look for these niches because it creates a greater variety of products.

I have seen in myself and in others the desire to have unique qualities. This greatly contributes to the beautiful variety that we see in the world. I believe that it is great to look for our own niches (unique qualities) as long as we are non-monopolistic and share our gifts freely.

Our unique gifts "are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them" (Moroni 10:8). "If their talents are used to build the kingdom of God and serve others, they will fully enjoy the promises of the Savior" (James E. Faust).

I hope we can find and use our unique gifts and talents!

Why I Believe

Recently, I had an experience that made me reflect upon why I believe in God. While teaching a girl from China, two missionaries asked me to share why I believe in God. I mumbled something, but could certainly clarify my thoughts on the topic, which I have tried to do with this post.

One reason that I believe in God is that I believe that the Book of Mormon, which testifies of Him, is true. I don't believe that Joseph Smith could have come up with such a book on his own. The logical part of my brain tells me that such a book, with principles that have been proven true in my life, and with stories and sermons that are so complex and yet simply beautiful, such a book was not conceived by an uneducated 19th century boy.

But as convincing as the Book of Mormon is to me, I can say little from an unbiased scientific point of view, because I want this book, which teaches that God exists, to be true. In my econometrics classes I learned that we shouldn't be trying to get the data to say what we want it to say; we are simply looking at what it says and seeing if it's interesting.

But my search for spiritual truth is not objective, it is subjective. I want my reason for and result of searching to be because God loves me and I love Him. My desires are an important part of my spiritual journey, not just sideline variables to be controlled for.

Perhaps this is why the Savior told Thomas, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." I think that I can more fully show my love for God when I follow Him without cold hard evidence of His existence.

My love for God is sometimes inconsistent, and so I am grateful for the ways that He helps me to keep believing. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have made covenants or commitments with God. So even when my faith seems weak, I remember that I "no longer stand on neutral ground. [My] faith will grow not by chance, but by choice." (Elder Anderson)

And so another reason that I believe is that I want to. Circular reasoning? Perhaps, but if achieving my greatest hopes requires moving beyond what my logical mind can understand at this time, that is okay with me.

I have also seen blessings from belief. I have never been happy about a decision made contrary to my belief in God, and I have never regretted a decision made in accordance with that belief. Living and sharing the gospel makes life rich. So I plan to go right on believing and loving forever.

Anti-government?

Is an anti-government sentiment beneficial? If by 'government' we mean the social compact that we have in society, or the organization that represents our common interests, then it seems a little silly to be anti-government.

For example, I recently started living in a situation where 'government' (community organization) plays a larger role. I am part of an internship program where we live, study, eat, discuss politics and play together. We share utensils and I personally am a fan of making as many ingredients part of the public domain as possible. Admittedly our dish towels can get pretty gross before someone gets around to washing them, and I do no better than the next person on that, but the happy community feeling and sharing efficiencies that we have outweigh the costs.

But 'government' often refers to the sovereign entity (sovereign=has final say) in a certain geographical area. That is what I mean by 'government' from now on. This type of government has a few key differences. The biggest one is that it uses force.

It's true that a club or church or company can exert social pressure, or even deny membership to those who violate certain rules. But avoiding those rules by opting out of those organizations does not require changing location, whereas fully escaping a national government's laws by emigrating can be quite costly, and sometimes nigh impossible unfortunately (see my Wall blog post).

The lack of ability to opt out is also what allows government programs to continue whether they are efficient or not. A well-working election system can theoretically fix these issues, but I think that a customer choosing to leave a company is a clearer and less complicated signal.

This inescapability is the reason our liberty is especially threatened by government.

In many ways, personal liberty is the absence of being forced from the outside. Thus, as the size of government increases, liberty decreases. An exception (hence the reason we want a government) could be when there are other outside forces (burglars, invading countries etc.) who would take away more liberty than the government, and are stopped by certain policies that the government upholds.

So perhaps a little anti-government sentiment is necessary to remembering government's threat to our liberty. Although I think the ideal is keeping government small while not hating on those who strive for the public good : )