Should We Clip Rich Farmers Out of Subsidies?

   I grew up on a farm. I don't know that we got much, but I believe we did get some subsidies. Not sure I like them. Maybe we should cut farm subsidies altogether. Or, maybe we should keep them for the poorer farmers. At any rate, I can't see how anybody should be getting half a million, even if it is across more than a decade. And, Rep. Stephen Fincher, at almost $3.5 million? Whoa.
  I wonder if the stories on these people receiving so much are accurate. I wish we could speak to them, to see if there are explanations. My Facebook friend, Sarge Froehle, posted this meme on my timeline. The story that came with it (link provided below), indicated much of the subsidies go to the large farmers. While there might be something I do not know, off top, that doesn't sit well with me.




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/politics/farm-subsidy-recipient-backs-food-stamp-cuts.html?_r=0


http://aattp.org/starving-america-farm-bill-passes-with-8-7-billion-in-gop-food-stamp-cuts/

If Two-Thirds of Our Cars Went CNG, How Much Would it Cut Pollution?

   What if we all (well, say, two-thirds of us), converted to compressed natural gas (CNG)?  I enjoyed Jeffrey Tanner's Feb. 2 letter to the editor of the Deseret News. "Let's . . . make Utah the first truly CNG state and a model for the rest of the nation," he wrote.

   It is said that natural gas burns 20-45 percent cleaner than gasoline. So, if two-thirds of the vehicles on the road went CNG, each burning 33 percent cleaner, that would reduce auto emissions by 22 percent. I try to remember -- do auto emissions account for 57 percent of our pollution along the Wasatch Front? If so, that means two-thirds of the cars converting to CNG would cut into the total pollution by roughly 12 percent.

   Getting two-thirds of our drivers to switch would be a tall order to reap only a 12 percent reduction. I try to remember how much it costs to convert a car to CNG, and it seems like it was out of my budget. Seventy percent would mean a lot of shops would have to be equipped to make the conversions. And, it would mean a lot of filling stations would have to add CNG as fuel they sold. And, it would mean a lot of natural gas fuel would need to be on the market.

   Still, I enjoyed Tanner's letter.

What can be Done about the National Deficit? A Dozen Possibilities

   What should be done about the national deficit? (Pick however many answers you like.)

1. Nothing, nothing, nothing! We're really doing quite fine, thank you.
2. Cut whatever the Democrats want.
3. Cut whatever the Republicans want.
4. Cut whatever the Libertarians want, for they want nothing!
5. Raise taxes, but only on the rich.
6. Cut entitlements, but not mine.
7. Something needs to be done, but we really do need everything we're spending money on.
8. Didn't you hear me? I said, "Nothing!" Everything will be okay.
9. Let's take care of today's needs, and let tomorrow take care of itself.
10. With air quality, same-sex marriages, guns, and so forth, do we really have time for this?
11. You saw how we reacted to the Sequestration. That should have been your first clue.
12. You saw how we reacted to the government shutdown (which actually didn't shut down that much of the government). That should have been your second clue.

In One Way, Education is Overvalued These Days

   Education has a little too much respect in our society. I say this as a person who believes we need more education, not less.
   Perhaps I should restate what I said. College education has a little too much respect in our society. Oh, it is important, and should be encouraged, and is wonderful . . .
   But.
   Consider what sometimes happens. An employer hires someone not so much on how good of a job the person might do, but on whether the person has a degree. Off top, that might seem to be a good idea, but is it? Now, to get that job, the person has to pass through college at an expense of, what, 40 grand or more?
   Are we a society that believes in debt? So much so, that we even make it a rite of passage in order to get a job? Remember, sometimes the person without the degree might be better equipped for the position, but the person who ran up the debt is the one who gets the job.
   We might actually be serving our economy better by putting the best qualified people in those jobs, not the ones who bring pieces of paper to the interview table.
  Back in the day when a college education was not so expensive, the get-a-degree hiring criteria made a better argument. But, times have changed. Tuitions have soared. They've reached a point where we should reconsider whether we should make getting a degree a rite of passage for jobs where the education has little impact.
   I realize there are two sides to such a change. On one side, we make it harder for the person who has built up a $50,000 debt to get it paid off if we give the job to a non-graduate instead. But, on the other side, we take away the need to run up a debt just to get a decent job.
   Life should not have to begin with so large of a debt. We should not make that a requirement.

Minimum Wage Might have Domino Effect

  I left off my own thinking on the topic of the minimum wage with the thought that there might be a domino effect on inflation. Those in other professions might argue, "McDonald's workers are getting $10.10. You've got to pay us more than that." And, at companies with varied payrolls, those already getting $10.10 only to find those below them raised to equal them would press for raises in their pay.
  Thus, the argument that the minimum wage only affects the small percentage who make less than $10.10 does not hold tight. And, if raising the minimum wage affects inflation, the inflation might not be limited to industries paying less than $10.10.
   Now, for those who have a deeper interest in the effects of raising the minimum wage, I offer a YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zisxWMu34k&feature=youtu.be

http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/what-happens-when-you-raise-the-minimum-wage/#.Uu3CGo2siSp

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

Angry is What it Says Would Happen, and Angry is What is Happening

   Mine is a religion many are angry with, angry for its stands on social issues, angry for its influence on government. And, they get angry with more. At times, it seems they are angry regardless what the church does.
   They are angry that women don't hold the priesthood. They are angry that the religion is so hard to live that many of its members -- as they view it -- are saddled with emotional stress.
   And, so, I turn to a verse in the book that my religion has, and wonder if people should see it as a prophecy. The verse is in the middle of verses speaking of how people would say that they need no additional word from God, for they already had enough. If those verses surrounding it refer to this day and age, and how people would say the Bible contains all the word of God and no additional word is needed, then, the verse in the middle surely also is referring to our day.
   Is this verse (2 Nephi 28:28) a prophecy? For what it says would happen, is happening. "And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God!" Angry is the way the scripture says they would react, and angry is the way they react to the church.

Don't Release Them from Prison Until They Graduate

   We need a little less concern for time served (attendance, shall we call it) and a lot more for achievement (passing the tests and doing the homework, shall we call it)  in our penitentiaries. Yes, our prisoners should not be released simply for having filled an allotment of time. They should not be released until they achieve goals that are set for them.
   What is the purpose of a prison? Should it not be to reform the convict? Why, then, would we release a prisoner without an indication of change? If the goal is change, the reason for release should be that there is reason to believe a change has taken place.
   Ours should be an achievement-oriented penal system. Prisoners should graduate, in a very real sense.
   We need this change not only for their sakes -- not only so they will keep themselves out of trouble in the future -- but for our sakes. If we are taking these folks off our streets because they endanger society, we should not put them right back on unless they can provide at least some assurance they have changed.
   The sentencing should spell out the changes that the prisoner must demonstrate. These changes should be written right into our penal code.
   Let's say we have someone who attempted murder, who ran over a person and then stabbed him multiple times with a screwdriver. A violent crime, indeed. I would say, he needs to learn not to react with violence when displeased with others. He needs to know weapons of any kind (whether they be cars or guns or screwdrivers) will not be resorted to resolve a dispute. Nor will violence be resorted to to settle a dispute.
   I think of Jose Angel Garcia-Jauregui, who was convicted for the screwdriver-stabbing crime described above, and how once in prison, he got into a fight, blackening the eyes and bloodying nose of the man he fought with. Garcia-Jauregui is said to have been instigator of the fight. It is clear, then, he had not learned violence is not to be resorted to to settle a dispute.
   The penal code should state that the violator must acknowledge the crime, express remorse, and pledge not to to involve him or herself in such activity again. The penal code should say the prisoner will not be released if he or she displays violence as a way of solving a dispute, or getting his or her demands met. Nor shall the prisoner be released if he or she expresses a desire to commit violence as a way of solving a problem.
   Classes or counseling time should be given the prisoner, teaching again and again, in this way and that, that you do not respond to situations with violence. The prisoner could be given work study assignments. For example, he or she might write a story on how a person got into a confrontation, but did not resort to violence.
    And, when the classwork is done, and the lesson learned (and the time served), the prisoner graduates.