Disappointment in Congressman Chaffetz (R-UT)

Disappointment in Congressman Chaffetz (R-UT)
By Charles A. Hall

22 October 2009

This is going to be a short little note but I want to just take a moment in expressing my disappointment in Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R) who represents Utah's Third Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. Why am I disappointed? Well, maybe it is too much to ask but I've never heard a single word back from Congressman Chaffetz since he won the Republican Nomination back in 2008 and has been in office since January 2009. Not one word!

Every issue (about five over the last nine months) I have written Senators Bob Benneth (R-UT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on I have received a response from (e-mail or letter). Is it a standard letter? I don't know, I hope not, but I don't know. Nothing I've ever written Congressman Chaffetz on has every been returned with his stance and promise to do this or that.

I wrote former Congressman Chris Cannon on one issue and that was about an individual (I forget who it was and all I can remember is this person was a Republican) in the House wanting to reinstate the "Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994." I wrote him expressing my disappoint in this Congressman and told him not to support it. I received a response back less than three weeks later. Again, I have never received anything back from Congressman Chaffetz and I'm very disappointed in him because of it.

Heck, I've even received things back from the White House and I don't even like the President! This was clearly a form letter, but it was something!

"I am here to serve the residents of the 3rdCongressional District, and so is my staff."

"If you’d like to contact me about a legislative issue, please e-mail me; or phone me at (202) 225-7751; or send me a letter by mail."
(http://chaffetz.house.gov/contact/index.shtml)

Yes, I've tried to contact you but you haven't returned my time as my elected representative.

Why am I bringing this up now to the general public and especially to those in Utah Congressional District 3? Because just yesterday ads started popping up here on Facebook about donations to Chaffetz Re-election Campaign for 2010. This has me thinking, "I want an open government, I want to be able to hear from representatives and know exactly what they are doing. Do I want to re-elect someone that isn't open to me?" Am I being unreasonable? It is unreasonable to want to get a response from my representatives? They aren't my leaders, they are my representatives. In the words of Ross Geller (played by David Schwimmer) in Friends, "IS IT?!" Or do I want to support another candidate that holds the same values and views that I do but who will be open to the people he/she serves?

###

DC Voting Rights: Ignoring the Constitution

DC Voting Rights: Ignoring the Constitution
By Charles A. Hall

18 October 2009

In the 17 October 2009 issue of The Deseret News (a Utah based newspaper) talked about the once thought dead bill of giving the heavy Democrat friendly District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives while giving a fourth Congressional seat to the State of Utah (DN, B1-B2)

In Utah who supports this bill:
-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
-Congressman Jim Matheson (R-UT2)

In Utah who opposes this bill:
-Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)
-Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT1)
-Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT3)

Who has it right? I’m going with Senator Bennett and Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz. Why? Because to have a full voting seat in the House of Representatives that seat needs to belong to a state as stated fully in the United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

The several States DOES NOT equal the District of Columbia. In the United States of America there are FIFTY (50) STATES and NOT fifty-one (51) states.

The Twenty-Third Amendment of the Constitution states:
“1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”

This is dealing with the Presidential Election and authorizing the District of Columbia to have three electors in the election. Nothing in this amendment, nor in any other part of the Constitution, states that the District of Columbia gets a voting seat on the House.

“Hatch, however, said the Constitution also allows federal taxation and jury trials only for residents of states, but courts have ruled such language also applies to D.C.” (DN, B2).

Here is a few things wrong with this:

1) The courts do not make law or amendments to the Constitution. They are to simply make sure that the laws passed by Congress and enforced by the President of the United States follow the Constitution (which we see they really don’t do that now days).

2) Senator Hatch needs to read the Constitution a little closer. Under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17 it states: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,”. Congress has the power to lay whatever taxes they want on the District of Columbia and say that federal taxes apply to it. That is granted by the Constitution!

3) Under the Sixth Amendment (Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses) of the Constitution it states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,” It mentions both “State” and “district” in this amendment. The “district” no doubt refers to the District of Columbia.

So maybe that is why the courts ruled the way they did on federal taxes and speedy trial, Senator Hatch? Maybe they were following the Constitution after all…?

“Chaffetz especially contends the bill is unconstitutional because the Constitution allows House representation only for states, and D.C. is not a state” (DN, B2). I agree with Congressman Chaffetz.

Where is this bill attached to? A defense bill. It is called a “rider”, something that has nothing to do with the bill as a full but added on at the end so it would pass with the full bill. These things can be good and bad. A rider to a credit card bill helped pass legislation to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms in national parks (which I loved!). But with this same method this method could be used to pass a National Health Care System and this bill to give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. What is the difference? Concealed carry in national parks is constitutional under the Second Amendment, National Health Care System and D.C. voting rights aren’t.

What can you do to stop this bill that would, once again, ignore the Constitution?

1) Write your representatives in Congress (both House and Senate) and tell them “NO TO D.C. VOTING RIGHTS! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION! NO TO D.C. VOTING RIGHTS!”

2) Pass the message along to your family, friends, neighbors, and others and have them write their representatives as well.

3) Post this information anywhere you can to get the message out!

Let me also set the record straight on this: I’m fine with voting rights for the District of Columbia IF it were a state! I’m not against them voting in the House of Representatives, but they need to be a state! If they ever did become a state (which I doubt they ever will be because the Founding Fathers didn’t want one state claiming the Seat of Government that is why they created D.C.) then they can have their full voting rights. Until then, the Constitution doesn’t allow it. Maybe look at passing an amendment or something like the 23rd Amendment? *shrugs*

Pass the message along and stop this bill!

###

Gun Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime!

Gun Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime
By Charles A. Hall

Saturday, 17 October 2009

The debate about gun rights and gun control rages on on a daily basis. I receive at least two e-mails a day about “gun control this” and “gun rights that.” To me it is a literal battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. And I will tell you right now that the forces of good are those that want to protect gun rights, gun owners, and preserve the Second Amendment (National Association of Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Defenders of America, etc.). The forces of evil are those that want to not only limit the Second Amendment but completely and utterly destroy it (The Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, President B. Hussein Obama and his Administration, and almost every Democrat in Congress).

Yes, I have called these individuals The Forces of Evil. Why? Because instead of protecting the Constitution of the United States (which politicians make an oath to preserve, protect, and defend), our Nation, and Her citizens they are harming and destroying it one bill at a time until we, pro-Second Amendment citizens, don’t have the strength to fight anymore.

Watch the following clip from the 1970s show “All in the Family.” Archie Bunker (played by the late Carroll O'Connor) had it right and so did America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

“What was the first thing the communists done when they took over Russia? Answer: gun control.” This is a historical fact! The same can be said about China and Nazi Germany. But is this really a thing of the past? If you said “yes, it is” you are wrong!

In 1996, after several massacres, new laws were passed in Australia to basically ban all longarms, pump shotguns, and handguns from private ownership. Handguns can still be obtained after a huge waiting period, large fees, and you must be apart of a shooting club to get “permission” to have a gun for “shooting purposes.”

In 1997 under the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 private gun ownership in the United Kingdom became illegal. All British subjects had to turn in their firearms. Did you know that even the United Kingdom’s Olympic Shooters can’t train in their own country? They have to go to neighboring countries that allow private gun ownership to train so they can represent their country to the world, but as long as it isn’t on British soil. The 2012 Summer Olympics this ban will be lifted ONLY for shooting events in the Olympics, but not for British citizens.

Here is a news report about the gun registrations and then gun bans in both the United Kingdom and their former colony of Australia:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1c_1228321106

And just coming to my attention this evening was that Canada, our northern neighbor, passed a law (C-68) that as of 1 January 2001 all guns must be registered in the Canadian Firearm Registry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulation), failure to do so results in no more guns and off to jail for you. Canadians can still purchase a firearm as long as you wait for your Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) and be a member of a certified range. “Canada's federal laws also restrict the ability of persons, including most security guards, to carry restricted or prohibited firearms in public, although generally carrying non-restricted firearms is permitted (although subject to other restrictions such breaching the peace if carried in manner that might alarm bystanders, such as in a city setting).”

Watch this video on Gun Control in Canada and tell me this can’t happen in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw

Now we show that gun control and gun registration isn’t a thing of the past, it has happened in three different countries in the last thirteen years. All three countries have already seen an increase in crime rates since they have instituted their bans on private gun ownership. Why? Because the law-biding citizens have given up the fight and have turned in their guns, the criminals have not. Who is gun control protecting: the innocent or the guilty? If we just look to these three countries it is the criminals.

In the movie above about Gun Control in Canada you heard it from police officers/constables themselves that such laws are ridiculous and don’t work, almost “unenforceable” as one constable put it. It only disarms the innocent and protects the guilty. Now here are a few other videos from ABC News series “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity with John Stossel” that look at gun control right here in the United States:

Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

(A great part about the video about it shows that the gun ban in Washington, D.C. didn’t stop crime, it increased it!)

Gun Myths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

What I like in these two videos is that the criminals they interview in a maximum security prison say they will still carry a gun even if the law says they can’t, that the law will not stop them.

Criminal #1 (Video 2): “When I had a gun, I didn’t care what laws they had… I’m not going into no store to buy a gun so I could care less if they had a background check or not.”

Criminal #2 (Video 2): “I bought it on the street.”

It is true that most every criminal buys their firearms on the streets on the black market. Instead of targeting gun shops and law-biding citizens with gun regulations why not focus effort on tracking down black markets and getting those guns off the “streets” (literally)?

During the 2008 Presidential Election I was talking to some individuals about then Senator B. Hussein Obama (D-IL) running for President of the United States and his anti-gun/pro-gun control record. A person that overheard our conversation said, “He isn’t going to take our guns away.” I’m sorry to say but this person is very naive.

In February of this year President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, seemed to have “jumped the gun” announcing that the President would be seeking to reinstate the “Assault Weapons Ban” that was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1994 and that expired in ten years later in 2004 due to its “sunset clause” under President George W. Bush. As shown in the ABC News videos the assault weapons ban didn’t decrease crime, it increased it! Holder backed off as the pro-gun rights movement went on the attack, having already known it was coming and were prepared to head it off before it could go any further. Good move, Attorney General Holder, stay away from our guns!

All three countries and their citizens that I have listed have said the exact same thing: Do not believe for one second that it can’t happen in the United States because you are next. And right they are.

House Bill 45 (also known as Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) will do exactly what has already been talked about from the British, the Aussies, and now Canadians. Not only will this bill start the process of taking private firearm ownership away but will also invade your right to privacy via your home and medical records. Here is National Association for Gun Rights Executive Director Dudley Brown about this bill:

NAGR – H.R. 45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yz6FwMJmMM

He identifies the following in this bill:

--Written exam before firearms purchase (I thought they couldn’t do this to exercise your right to vote, but they can for your right to keep and bear arms?!)

--Releases medical records (No more right to privacy there!)

--Two day waiting period

--$25 tax on any gun purchase (More taxes! YEAH!)

--A National Database of Firearms Owners (just like Soviet Union and Nazi Germany!)

--Massive, new penalties against the firearms industry (Destroying capitalism?)

--A Federal ban on any private gun sales (No more grandpa’s giving a .22 rifle to their grandkids and teaching them to shoot!)

Now I will be honest that I haven’t read the whole bill (I let groups like NAGR do that for me most of the time) and I will be looking it over soon myself. A myth I have heard about this bill (that I will verify at a later date if it is myth or fact) is that it will allow the police and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to come in and make sure your firearms are locked up and out reach of children. Now if they aren’t (like I have a firearm right now on my desk that stays there, but won’t be there after my first child is born in April 2010) they can hull your butt off to jail and say goodbye to your Second Amendment right along with all your other rights.

This looks like liberty and freedom to me! NOT!

In April of this year President Obama went to Mexico and came back with a little unknown treaty that would institute a national gun registration to help in the “War on Drugs and Cartel” in Mexico because some say that the cartels are getting their guns from the United States and shipping them back to Mexico. So to protect Mexico the American people will suffer.

Obama Pushes Anti-Gun Treaty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o

In Article VI of the United States Constitution it states in the second paragraph, quote: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any States to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The watered down version of this part of the Constitution: If the Senate ratifies the treaty it will create a national gun registration without the vote of the House of Representatives or debate by The People. How damaging is that?! Is that what the Founding Fathers wanted with this part of the Constitution? I am attending a six-week class called “Know Your Constitution” and instructor Sheryl Devereaux says, no, it isn’t. This part of the Constitution is about the safety and security of the United States, mainly in regard to treaties to end conflicts.

At this same class when we were talking about the Second Amendment one individual said she would like to see assault weapons banned and out of the hands of citizens. I had to pipe up and say that we can’t allow even that to happen because if you give the anti-gun movement an inch they will take a mile. Any gun legislation is bad because it just keeps opening the door for the gun control and anti-gun movement to get in a little further and further. We have seen it in England, Australia, and Canada. We can’t give them anything because if we do, if we let our guard down, amen to our rights!

There are a few lines I like to use when people ask me why I carry a firearm:

“Because I can’t carry a cop.”

“When seconds count the police are just minutes away.”

“A gun in the hand is better then a cop on the phone.”

There is a coming storm and it is just off the coast of the United States. We see the storm coming from Mexico, we see the storm from Washington D.C., we see it in state capitals across the United States, there is a storm coming. We must head it off as quickly and as fast as possible, just as hotshots in California Wildfires do.

The Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime!
The Fact: It Increase Crime!

The Myth: Gun Control Will Make Our Streets Safer!
The Fact: It Will Make Our Streets More Dangerous!

The Myth: The Second Amendment Is A Thing Of the Past!
The Fact: The Second Amendment Is Alive And Well In The 21st Century!

The Myth: Pay No Attention To The Man Beyond The Curtain!
The Fact: Throw That Curtain Open And Watch With Both Eyes! (Unless he is in the shower, then keep it shut.)

The Myth: H.R. 45 Will Never Pass!
The Fact: That Is What They Said In Australia, England, And Canada! If Unchecked It Will Pass!

The Second Amendment protects all of our other rights. It is The People’s Check on the government!

Thomas Jefferson: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

###

The Idle "Y" Generation

The Idle “Y” Generation
By Charles A. Hall, “Tony”

Friday, 16 October 2009

Let’s go through the generations since The Greatest Generation.

The Greatest Generation (World War II Era) – These were young men (and women) that stood up against pure evil. Yes, evil, and answered the call to defend their country, their liberty, their families, and the cause of freedom. They stormed the beaches at Normandy, France. They fight in the cold of winter at The Battle of the Bulge. They fought through to Berlin, Germany and into Austria. They were truly The Greatest Generation. They sacrificed so that we could enjoy freedom and liberty.

The Baby Boomers (late 1940s to early-mid 1960s) – These is where the author’s parents hail from (though they claim to be Generation X). These are the off-spring to The Greatest Generation, the generation born with a literal “silver spoon” in their mouths. The days of “Leave It to Beaver” and “Happy Days” where there were nice middle-class houses with white picket fences but then came the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Some of these Baby Boomers answered the call of their country yet again but as we see through the 1960s there seems to have been more whining, complaining, and moaning. Lost was the sense of patriotic duty to country (at least in the opinion of the author’s take on history).

Generation X (early-to-mid 1960s to late 1970s) – The “Baby Bust” Generation where the population increase rate dropped. These started off somewhere in the early-to-mid 1960s. They lived mostly through the Cold War and still (in the opinion of the author) were a bunch of misfits always whiny, complaining, and moaning about the government. Some have even called it “The Doom Generation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X).

Generation Y (mid-to-late 1970s to early 1990s) – Enter the author’s generation! This generation is also known as “The Milleniums”, “The Echo Boomers”, Generation Next, or Net Generation. “Members of Generation Y are primarily the offspring of the Baby Boomers” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y).

Now we have an overview of generations spanning the better part of the second half of the 20th Century. But this article/blog (whichever you wish to call it) is not focusing on The Greatest Generation, The Baby Boomers, or Generation X but is focusing on the author’s own generation: Generation Y!

Some have called Generation Y as “Generation ‘WHY? Why have them?”. Well, the point of this article isn’t about answering that question because the author doesn’t have an answer to that question. The point of this article is to look at the latest generation that is now all of age to be active members of political society in the United States of America.

(Switching from third person to first person talk now.)

My wife often makes fun of me that I’m “too” political, I spend too much time online talking and reading politics. Well, I disagree with her on this. I believe that members of my generation, Generation Y, need to be active in the political realm. Why? Because what is going on right now in Washington, D.C. and State Capitols will effect us for the REST of our lives. The youngest member of my generation is around 18 to 20 years old of age. They are individuals that can now vote in Presidential, Congressional, State and local elections. But do they? Well, let’s look at some numbers.

In the 2008 Elections there were about 231.2 million eligible voters in the United States and only 56.8% (132.6 million) of eligible voters turned out to the polls to vote (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). That is 109.5 million voters that didn’t cast their vote and let their votes be heard.

There are over 60 million born in the Y Generation. According a 20 July 2009 release from the United States Census Bureau only about 49% of voters between the ages of 18 to 24 voted (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html). Now I’m not a math major and there could be “finer” points but for the sake of argument we are going to cut use the following number dates and numbers:

Generation Y
Dates: 1979 to 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y#Demographics)
Age Range (2008): 14 to 29
Eligible Voters: 44 million

How did I get the rough number of eligible voters? Again, I’m not a math guru but I used the following formula:

60 million / 15 years = 4 million * 11 years (18 to 29 years of age) = 44 million voters

Generation Y – Ages 18 to 24
Dates: 1984 to 1990
Eligible Voters: 24 million

I got the above numbers using the same formula as above.

Out of 24 million only 11.76 million (49%) voted. That is 11.76 people that didn’t have their voices heard! Not even half did have their voice heard through the Ballot Box! Something is wrong with that…

Did you know that there was only a spread of 8.5 million votes between Barack Hussein Obama (D) and John McCain (R) in the 2008 election?

Obama – 66.8 million votes (53%)
McCain – 58.3 million votes (46%)
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)

Now one could argue that those 11.76 million people that didn’t vote could have made it even a bigger win for Senator Obama or it could have swung the election to Senator McCain. Then we look at the Electoral College and States and everything else! We won’t go into all the factors but what I’m getting at it that too many individuals, especially from my own generation, aren’t being involved in the political society of the United States.

Movements like “Turn Out The Vote” and other political action committees/groups work hard to get individuals out to vote. I believe that voting is the most patriotic duty one can do (other than laying down one’s life for their country) in the United States of America.

What is the point of this article? The point I’m trying to make is that individuals in my generation, and every other generation, need to get involved. They need to not stand idly by and not do anything. So what can you do?

1) Register to vote and keep your voting registration current (like if you move).
2) Vote in local, state, and national elections when the time comes.
3) Sign up for e-mail alerts from your elected representatives (yes, they say something intelligent every now and then).
4) Join /sign up for memberships/e-mail alerts from organizations that fit your political ideals (there are plenty out there).
5) Write your elected representatives and tell them what you think about issues and tell them, not encourage, how they are to vote and not the way their party would have them vote. Even if you are a member of one party and have an elected representative from another doesn’t mean you should be silent. Continue to speak up and be heard.
6) Encourage others around you to do the same.

I have a friend that doesn’t vote. He doesn’t understand why it is so important. I watched part of a PBS presentation the other day on the Constitution of the United States. One of the ladies they interview brought up this point of why you should vote:

1) Do you own or plan to own a car?
2) Do you know you are going to have to register that car?
3) Do you know you are going to have to get a license?

Those are all “yes” answers. She said, “Those are three reasons why you should vote.” Her point was that your elected representatives effect your car registration payment, requirements to get your license, etc. That is just something very basic people don’t think about, she said, and she is right.

Make sure you vote, make sure you stay informed, make sure you have your voice heard. Now is the time to get involved more then ever in the history of the United States. “One voice can and will make a difference.”

###

Traitor in the Republican Party

 

This note is going to be brief, but I need to say it.

Yesterday (Tuesday, 13 October 2009) the Senate Finance Committee passed America's Healthy Future Act of 2009 through committee. The vote was passed by a 14-9 vote with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) being the only Republican to vote that bill. Why? Here are her words:

"...when history calls, history calls."

She herself said she didn't agree with everything in the bill but "history was calling". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! She is more worried that she had her vote as an "AYE" for that bill because she wants her place in history? Yes, okay, but it WILL NOT be the history she hopes for. If passed, her name will be infamous for destroying the HealthCare system in America and possibly America itself. HealthCare WILL rip this country apart. How do I know? I look at history, the very history Snowe hopes for herself, and that HealthCare was a prime target for Lenin and the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. HealthCare is at the heart of every nation and if the government can control it they control the people.

The People of the United States are suppose to control the government but with ANY HealthCare bill the people will not longer be in control but the Government will be.

Did you know that this bill that was passed brings the entire burden of providing HealthCare is on the citizen and not the employer. Employers ARE NOT required to help their employees with HealthCare. My wife and I make it okay now but what happens if her company dumps her health coverage? We WILL NOT be able to afford it. And since we can't afford it the Federal Government WILL increase my taxes and if I can't pay that they are going to give me FINE AND PRISON TIME! How is that helping the American people?

Senator Snowe has secured her place in history but it will be the History of the Downfall of the Republic.

What do I say: "When In Doubt Vote The Bill Out!"
Meaning: If you don't like even a little bit of the bill for the benefit of the people your represent to its fullest and that of the American People you don't vote for the bill! You vote it out of committee, out of the docket, out, out, out!

ROTTEN Hall Children!

So as many my know my wife and I are expecting our first child (we want five, by the way). We were coming back from dinner and were talking about college, Latter-day Saint missions, cars, weddings, etc. We wanted to do the numbers and see exactly how much these kids would cost us and here is what we came up with:

NOTE: I did what I called the "WORST CASE SCENARIO", meaning this is what I would love to be able to provide for ALL my kids. So some may look at this and laugh, saying, "Wishful thinking!" Again, "WORST CASE SCENARIO" if I could provide everything they need when they "come of age."

A SINGLE HALL BOY
First Car - $2,000
Mission - $15,000 (two years + suits + passports + etc.)
College - $50,000 ($12,500/year for four years)
Wedding - $1,500

Total - $68,500

Now we included a "wedding fund" for a boy because we still have to buy stuff for The Groom's Dinner, tuxedos, etc. so we wanted to prepare ahead.

A SINGLE HALL GIRL
First Car - $2,000
Mission - $15,000 (If she decides to go on one : two years + dresses + passports + etc.)
College - $50,000 ($12,500/year for four years)
Wedding - $5,000 (Anything more she is paying!)

Total - $72,000

IF we had FIVE BOYS and NO GIRLS: $342,500
IF we had FIVE GIRLS and NO BOYS: $360,000

Let me say one thing: THESE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE SPOILED IF I CAN AFFORD THAT MUCH! THAT IS A DANG NICE HOUSE! THEY BETTER EARN IT!

Am I going to give handouts to my kids? Nope, not at all. They are going to work, help pay for their missions, cars, etc. Do I want to be able to help them out? I sure do.

WOW! $343k to $3460?!?! Wow! They better be worth it in the end! Well... I know they are. :D

And as my wife just said, "You'd better get a pretty dang good job." Well, I'm working on that as well. :D