Mormons and Political Neutrality

There's a simple reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes such a point in every election year about maintaining its neutrality position on politics - to do otherwise would threaten its tax-exempt status.

In every election year in my lifetime there have always been statements issued by the Church's leaders encouraging members to become involved in politics. However, leaders never tell members how to become involved, which party to support or how to vote. This year in particular with a Mormon heading the Republican ticket, the Church has come up with a creative way to illustrate its position:



I have no idea how Mitt Romney will fare in the general election in November. Frankly, there are days I am almost ambivalent about the presidential race. I don't fear the attacks on the Church, and I am quite certain Romney will be a great candidate. What concerns me more is taking back a majority from Democrats in the Senate, which would depose another Mormon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

If anyone needs an illustration about how bi-polar Mormons tend to be as a voting block, one need look no further than Harry Reid vs. Mitt Romney.

Even more surprising to me is how heavily-Mormon Utah in 2010 could elect Mike Lee, tea party favorite, and now in 2012 be clinging to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Anyone who thinks Mormons vote in lock step in a block this way or that, simply doesn't know how convoluted their thinking politically can be. I have many friends who have remained independent in red Utah, claiming to vote for "the man" rather than the party. I took that position for many years as a registered independent so I could vote in whichever primary suited me that year.

Then Mitt Romney ran for president the first time and the only way I could cast a vote for him was to finally declare myself as a Republican. You're looking at a guy here who voted twice for Ross Perot in Utah where my vote literally makes no difference since in both cases the state went Republican as it always does.

This year we have a lot of interesting things happening. Peter Cooke, retired Mormon general Democrat is trying to generate some enthusiasm among Democrats to siphon off Republican support for Governor Gary Herbert. It's an attempt to revitalize the two-party system in Utah, but Herbert is a popular governor, having trounced his competition in the nominating convention and winning enough delegates to avoid a primary.

Mia Love

Mia Love is running in the general election for the newly-created 4th District seat against Jim Matheson, who changed districts for a more favorable demographic. I can't say I blame him. He's survived many attempts to oust him from office, but I've voted for him in the 2nd District in years past because I felt he was the best available candidate, until I became agitated and aroused. I backed Morgan Philpot last time around.

Matheson would become a six-term Congressman, but this year he may have met his match in Mia Love. How will he run opposed to a black Mormon woman who's smart, savvy and unafraid of anything with the name of Love? My prediction is that Utah is ready to elect her without any reservations in the 4th District.

So why can't Utah kick Orrin Hatch (78 years old) to the curb and deny him his seventh six-year term? He has served as a Senator longer than any other Utahn (36 years), and would become another Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond who might serve until he dies in office. Dan Liljenquist is certainly a qualified and acceptable replacement for Orrin Hatch.

The answer: Utah Mormons are just a bi-polar bunch when it comes to their politics. It's no wonder the Church would never attempt to impose its will on their members.

It's kind of like trying to herd cats.

"Symbolic" House Vote Repeals Obamacare

It was newsworthy last week only if you don't tune in to the mainstream media.  They didn't give it much play.  But the newly-elected Republican-dominant U.S. House of Representatives resoundingly voted anyway by a margin of 245-189 to repeal the most costly entitlement program in nation's history.  They don't call this body "The People's House" for no reason!

It's no secret I was opposed to it from the moment it was announced, but more than being opposed to it, I was opposed to HOW it was done.  It is that aspect of the ongoing debate that interests me most today.

There was opposition to Social Security when it first was introduced and enacted into law.  But there was no vote within a year to repeal it.  That was also the case when Medicare was first introduced, along with Medicaid.  None of those programs faced this kind of perpetual anger and frustration from the public, united in their dislike in majority numbers. 

How it was done

The difference in my mind is that unlike Obamacare, the other entitlement programs listed did not pass on a one vote margin bought and paid for in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve in the Senate.  Further, one year after its passage Obamacare has managed to inflame half the states in the nation who have gone to court to challenge its constitutionality.  None of those other programs were struck down within a year of their passage as "unconstitutional" by a federal court.

Handout or empty hand?

We have all been partaking at the trough of government entitlement programs for a long time, and the majority of Americans now like them.  The difference with Obamacare, in my humble opinion, is that it represented a bridge too far in the minds of Americans.  Rather than welcome a handout when the economy had punished so many so severely recently, they pushed back knowing it was not a hand up, only an empty hand promising unsustainable debt and deficits.

Most economists and others who have studied its provisions (I have not) now conclude there is little of anything representing cost savings in the measures enacted.  It went too far, and fewer and fewer have indicated they really want more government intruding into their lives and their choices, especially when it is being paid for with more foreign debt.

Maybe more than symbolic

There is some indication, however, the vote may actually be more than symbolic.  Often, split government produces real progress.  A measure proposed by the White House to a divided Congress thought to be DOA is often debated fairly, both sides expressing their views and a helpful and useful conclusion reached.  Those were the days when a Ronald Reagan could persuade a Tip O'Neill that tax cuts in a bad economy might just be a good idea to present to a Democratic Congress.  It's happened before, why not again? 

The useful reality about debate and a straight up or down vote on proposed measures is that such actions put people on the record, forcing them to declare themselves, compelling them to take a stand for their constituents, and revealing whether or not they give a hang about what their bosses, the people, think and believe.  That's why this vote to repeal is maybe more than symbolic, even though everyone knows it's not a big enough margin of victory to be veto proof and Harry Reid won't let it see the light of day in the Senate, thus dooming it to "symbolic" status.  But only for now, perhaps.

I'm hoping what will happen is Obamacare will die a death of a thousand cuts.  This vote last week extends the debate; opens it up for the first time, really.  Voters will increasingly use the information they glean from successive votes to gauge whether or not they need to do further reassessments about whom they will choose to represent their wishes.  In that sense it may go beyond "symbolic."

SCOTUS will weigh in

I'm wondering what impact this vote will have on the eventual judgment to be rendered by the Supreme Court, where Obamacare will ultimately be adjudicated.  Knowing the Constitution trumps all the laws of the land, will the expressed will of the people stand?  I'm wondering if the SCOTUS also realizes they are subject to the people.  I hope they still are.

Predictably, the administration poo-pooed the whole exercise last week.  Nancy Pelosi openly ridiculed a reporter last year who asked her if she was concerned about its constitutionality, with "Are you serious?"  Well, now we know the people are serious, and so was at least one federal court judge in Virginia.  If this repeal vote was merely "symbolic," then someone forgot to inform the White House about how seriously the new members of Congress have taken their oath to reflect the people's will when they got to Washington.  They heard the message from the voters, loud and clear.  That's why the vote had to be taken -- it's the primary reason they were sent there.

Real health care reform will happen when Obamacare is reversed.  Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) said it best:  "It reforms too little and costs too much."  He voted against it last year because he knew he would have no chance for re-election if he had done otherwise, and remains practically the lone man standing among the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats in Congress who went along with Obamacare.  However, last week he reversed course and voted against repeal.  Go figure.

Why the sustained anger?

So maybe, just maybe, it is more than "symbolic."  There was more than Obamacare factoring into the historic tidal wave that washed ashore last November in Washington.  The voters felt disenfranchised and they were angry at not having their wishes realized.  For me and the vast majority, it started with TARP that opened the floodgates for rampant ($862 billion) stimulus spending failing to stimulate as promised, and a $1.3 trillion price tag on health care reform.  The deficit climbed rapidly to over $1 trillion, then the red ink flowed to overflowing with bailouts for "Government Motors" and Chrysler.

So Americans reacted justifiably -- we tossed out nearly everybody we could and began again, as America does every two years.  It's why this country is so viable.  Even when we make mistakes in judgment the founders gave us the reassurance we could begin afresh every two years.  We've all had to make readjustments in our lives these last two years.  We've cut back, we're learning how to save again, we're reducing debt, and we're somehow surviving in spite of it.  And now we demand the same of our federal government.  Some say individual households don't operate the same way as government.  That's true, because the government can print money.  We can't.  We can send representatives to Washington, however, who will do as we do and stop the presses.

Watch for more fiscal responsibility and big reductions in spending.  Those who refuse will be voted out.  That's the way politics works.  The Piper will be paid.

Chipping away now at Obamacare, and if Americans increasingly can stand by their convictions that it won't produce anything but grief if left to another generation to pay for it, then a large enough majority in both houses of Congress and maybe the White House in 2012 can finally bury it so deeply it cannot resurrect.

Federalism must be re-enthroned

The analysts I have read have been uniformly critical about the measure doing nothing to solve the upward tilt of the cost curve associated with health care, references to "bending the curve" in the years ahead notwithstanding.  Obamacare doesn't address the escalating costs associated with malpractice lawsuits.  The states were given virtually no latitude to develop their own solutions, since health care, like education, is administered at the local level.  Utah was already well underway in its efforts.  Federalism (giving states the right to be self-determining) has all but died in the wake of Obamacare.

Finally, one would hope the individual mandate in the law, forcing Americans to buy health insurance or face fines, must certainly be declared unconstitutional in the end.  This is still America, the land of the free.

But rather than let the moniker "the party of NO" stick, Republicans would be well advised to form committees, hold hearings, and work to craft real solutions lacking in Obamacare.  Keep the parts (if there are any) that might work, and scrap the rest.  We do have a health care crisis.  The costs are out of control, the incentives are skewed in the wrong direction, and Medicare and Medicaid are already too much to bear in a bankrupt nation borrowing to sustain an "even keel" level of care.  What do I mean by "incentives" being skewed?  Physicians and health care providers are reimbursed for a never-ending cycle of life-sustaining expenditures for seniors that extend life but sometimes with the tradeoff for quality of life compromises in the name of advancing medical science.  Aged grandparents and great-grandparents become little more than lab rats for government funded research.  Is that too harsh for you?  That's what we've got now.

Re-enthroning states' rights linked with free market competition among carriers would be a huge first step.  Given choices, let consumers be in charge of their care.  Intermountain Health Care is well on the way to showing the path to the rest of the nation.  The federal government needs to stand down and get out of health care reform and education.

The House last week finally heard and acted based upon the will of the electorate.  Yes, it may be "symbolic" as a repeal vote this year, but if the trend continues look for the electorate to take back the other chamber and the White House before the real damage is done when Obamacare kicks into high gear in 2014.  The question remains, will the angst survive another two years?

Power still resides in the majority that can choose to defund or repeal.  This "symbolic" vote was the first step.

Four Reasons Philpot Will Beat Matheson



Morgan Philpot's Family

I am a state delegate from Precinct 11 in Wasatch County.  Historically, 2nd District Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) has received significant support from our county in his five previous terms.  The reason is because registered Republicans like me have routinely crossed over and supported him. 

That is not true this year!

In an e-mail blast from Wasatch County Philpot for Congress coordinator, Aaron Gabrielson, I received an update on the progress of the campaign.  Morgan Philpot and Jim Matheson squared off this week in St. George at their only public debate.  I wished I could have been there, but seeing it for yourselves should seal the deal for Philpot:

http://vstream.dixie.edu/DSC/Viewer/?peid=cac4131afa2d4fd397fc9e08b7d0b12d

It's unfortunate when incumbents with overwhelming leads in the polls refuse to give the electorate a clear picture of their positions by withholding themselves from public events like this one.  Matheson has a financial advantage by 10-1 over Philpot in campaign funding.  He's sitting on it, like he is his lead.  It happens every time there's an election.  Rather than willingly submit to public scrutiny they cower in the corners to protect their leads in the polls, relying upon name recognition alone to carry them through election day.  As the video stream of their debate clearly illustrates, there are substantive differences between these two candidates.  The choice could not be more differentiated. 

Four reasons Philpot will win

A)  Jim Matheson is a Democrat in a year when Democrats are as popular as a hurricane in kite flying weather;
B)  Matheson's a much more liberal Congressman than any of his constituents previously believed;
C)  Morgan Philpot is much more representative of his constituents than Matheson will ever be; and finally,
D)  There is an uprising nationwide and here in Wasatch County against incumbents of any stripe. 

It's just not a good year to be Jim Matheson anywhere within his district, and particularly in Wasatch County.

Aaron's e-mail blast explains:

Poll Predicts Philpot Win over Matheson

A recently completed poll conducted by the Wasatch County Philpot For Congress campaign predicts that Republican Morgan Philpot will win in the county over five-term incumbent Democrat Jim Matheson.

The poll received 738 responses from registered voters in the county and shows 51% support for Philpot among registered Republicans and 47% with unaffiliated voters. Matheson scored 31% and 37%, respectively. 16% of respondents were undecided and registered Democrats were not included in the poll.

Based on those results and awarding Matheson 100% of the registered Democrats, indicates a 4% margin of victory for Philpot in Wasatch County.

County Philpot coordinator, Aaron Gabrielson, said, "Matheson has won Wasatch County by large margins in previous elections. A poll showing him behind at this point shows that voters are dissatisfied with Congress in general and with Matheson specifically. Wasatch County has always been Matheson territory. If he can't win here, I don't see how Matheson will win the election."

The poll results follow an anti-incumbent trend across the nation that is likely to result in Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives.

"This poll actually looks worse for Matheson than it first appears, because Democratic turnout is expected to be lower this year and Republican turnout should be higher. If that happens, Philpot could win by a margin of 8% or more. However, Matheson has a big money advantage in this race, so the Philpot campaign still has a lot of work to do."

When asked about a recent Dan Jones poll showing a large lead for Matheson, Gabrielson responded, "I have taken a look at that poll. It was from a small sample with a big margin of error and included a large percentage of Democrats. I think even the Matheson campaign is not putting much trust in it. Back in 2008 during the 3rd District primary, polls showed Cannon up by 4% and Chaffetz ended up winning by 20%."

* * *

Don't be too surprised if the same dynamic plays out this year in the Utah 2nd Congressional District race across all the counties in the district, not just Wasatch.  If the Republicans just show up to vote, and they follow my lead and the other "reformed" Republican voters in Wasatch County who will finally abandon Matheson after being "irrational" in our former support of his liberal voting record, then our next Congressman will be Morgan Philpot.

This is the year to make a difference by taking down one Democrat seat in Congress on the march toward taking down 41 and wresting control from the disastrous majority we have witnessed in the last two years.

Last week, I read an analysis by some pollsters stating there may be as many as 100 Congressional seats in play that could move into the Republican side of the aisle.  If that is true and those predictions play out on election day, this 2010 tsunami I spoke about earlier in the year will have historic ramifications. 

President Obama and Senator Reid

Make no mistake about it -- this mid-term election is a referendum on Barack Obama, plain and simple.  Harry Reid is experiencing a lot of push back in his race for re-election in Nevada.  President Obama is stumping for him every chance he gets.  How can anyone conclude anything other than a loss by Harry Reid, the number one Democrat in the Senate, is a complete refutation of Obama's policies and the agenda he has put forward? 

If Bob Bennett can lose in Utah, then Harry Reid can lose in Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Don't hold your breath over this one, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is in the most competitive race she's faced for re-election in years.  It seems even in her "true blue" liberal home district her popularity is waning.  Here again, when one sees serious challenges to the leaders of the party, Reid and Pelosi, in trouble and threatened at home in their own states, one must conclude this mid-term as perhaps never before is all about the country's revulsion at the way they've been treated these last two years.

I wondered aloud on this page months ago who was doing the political calculations within the Democrat Party, when the evidence suggested they were arrogantly going about mustering their votes for the most liberal lurch to the left I have ever witnessed during my lifetime. I called it "the mother of all political cramdowns," when they passed Obamacare. 

And now we are seeing nothing but an aroused and angry electorate pushing back, as the chickens come home to roost.  I have believed for some time the Republicans set a poor example under the Bush administration.  We lived through a reprehensible period with their profligate spending habits and rampant desires for "deficits-don't-matter" wars and nation building attitudes.  Rather than learn from the rejection at the polls that handed control of the presidency and both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 2008, we have seen an acceleration of the same wrong-headed direction they have taken the country. 

Obama completely misread his "mandate" from the election.  Surprise of all surprises -- the people wanted him to take the country in a different direction than out-of-control spending.  They didn't want social re-engineering after all.  They rejected Obamacare resoundingly.  They wanted economic recovery, not stifling regulation and taxation for as far as the eye can see.  They wanted business-friendly stimulants, not anti-business legislation and trillions of dollars of foreign debt for "shovel-ready" projects that still don't seem to be "ready."  Turns out the only shoveling that got done was the knee-deep manure in the political barnyard.

Maybe on November 2nd, 2010, the only way to change course is to fire the incumbents and begin anew.  Maybe this time someone in Washington D.C. will finally be listening to the will of the people.

Make no miscalculations this time, they will be speaking. . . make that shouting out loud.

Philpot or Matheson? You Decide



Morgan Philpot (R Cand. UT)

Facts About Morgan Philpot

I suspect most people in the Utah 2nd Congressional District are quickly learning more about Morgan Philpot.  For those who haven't had a chance yet to learn about him and his positions, I encourage you to visit his website.

• Morgan is a Utah native.  He and his wife Natalie graduated from the University of Utah and lived in Salt Lake County for several years. While there, Morgan represented his neighbors in Utah House district 45.  He now lives in the Utah County portion of Utah's 2nd Congressional District.
• As a young boy, Morgan was raised primarily by his mother who spent several years parenting seven children on her own.  Starting with his first "real” job picking strawberries at age 9, he quickly learned independence and self reliance. He knows the value of balancing a budget and of making decisions based on how much money you actually have, not how much you wish you had.
• At the University of Utah, he earned degrees in Anthropology and Environmental Studies. During that time, he and his wife served internships in Washington D.C., for the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Supreme Court respectively.
• After graduating from college, Morgan took a job as the new account sales manager for a Salt Lake fabrication company. Two years later, Morgan ran in a hotly contested race for State Representative of Utah House District 45 (Sandy, Salt Lake County, Midvale) with the motto "Freedom, Family, Future."  He put together a strong, effective grassroots campaign and in 2000, at the age of 28, he became one of the youngest state legislators in the Utah House.
• As a State Representative, Morgan didn't hesitate to take strong stands on tough issues. He consistently led the fight against wasteful government spending, championed life, second amendment rights and free market principles. He sought creative and innovative ways to improve public education and was the lead sponsor of the Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship, a bill that created an educational voucher program. This law has opened new avenues to a better education for Utah's families with special-needs children and now serves over 500 individuals. 
• While in the legislature, Morgan was granted the "Friend of the Taxpayer” award by the Utah Taxpayer's Association and the "Guardian of Small Business" award by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Morgan was also one of the founding members of the House Conservative Caucus.
• In 2004, Morgan chose to leave the legislature and attend the Ave Maria School of Law, a school dedicated to life, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution. While there, he was privileged to learn from such influential minds as Judge Robert Bork and Charles Rice.
• Upon completion of law school Morgan clerked for Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Morgan served as the in-house legal counsel for a Utah business for two years and is now a consultant with a private company in Sandy.
• In addition to his legislative service Morgan has also volunteered his time to Scouting, Church, and Utah politics. He has served as a State delegate, County delegate, State Central Committee member, Executive Committee member and most recently as the Vice-chair of the Utah Republican Party.

Morgan has enjoyed sharing his love of ancient history with his children through rock-hounding, camping and hiking in many areas of rural Utah. His family also enjoys gardening and reading together. Morgan currently lives in American Fork with his wife and five children.

Morgan believes his real life struggles and experiences uniquely qualify him to serve the families of Utah as the next Congressman from the Second District.

I encourage voters in the 2nd Congressional District this year to re-think their assumptions about Jim Matheson. I know I have, and I've concluded this race is a no-brainer. Join me in voting for Morgan Philpot, because here are the. . .



Facts About Jim Matheson

Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT)

 When Democrat Jim Matheson is campaigning in Utah, he talks about being a moderate and fiscal conservative.

Once he is in Washington his voting record looks a little different.

Decide for yourself if Jim Matheson is a fiscal conservative based on his actual voting record.

Is Matheson part of the solution to an out-of-control Federal government or is he part of the problem?

Jim Matheson’s Voting Record:

• Jim Matheson has voted 93% of the time with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority. He votes with Republicans 5% of the time and abstains 2% of the time. He has voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House every time she has come up for a vote. (1)

• Citizens Against Government Waste rated Jim Matheson as "Hostile To The Taxpayer" giving him their worst rating. (2)

• He has voted for every stimulus bill since Obama took office ($1.2 trillion worth), including the most recent public employee bailout stimulus. (3)

• He recently voted to raise the debt ceiling by $2 Trillion. (4)

• When Jim Matheson took office, the national debt was $5.6 Trillion (in today's dollars). Ten years later it is now $13.4 trillion. That is $43,600 for every man, woman and child in the country. A family of four now owes $174,400 in Federal debt. (5)

• He cast the deciding vote to adjourn Congress until after the election, preventing a vote on the huge tax increase scheduled for January 1, 2011. This could result in the largest tax hike in American history, raising taxes on a family of four by over $2,000 next year. (6)

• He voted "No" on final passage of the Obama health care bill, once he knew it was going to pass without his vote. He voted "Yes" on key procedural votes, including "Deem and Pass" and the "closed rule" that made it impossible to amend the bill. These procedural votes were critical to getting the Obama health care bill passed. He now opposes any effort to defund or repeal Obamacare. (7)

Jim Matheson’s Funding:

• Matheson takes more than 84% of his campaign funds from special interest groups and political action committees (PACs). That percentage is double the Congressional average and ranks him 3rd out of 435 Congressmen. The Salt Lake Tribune recently dubbed Matheson "The PAC Man". (8)

• Nancy Pelosi has given $46,000 to his campaign and Charlie Rangel has given $45,000. (9)

Sources:
1. http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400255_Jim_Matheson
2. http://ccagwratings.org/?page_id=737
3. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-27-obama-economy_N.htm
4. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll046.xml
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
6. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700070001/Election-2010-Philpot-criticizes-Matheson-for-adjourning.html
7. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-130
8. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/50209672-90/matheson-money-pacpacs.html.csp
9. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00344234&cycle=2006
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00302588&cycle=2008

* * *

The truly wonderful thing about America is freedom to choose, to vote, and to enjoy the blessings of liberty.  Matheson's voting record highlights what is wrong with the current members of Congress from both parties -- they just can't help themselves from voting for the status quo.

Let's begin anew in the 2nd District this year -- it's a good year for change and renewal because of the quality of the candidates.

Morgan Philpot debunks "Blue Dog Dem" myth

Is Jim Matheson really a "blue dog Democrat?"  Is there really any such thing?  Morgan Philpot doesn't think so, neither do I. 

Matheson's track record couldn't be more clear.  Click on the link and learn about his liberal leanings, while posturing in Utah as a "blue dog" conservative Democrat. 

The gap cannot be closed between his actual voting record and what he says he is to woo moderate Republican voters.  He can't have it both ways any longer.  I urge voters in the 2nd District to study the facts, then vote for the only conservative choice running in the race this year -- MORGAN PHILPOT.

Media Alert   Philpot to be on Fox Business Network today October 6th

Philpot to Debunk Blue Dog Myth on Fox Business Network

Salt Lake City, UT October 6, 2010 - Morgan Philpot announced yesterday that he will be a featured guest on “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” with David Asman, on Fox Business Network. The live interview is scheduled to air tonight at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Morgan Philpot will discuss unseating Blue Dogs.

Time: 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time)

Place: Fox Business Network, “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” with David Asman”

Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

ONE BIG REASON to vote for Morgan Philpot

In case you missed it, in the news you read this item probably avoided your radar:

Yesterday, 39 House Democrats joined Republicans in voting against adjournment - but not Jim Matheson. Nancy Pelosi did not want to discuss tax cuts before the election. She moved to adjourn and avoid a vote to extend the Bush tax cuts to American families and businesses.

Last week Congressman Matheson told his Utah constituents that he wanted to vote on the tax cuts before the election. Apparently, he says one thing in Utah, and then caved to the demands of Pelosi and voted with her to adjourn.

Here's the disastrous news for America -- the vote to adjourn passed by ONE vote: 210-209.  If Matheson had joined the other 39 Democrats and defied Pelosi, the House could have debated and passed the tax cuts.

So who does Matheson have in mind?  He's not interested in what's best for his constituents, apparently.  And, oh by the way, his worst vote in history was voting with his caucus to seat Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House in the first place.  His allegiance to Nancy Pelosi is apparently a higher priority than his constituents in the 2nd District.  I am one who has made the mistake of voting for him five times in the past.  Never again.  

On the other hand, two Republican members of the House from Utah -- Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz -- did vote against Pelosi's motion to adjourn so that the tax cuts could be discussed. Unfortunately, for Utah families, they needed one more vote. Jim Matheson failed to provide that vote.

When people tell you their vote doesn't count, remember this example of what one vote actually amounts to.  It's time for Congressman Matheson to be held accountable for his actions. It's time for the citizens of the 2nd District to elect a Congressman who values the opinions of the voters here in Utah more than the demands of Nancy Pelosi. 

It's time for Morgan Philpot.

If you are upset by Matheson's vote, please forward this message to all your friends in the 2nd Congressional District.  Join Morgan's team by visiting his website.

Statement by Congressman Rob Bishop:

"Democrat leadership should be embarrassed that they brought the entire Congress from around the country back into session for just one day and then left with so many issues that impact our economy just hanging out there. Congress should have at least stayed in long enough to extend the tax cuts to stop massive tax increases and provide some stability and certainty. More time would also have allowed for better policy decision on a whole host of issues, including the NASA bill."

Statement by Congressman Jason Chaffetz:

"Yesterday the House decided by a single vote to adjourn until after the election this fall. It is totally irresponsible for Congress to leave town when critical issues such as extending the Bush tax cuts need to be debated. In order for the marketplace to thrive, businesses need some regulatory certainty. Congress has failed to deliver. At a time when our economy is weak and people need jobs, it's very frustrating to see Congress act in such a negligent manner. It is up to voters to hold those Members accountable who place politics above the American people."

Statement by Congressman Jim Matheson:

"I have led the effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to extend tax cuts for all at this time of fragile economic recovery.  Efforts to suggest otherwise are playing politics and that is a shame."

* * *

Memo to Congressman Matheson: 

It is you, Congressman, who is playing politics now.  If that's your best defense to the people of the 2nd District whom you represent, it is a lame definition of "leadership" and we will dismiss you without further argument on November 2nd.

Morgan Philpot -- Utah 2nd District's Next Congressman

Now that Mike Lee is the Utah Republican Senate nominee, we turn our attention to Morgan Philpot in the 2nd Congressional District in his race against incumbent (there's that dirty word again) Jim Matheson.

It will come as no surprise -- I am endorsing Morgan Philpot for anyone who cares (I don't think endorsements mean much, by the way).  Back in May, I went on the record that I felt Philpot could beat Matheson in a straight up contest without encouraging cross-over votes in the Democratic primary for Claudia Wright. 

I was pleased he came out of convention and escaped a primary runoff (he won by only one vote).  His convention victory is a cautionary tale for every politician and every concerned citizen -- EVERY vote counts, even yours, this year.

At the convention my friend Jim North and I were so impressed with the quality of candidates who are willing to put themselves on the ballot for consideration.  Those who blandly sit on the sidelines and complain there is no one acceptable to vote for would have been similarly disposed as we were at the convention.  Morgan Philpot is just such a quality candidate.  He deserves our support.

There can be little doubt America is watching this race between Philpot and Matheson.

Flip 41

Forty-one votes. That is the magic number of swing votes that has enabled the Democrats in Washington DC to push through Obamacare, multiple stimulus bills and a reckless financial reform bill (to name a few). This November, a change in just 41 seats in Congress will help reverse the tide of wasteful spending and one-size-fits-all federal “solutions” and help put America’s budget and economy back on solid ground.

One of those critical swing seats is Utah’s 2nd Congressional District race, a seat currently held by one of those enabling gang of 41 Democrats.

Utah’s ability to affect the political landscape in Washington DC rests with one race in Utah: Utah’s 2nd Congressional District seat. A GOP victory in Utah will help ensure that Republicans retake the House in January 2011, thus ending the monopoly of power held by Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

A vote for Morgan Philpot on November 2 is a vote for a change from the status quo and a vote for putting America back on a fiscally and economically sound track.

What You Can Do

We are asking each of you for just three things: 1) Cast your vote for Morgan Philpot on November 2nd, 2) Become a Philpot Phan and join the ranks of a growing number of committed volunteers, and 3) Make a donation to Morgan’s campaign.

Together we can take back the House.

Morgan is pleased to call Utah home. He and his wife Natalie, a native of Sandy, Utah, graduated from the University of Utah and lived in the heart of Salt Lake county for several years. While there, Morgan was able to represent his neighbors in Utah House District 45. He now lives in the Utah County portion of Congressional District 2.

Growing up, Morgan was active in Scouting and rose to the rank of Eagle. He was involved in high school sports and school government. As a young boy, Morgan was raised primarily by his mother who spent several years parenting seven children on her own. Starting with his first “real” job picking strawberries at age 9, he quickly learned independence and self reliance. He knows the value of balancing a budget and of making decisions based on how much money you actually have, not how much you wish you had.

While attending the University of Utah, he earned degrees in Anthropology and Environmental Studies. During that time, he and his wife were able to serve internships in Washington D.C. for the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Supreme Court respectively.

After graduating from college, Morgan took a job as the new account sales manager for a Salt Lake fabrication company. Two years later, Morgan ran in a hotly contested race for State Representative of Utah House District 45 (Sandy, Salt Lake County, Midvale) with the motto “Freedom, Family, Future”. He put together a strong, effective grassroots campaign and in 2000, at the age of 28, he became one of the youngest state legislators in the Utah House.

As a State Representative, Morgan didn’t hesitate to take strong stands on tough issues. He consistently led the fight against wasteful government spending, championed life, second amendment rights and free market principles. He sought creative and innovative ways to improve public education and was the lead sponsor of the Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship, a bill that created an educational voucher program. This law has opened new avenues to a better education for Utah’s families with special-needs children and now serves over 500 individuals. While in the legislature, Morgan was granted the “Friend of the Taxpayer” award by the Utah Taxpayer’s Association and the “Guardian of Small Business” award by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Morgan was also one of the founding members of the House Conservative Caucus.

In 2004, Morgan chose to leave the legislature and attend the Ave Maria School of Law, a school dedicated to life, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution. While there, he was privileged to learn from such influential minds as Judge Robert Bork and Charles Rice.

Upon completion of law school Morgan clerked for Utah’s Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Morgan served as the in-house legal counsel for a Utah business for two years and is now a consultant with a private company in Sandy.

In addition to his legislative service Morgan has also volunteered his time to Scouting, Church, and Utah politics. He has served as a State delegate, County delegate, State Central Committee member, Executive Committee member and most recently as the Vice-Chair of the Utah Republican Party.

Morgan has enjoyed sharing his love of ancient history with his children through rock-hounding, camping and hiking in many areas of rural Utah. His family also enjoys gardening and reading together. Morgan currently lives in American Fork with his wife and five children.

Morgan believes that his real life struggles and experiences uniquely qualify him to serve the families of Utah as the next Congressman from the Second District.

Analysis of Dodd-Frank Financial Overhaul Bill

This is a repost of an excellent analysis of Dodd-Frank from Liberty Central.  There was a sheepish admission that did not instill much confidence in me or anybody else, coming as it did from one of the principal architects at 5:00 a.m. after an all-night session to hammer out final details. "It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here," said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works."

I was stunned when I read those words.  No, I was shocked that this kind of stuff could actually be happening right under our noses.

This is an all-too-familiar pattern that has been repeated again and again over the course of the last year and a half.  There is only one way to characterize the work product of this Congress:  Middle-of-the-night-behind-closed-doors legislation passed by the Democrat majority with little or no collaboration solicited nor support garnered from any opposing voices while America sleeps. 

The question is often asked these days why the Constitution -- that dusty old piece of parchment -- should still be relevant in today's modern world.  Like Obamacare, this monstrosity of repressive tyrannical oversight (I do not overstate it) does nothing but put unrestrained powers into the hands of unelected bureaucrats through the creation of yet another federal agency governed by presidential appointees.  It's even hard to remember the criticisms of "King George" W. Bush for what were seen as outrageous presidential grabs for power.  There are few or none who seemed alarmed at what is going on in this administration, especially from the MSM.  Rarely do we hear a peep from them anymore.  We must increasingly turn to other sources for insight. 

I'm not certain anybody really cares about this over-reaching bank regulation, but I have to admit I am amazed at what I see happening in the sudden and swift erosion of our liberties and freedoms.  And the reaction of the bank lobbyists and investors when they saw this bill is that they were "relieved?"  I find no relief at all in what follows. 

I can't help wondering what Thomas Jefferson would say today, when this is what he said in 1791:  "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."  (Letter to Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia, 23 December 1791).

***

ASK QUESTIONS: Dodd-Frank Financial Overhaul Bill

By: Sarah Field, 1 Jul 2010

Yesterday, the House passed the 2315-page Dodd-Frank Financial Reform overhaul 237-192 with three Republicans voting for it: Cao (LA), Castle (DE) and Jones (N.C.). Fourteen Democrats voted against it: Boren (OK), Chandler (KY), Childers (MS), Critz (PA), Giffords (AZ), Hill (IN), Kaptur (OH), Kirkpatrick (AZ), Kratovil (MD), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Nye (VA), Ross (AR), and Shuler (N.C.).

[Utahns in the 2nd Congressional District, please note that Jim Matheson voted FOR this bill, reason enough for you to reconsider your vote in November -- I support Morgan Philpot in this race, and encourage others to join me].

It will head to the Senate after the 4th of July recess and, even though Senators like Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Nelson (NE), and Brown (MA) were worried about the $19B “bank tax,” there are many more, even costlier parts of this bill. In fact, on page 357 of the bill, there is an unlimited bank tax. This guide will give you the tools you need to call your Members of Congress or ask them tough questions during town hall meetings when they are home on July 4th recess.

The three most important things to know about this bill is that it (1) Creates a permanent bailout authority, ending TARP, but instead of using that savings for debt reduction as the law required, forces taxpayers to bear the costs of the new legislation, (2) Sets up the federal government to micromanage the markets and overload them with regulations, and (3) Continues to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This bill vests more power in administrative agencies and will raise the costs of living for every American with higher fees on our markets.

Liberty Central read the entire Dodd-Frank Overhaul bill and picked out key questions that delve into other major problems with the bill:

GROWTH OF POWER FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Did you know…?

…that the bill sets up the Financial Services Oversight Council, appointed by the President, to identify risks to financial stability and can vote on which companies fall under its jurisdiction? (TITLE I)

… that there is an elastic clause where the Council, Board of Governors, and Supervising Agencies can make whatever rules or issue whatever orders are necessary to carry out their duties? (Title VIII) That’s unelected bureaucrats interpreting the law how they see fit.

…that while taxpayer funds can be used to liquidate a company, no taxpayer funds can be used to stop liquidation of a company? (Title II, P. 380.)

…that the FDIC has permission to decide which creditors receive more money than their similarly situated creditors? (Title II)

…that, during the liquidation process, the FDIC can make additional payments to the individuals it chooses to minimize losses to the “orderly liquidation.” This also gives power to the FDIC to pay some creditors more than they deserve.

…that the Federal Reserve can still make emergency loans if they decide it is necessary for the stability of the economy? (TITLE XI)

…that Title III ‘plays mix and match with the letters of alphabet soup agencies’ by replacing one former bureaucratic regulatory agency (the Office of Thrift Supervision) with another, more powerful bureaucratic regulatory agency (the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) that is not even accountable to the Secretary of the Treasury?

… that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is not given a budget, but instead the bill gives the office the authority to raise its own funding from assessments, fees, and charges from any entity described in section 3(q)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title III, Sub. A?

…that this bill contains a power-grabbing new Office for Federal Insurance at Treasury, regulating an area traditionally left to the States? (Title V)

… that the bill prohibits states from collecting a licensing fee (for surplus lines broker) unless the state is participating in a national database? (Title V)

… that this bill establishes what is, in effect, an Investor Czar by creating the office of the Investor Advocate? (Title IX)

…that there will be a government database kept of all persons with custody or use of securities or money? (Title IX, Sec. 1333)

…that the bill establishes another government bureaucracy in the Office of Municipal Securities? (Title XI)

…that the bill sets up a new bureaucracy in the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which regulates the offering of consumer financial products as an executive agency, with its director appointed by the President? It does not have a specified size, but lists the need for branches in D.C. and elsewhere. (Title X, Sub. A)

…that the federal government now requires mortgage loan originators to register with the government, and grants regulatory authority to a bureaucracy? (TITLE XIV-Sub A.)

…that the Financial Services Oversight Council determines the definition of “financial activities”, is to establish “prudent standards” for banks and has taxing power and can limit the size of financial institutions? (TITLE I)

…that a government bureaucrat can exempt companies from regulations if they decide it’s in the “public interest”? (Title VI)

… that the government will now dictate the terms of credit ratings, and sets up a federal Office of Credit Ratings? (TITLE IX)

…that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is given sweeping regulatory powers and little accountability; the Secretary of the Treasury is barred from intervening in any matter before the Comptroller unless provided for specifically by law. (Title III Sub A Sec. 324 (b) (1))

…that funding for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is done by the Board, who is free to collect as much as it wants from any bank or non-bank financial institution with holdings over $50 billion? (Title III Sub A)

…that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has the authority to declare an act unfair, may collect information about business conduct and activities of covered persons and service providers, has investigators with subpoena power and make rules on abusive practices? (Title X, Sub. B, Sub. E)

… that the Secretary of Treasury or the Board of Governors can decide if a company needs to be liquidated or liquidate assets? (Title II, Title XI)

…that the bill has emergency authority to liquidate positions in security, and the decision to do so is arbitrary with little room for review? (TITLE VII)

… that the Board requires annual stress tests to determine if a company has adequate capital and can require reports on the financial condition of nonbank financial companies, and to give up any information requested “promptly”? (TITLE I, Sec. C)

…that a company with $50 billion in holdings cannot purchase shares of certain other companies without permission of the government? (TITLE I, Sec. C)

…that the bill allows the government to liquidate companies deemed “failing,” with creditors and shareholders taking the loss, including foreign banks? (Title II)

… that the government can discharge any contract that the company entered into if it considers it to be “burdensome?” (Title II, pg. 266)

…that the bill allows the Board of Governors to regulate what it decides are risky transactions, and who will supervise? (Title VII)

… that it is left up to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to define “commercial risk” and that the commission shall review every swap? (TITLE VII)

… that that FDIC would be able to reorganize any liquidated company as a “bridge financial institution” with a board of directors that is appointed by the FDIC? (Title II, p. 320 – 358)

… that this legislation would newly micromanage private fund advisors who are responsible for a relatively small amount of money? (Title IV)

…that every registered agent in swap markets is required to have a designated compliance officer, who is required to file an annual report with the government? Did you also know that the government now requires information about security based swaps be made available to the public, and that there is to be a depository of swap information, and that depository may share information with other Federal agencies and some foreign entities? (Title VII)

…that there is now a requirement that shareholder votes be held on executive compensation every 6 years, and that the government controls the makeup of the Board of Director Compensation Committees? (Title IX)

…that the federal government now requires written appraisals of all property, and requires that appraisers be registered and conform to regulations? (TITLE XIV, Sub. F)

…“Swap data repositories” are like stock exchanges for certain financial transactions that are not offered to the public for investment.

… that swap data repositories may be required to provide information — including transaction data identifying individual investors — to US regulators, the DOJ, and foreign financial supervisors, central banks, or ministries? (Title VII, p. 876)

…the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is authorized to develop new duties for swap data repositories based on “any evolving standard of the United States or the international community”? (Title VII, p. 881)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can set limits on how much any one person or group of related persons can invest in swaps or options? (Title VII, pp. 941-948)

… that publicly traded Boards of Trade will be required to have their board of directors and the other decision-making bodies reflect “a broad and culturally diverse pool of qualified candidates”? (Title VII, p. 940)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may forbid foreign boards of trade from taking orders from US persons unless they are registered with the Commission and comply with similar regulations as US boards of trade? (Title VII, pp. 951-957)

… that the financial reform bill tries to, in essence, rewrite certain provisions in private contracts? (Title VII, p. 960)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission previously could not make its interpretations the exclusive way to comply with regulations, but now it can make these interpretations mandatory? (Title VII, p. 977)

… that the financial reform bill creates an interagency working group to study the oversight of carbon markets, including carbon spot markets and derivative markets? (Title VII, pp. 1012-1014)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities Exchange Commission are required to consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards regulating swaps, futures, and options? (Title VII, pp. 1016-1017)

… that, if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accuses a person of providing false information or manipulating the price of any swap or commodity, the hearing to determine penalties take place in three days or less, and any penalized person has only 15 days to file an appeal? (Title VII, pp. 1019-1026)

PROMOTES SPECIAL INTERESTS

Did you know…?

…that this bill is full of over 16 studies, including whether to end the Conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reverse mortgages, insurance premiums of banks, private education loans and credit scores?

…that the bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will also collect data about small business loans, including whether the loan is to a minority or woman owned business, and maintain a database which includes the revenue and racial, ethnic and gender characteristics of the business? (Title X, Sub. G)

…that the bill is full of measures that continue to divide Americans by race by creating specific programs for racial minorities and women, including an Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (Title X, Sub. A), Office of Housing Counseling (TITLE XIV, Sub. D), the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (Title III, Sub. D), and requires recruitment at historically black colleges and other minority serving institutions (TITLE III, Sub. D)?

… that this national insurance office’s charge will be to help ensure that the under-served community, consumers and minorities have access to insurance and that this sounds much like the policies that set up the subprime loan distortions in the mortgage business under CRA? (Title V)

… that this bill imposes a debt limit on nonbank financial institutions, but excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and exempts Fannie and Freddie from securities laws, while proscribing new standards for loans (Title IX, TITLE I, Sec. C)

…that all of the government employees from the abolished Office of Thrift Supervision will simply be transferred to other departments? (Title III, Sub. B)

…that the TARP Program is still in place, and allowed to purchase troubled assets if there is deemed a threat to financial stability? (TITLE XIII)

…that the bill contains a pet project that seeks to make sure that materials coming from the Congo and other “conflict” areas are not being used? (TITLE XV)

…that the bill has greater regulation on extraction of oil, natural gas and minerals, and regulates the foreign trade of those materials? (TITLE XV)

…the Bill sets up a Financial Crisis Assessment and Fund, which applies to any company engaged in activities that are financial, or incidental to the financial sector. This fund will be paid for by companies, and will determine the impact on low income and minority communities if the company fails? (TITLE XVI)

SUMMARY

This bill is incompatible with the Founding Fathers’ vision of limited government, because it promotes the growth of government, expands the powers of the administrative bureaucracy, limits economic freedom, and promotes personal interests. Limited Government requires that the powers be shared among three, co-equal branches: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. With the system of “checks and balances” combined with the vote of the people, there exists a system of oversight over the actions of the federal government. However, today’s federal government also involves administrative agencies, the so-called “fourth branch.” These parts of government are unelected and usually filled with career employees at all but the highest level, yet they have both lawmaking and enforcement powers. Unfortunately, this bill vests even more power in administrative agencies and will raise the costs of living for every American with higher fees on our markets.