A Conversation With My Government

"Hello, government. I'm calling about your decision to give those three sisters a year's stay here. You know, the three who were to be deported in a week."

"Yes."

"Yes. I need you to answer me some questions. I need to know which laws are being used, so I'll know if you're going about this in the right way."

 I see. And, may I ask who you are?"

"Well, I'm John Jackson."

"Are you a member of the media?"

"No, I'm John Jackson."

"You've reached our media relations department. I'm afraid you need to be a member of the media if I'm to help you."

"I see. Well, I looked through your website and you don't have anyone else I can contact. Yours is the only phone number the agency lists."

"Yes."

"I'm one of your stockholders, so I thought maybe it would be okay if I called, even if I'm not a member of the press."

"What do you mean you are a stockholder? Actually, the government doesn't have stockholders."

"Actually, it does. Well, maybe not in the strict sense of the term, but this is my government and I run it."

"I see. I wonder who appointed you to such a high position."

"Abraham Lincoln did."

"Abraham Lincoln?"

"Yes, he was giving something called the Gettysburg Address and he said something about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That would be me."

"I see."

"Ever since then, I've pretty much thought of this as my government."

"I see. Well, you're not a member of the press. Do you realize what a nightmare it would be if we tried to take calls from everyone in the public, answering every question they have? We simply don't have time."

"Make time. I'm one of your stockholders."

"Have you filed a Freedom of Information inquiry."

"Too much paperwork. I'm a stockholder. I'll just call you up and you'll answer my questions. It's a lot simpler that way."

"I see. If you a member of the press, I'd be glad to help you."

"What if I were a congressman, or a mayor or head of a government agency?"

"Yes, I suppose I could help you then."

"Well, those are my people. Think of them as my minions, if you will. I tell them what to do."

"I see."

"I don't like the way you think you only have to answer to them. And, I especially don't appreciate the way you think you only have to answer to the press."

"Well, yes, like I said, we've only got time to answer to so many people. The press represents you in getting information."

"I didn't elect them. I never gave the press permission to take anything from me."

"And, what are they taking from you?"

"My right to talk to you, to get some answers. You said you'd help me if I were a member of the press, but since I'm not, you're not going to help me."

"But, this is media relations . . ."

"The press doesn't run this country. I do. So, I'm going to have to ask you to quit answering so much to them and start answering more to me."

At that point, the government hung up on me. I was left thinking that if government truly were government of the people, by the people and for the people, then, yes, it would make information more accessible to us, the public.

If Rule of Law Allows This, Why Oppose It?

Do we want and demand that all our immigration laws be enforced, and kept -- or just the ones that are hard on the undocumented residents?

What if it was within the law to take undocumented people, and grant them a deferment, allowing them to stay an extra year? Would we say, "Yes, if the law allows this, let's do it. Let's let them stay. For this, too, is our law, and we believe in rule of law."

The news is of three sisters, brought to the United States legally as children, who overstayed the visas and grew up as undocumented residents. When the law caught up, they faced a June 15 deportation.

But the law -- that would be ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) stepped in and offered a deferment, allowing the three sisters to stay another year -- not staying as illegal residents, but as legal ones.

I am imagining if ICE made such a decision, it did it because the law provides for it. Why, then, should those who argue for rule of law be upset? If it is rule of law they want, and if rule of law provides that this can happen, why should they oppose it?

Sagebrush Rebellion Completely Amiss?

A whole movement demanding the federal government turn over its public lands to the states, sometimes even citing the "enabling acts" as the power that gives the states right to the lands, and yet when I read Utah's enabling act, I find just the opposite. I find it says Utah forever relinquishes the right to those lands. Says the act: "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof." What am I missing?

Still Thinking about Directional Sales Taxing

Since taxes must exist, perhaps placing them on those things we would to discourage would be advantageous.

We already tax alcohol and tobacco. Sugar -- or some forms and concentrations of it -- could be next.

I head to bed thinking about this type of taxing, wondering if it would be good to shift some of our tax burden to it.

Mormon Tab: What Could Become

What could the Mormon Tabernacle Choir become? As I sat watching them this morning, reflecting on the talent of the conductors, the beauty of the songs, and what is being done to make the product as wonderful as it can be . . .

It hasn't been picked up by a major network, but just might be so worthy.

"America's Choir," Ronald Reagan dubbed it all those years ago. And, who knows but what that title is more a thing of yet-to-come than already-has-been.

They sang a lilting, light and fast moving arrangement of "Give Said the Little String." It sounded not like a children's song, but a beautiful, beautiful choral piece.

The Tab's music, for me and for many, is about as beautiful as music gets. Not only because it is well-crafted,but because much of it is about the Savior. Some would tell you that, alone, will keep it from ever being picked up by a major network.

But, its weakness is its strength. Much of America does remain religious, and Christian. Much of our country does still want beautiful music about the Savior. Christian singers abound, but there is not so much choral music such as this, as beautifully arranged and presented as what the Mormon Tabernacle Choir offers.

Who knows what could become. It might not happen, but the music and product are worthy. The Choir has been great all along, but I wonder if it hasn't stepped it up a notch as it moved from the 19th to the 20th Century. The Orchestra at Temple Square was added. Mack Wilburg gained acclaim as a talented arranger.

Now, a product awaits the nation, a program offering beautiful choral music like none other. Reality shows for some, perhaps, but, this, too, is what America is about. Many of us would, truly, love a program like this ahead of what is now offered.

Targeted Sales Taxing Might be the Thing

The soda pop tax being considered, what then shall we make of such taxes, of sales taxes that target certain products?

Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or whatever.

I am inclined, at this point, to think maybe such taxes should be used more. These taxes can aim at non-essention products, whereas a sales tax on everything hits food and other essentials.

Gasoline, though, is an essential, and it is a targeted sales tax. So, although these taxes can be used to pick on non-essentials, they sometimes pick on essentials.

If soda pop is to be taxed, how about all of the very sugary items? A sugar tax.

Now, I hear you saying we don't need new taxes, and we don't need more taxes. We need less. Then, I say, if we move more toward targeted sales taxing, let's just make sure we cut back on the other taxes.

Bring On Tax on Soft Drinks

The sin tax comes to soda pop. Well, perhaps calling it a sin tax might be a little much, as we don't consider drinking soda pop a sin. We just consider it unhealthy.

But, if we tax alcohol and tobacco, because they are harmful, how about soft drinks?

In 2011, Rep. Dixon Pitcher of Ogden proposed a bill that would have placed a 1 percent tax on carbonated drinks and sports drinks. His fellow legislators didn't go along with the idea at the time, some suggesting they didn't want to be adding taxes at a time of economic downturn.

One percent? I say let it rip. Soda drinkers will hardly notice. Of course, that means they likely won't cut back on consumption, either, but bring the tax on.

Give the money to education, as Rep. Pitcher is proposing. And, should the public turn from from soft drinks  (I understand that nationally, a wising-up America is taking in 20 percent less calories per capita via soft drinks than a decade ago) then pick up the lost revenue by taxing energy drinks or some such.

Taxes on non-essentials are fine. Sin taxes like this one are fine.