October 2007 Archives

I recently finished Laura Ingraham’s latest book Power To The People and present a review of it.

Laura Ingraham is a nationally syndicated conservative talk-radio host. In Salt Lake City, she is heard on 1430 AM (KLO) from 7-10 a.m. She’s probably a second or third tier conservative host as most people don’t know who she is — they know Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Glenn Beck, but may have never heard of Laura Ingraham before. It wouldn’t surprise me if people thought she was “Dr. Laura” but, believe me, she and Laura Schlessinger are completely different. For one thing, Ingraham is, like, really educated and not just some physiology grad.

Some people probably confuse Laura Ingraham with Ann Coulter. There are some similarities in their “acts,” but I find Coulter to be much more vitriolic in her attacks of liberal democrats where Laura Ingraham is just entertaining.

Laura’s radio program features lots of soundbites and clips from TV news programs with witty analysis by Laura and her studio cohorts. She is also frequently joined by this or that politician or pundit to talk about the issues of the day.

One of Laura’s program’s trademarks is the opening montage of soundbites that accompany the theme music. Unlike Limbaugh’s opener (classic) or Hannity’s (*rolls eyes*), Laura’s gets changed quite frequently as she mixes it up weekly or daily with funny, idiotic, or inspiring clips of people. These montages always end with a shrill “Power to the peeeeeeople!” at the end. The screamer is a leftist human rights activist named Efia Nwangaza and the clip sounds like she’s being dragged away by security as she’s screaming.

Now you know where the title of the book comes from.

The book was an easy read, maybe too easy for me. Power To The People can be summarized as follows: Conservative talk-radio listeners should be aware of the following problems with our society. As talk-radio listeners, you have the power, collectively, to make a difference and influence action on these problems.

I fear Glenn Beck’s book coming out in November may be a similar set of recipes. We’ll see.

Laura begins by talking about the attack on the family. This was one of the more interesting chapters in the book. Laura — not married and not a parent — talks about how mainstream society looks down on large families and families in general. She discusses the value of the traditional (and natural) family model and how it must be defended. She touches on other topics that resurface later in the book, like sexualization of children and government usurping the authority of parents.

Next, illegal immigration. Who saw that coming? This section was just another dose of common sense solutions all of the talk radio world is screaming about while Washington collectively holds its fingers in its ears and says, “La la la la la.”

After that: national security. Laura talks about terror, terrorist states, and China.

Chapter four is about the courts and I thought it was the standout chapter in the book. Laura has a lot more perspective when it comes to judicial issues because she spent time working as a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this chapter she uses the nomination of Harriet Miers to argue who should and should not be a judge. I learned a lot more about the judiciary and its modern issues and controversies than I expected to.

The next chapter covers smaller government, or putting the power closer to the people. Another typical dose of conservative common sense.

Then: Porn. Laura explores just how explicit news, popular culture, and society has become and what we can do to squelch it. It’s not clear what we can do about it, to really make a difference, but Laura has several ideas.

Other chapters include topics such as schools and science. It was a little embarrassing to see Laura mention Utah twice in her book as a state that’s got it right by passing a school choice voucher law. Maybe she didn’t know about the legal appeals and the referendum when she wrote about it.

Finally, Laura spends a chapter talking about her fight with breast cancer. This was a stark deviation from the rest of her book, but it definitely humanizes the author a great deal. I found that chapter quite moving.

So, all in all, it’s an okay book. I’ll give it a 6/10 for what it is, basically a political propoganda book. It’s good reading if you’re a fan of Laura Ingraham. If you’re not (and I’m kind of in between), it may or may not be your cup of tea.

Jesse Stay has blogged about the school voucher issue here in Utah. It’s good to see some social and poliical responsibility action on the part of our blogging community!

I’m still torn on the school voucher issue. The referendum is a joke, in my opinion. The original legislative bill passed both the state House of Representatives and the Senate and was signed into law by the governor. The state educators refused to implement the policies of the law and filed legal action. A very long and twisted story short: Voters of Utah get to decide.

In theory, I’m very pro-voucher. Unfortunately, the Utah state legislature had to make some compromises and concessions on this bill to get it passed. Rather than making the voucher system equally available to all, they designed the system to be need-based — based on family income. This, I think, is the flaw.

Public schools get about $6,000 per year per student. The voucher system would give parents who want to send their kids to a private school a voucher worth up to $3,000 for private school tuition. The upside here for public schools is that (a) they get to keep the $3,000 or so left over and (b) they have one fewer child in the classroom. The result, in theory: smaller classes and more money, per student, for the school.

As I mentioned before, my problem is that voucher amount is to be based on family income. This is just flat-out bad policy. The maximum value for a voucher is about $3,000. The only way a family could qualify for this amount is if they’re relatively low-income. Considering the annual tuition for a private schcool is $10-15,000, the family that receives a voucher worth $3,000 is also the family least likely to be able to make up the difference to go toward tuition.

The amount for a school voucher should be be equal for all who qualify.

So, I don’t know which way I will vote on this. The intent of the voucher program is good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging more privatization of education... or anything else the government does.

Now, the other side of this issue has some compelling arguements as well. For example, there are some who say the voucher will be abused by home schoolers. I’ve heard some people say polygamist families will abuse the voucher system to “steal” public funds.

Others say it will be costly for the state to monitor and regulate the private education system to prevent abuse, thereby erasing any cost savings.

Some educators believe vouchers will take all the “good” students out of public schools, making the schools a cesspool for poor-performing students. This would, thereby, make it more difficult for public schools to meet their quotas for No Child Left Behind and other funding metrics. I’m not sure I think this is a bad thing. I don’t think the problem would be as stark as some would want you to believe, but these poor-performing students would be more likely to get the extra attention they need if there were fewer students in a class, right?

The pro-voucher lobby cites studies showing that Utah is on the cusp of a huge student population increase and if we don’t do something to take the pressure off the state public school system, we’ll be facing substantial tax increases to fund the public education system in the near future.

Holy cow! Isn't it time for something already?!?!

Alright, I promised before I would deliver a review of the book, The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes. You can get this book from Amazon.com.

The Forgotten Man is a look at the events of the Great Depression in the United States during the 1930s from the perspective of policy. I found it to be a fascinating look into the lives and viewpoints of people who were involved in the landmark political events during this decade.

The book begins in 1927. Floods in the midwest caused widespread damage through a burgeoning heartland. Herbert Hoover -- Commerce Secretary for U.S. president Calvin Coolidge -- went to areas affected by the flooding to be of help. Hoover's presence on the scene of natural disaster like this set a new precedent of federal government involvement in disaster response.

Hoover was a paradox in the Coolidge administration and joining him in the Coolidge Cabinet was Andrew Mellon who served as Secretary of the Treasury. I'd heard of Andrew Mellon before. I think we all have. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grants funding for museums, performing arts, information technology and more. I'm sure I've heard the name a gazillion times announced as a major donor responsible for various public television programming.

I think Hoover and Mellon, personify the two core attitudes about policy in the late 1920s and going into the beginning of the Great Depression. Hoover's political philosophies were exemplified by his actions. He was an engineer who seemed to delight in architecting and managing solutions to problems. As a government official, he transferred that enthusiasm onto the government and a belief the federal government should be involved in helping people with big problems.

Hoover was elected president in 1928 and inaugurated in early 1929. In office for only a few months, Hoover presided over what became known as Black Tuesday in October 1929 -- the crash of the U.S. stock market many believe set off the Great Depression.

Like Coolidge, Hoover was a Republican. Hoover retained Andrew Mellon as his Secretary of Treasury, but Mellon had different policy ideas than Hoover. He was clearly more conservative and, as a result, became an unpopular figure as the country plunged into the worst economy ever.

Hoover was, of course, superceded by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 who then presided for an unprecedented 4 terms.

While Hoover was a moderate Republican who had leanings toward building a larger federal government with increased social programs, Roosevelt was a moderate Democrat who was popular among the rich business elite of the northeast.

While Hoover had smart businessmen in his camp to keep him somewhat tethered to more conservative policy, Roosevelt brought in clearly progressive and academic people to run the federal government with him. Roosevelt's cabinet used the Great Depression as an excuse to grow the government's role in people's lives. Many were fans of Joseph Stalin's rule in Russia and aspired to make the United States more like that country. This was, of course, before word got out that Stalin was slaughtering millions of people to "make things work."

The Forgotten Man traces the political, business, and personal lives of dozens of remarkable players during the 1930s. Besides the presidents and their cabinet members, outspoken religion leaders like Father Divine and business leaders like Wendell Wilkie are covered in amazing depth.

The book covers the contention between Roosevelt and the aging Supreme Court and Roosevelt's fuming animosity toward utility companies and the rich men that ran them, or pretty much any rich men at all. There were trials, witchhunts, and smear campaigns all orchestrated by the Roosevelt administration against men who had lost much of their wealth after The Crash, but still had more money than most people.

After reading this book, I think F.D.R. did a horrible job of managing the country during his first two terms in office. This book doesn't really expose much of Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, but we know Roosevelt is revered as a hero that helped The Allies win World War II. Before that, however, he seemed to have no clue how to effectively dictate healthy domestic or foreign policy.

I found out about this book after hearing about it on Glenn Beck's radio show. Glenn found this book particularly relevant today because the conditions of the financial markets today is similar to conditions prior to Black Tuesday. It is a frightening prospect to think we could see such an extreme and disasterous downturn in our economy and possibly see the country plunge into another lengthy depression. This book illustrates the best cure for a depression is not a leader that tries to bring government services to every man, woman and child, but a leader who will exercise conservative economic policy and limit federal spending.

Prior to reading this book, I really didn't know much about the political struggles of the Great Depression. All I really knew about F.D.R. was related to his wartime years. I generally believed stupid financial markets, bankers, traders, etc. were largely responsible for the Great Depression. Now... not so much.

Highly recommended reading for all Americans.