"Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy."--1 Corinthians 4:2
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" II
Is it just me or does anyone else think it odd that the Pentagon chose this particular time to publish it's report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Could it be possible that homosexual activists put pressure on the White House, who in turn put pressure on the Pentagon to publish the report in an effort to give Democrats enough cover to repeal the policy during this lame duck session of congress knowing that this is their last chance to do so. Nah! I'm sure the timing is just a coincidence since this is the most pressing problem currently facing the nation.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Value of Marriage
A recent study by the Pew Research Center purports to show that 39 per cent of young Americans say that marriage is becoming obsolete. This is alarming news and does not bode well for the future of the nation, because the basis of any society is the family, and the basis of the family is a marriage whereby a couple raises and trains the next generation to take their place in society as socialized, productive, contributing citizens.
The Pew Study reveals that twenty-nine per cent of children in this country are living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never married. This is a five fold increase from 1960. It is no surprise to learn that the younger generation has a dim view of marriage since one third of marriages in this country end in divorce. Those who are Christians may decry this state of affairs, but those who are identified as evangelical Christians by George Barna actually have a divorce rate that is slightly greater than the population at large.
Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University is quoted as saying, "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them". Nothing could be further from the truth. More people may accept different definitions of family, but the trend away from the two parent, married heterosexual couple is a recipe for disaster for our country.
Today, most get married fully expecting their new partner to fulfill all of their expectations. When in the natural course of events, the partner doesn't, then the choice is usually to opt out of the marriage.
Divorce has been sold as a normal occurrence when one partner is not "fulfilled". We have bought into the lie that it is better for everyone involved to opt out of an "unhappy" marriage rather than remain and have everyone be miserable. Never mind research that reveals that those who stay and work out their problems claim to be happier five years later than they have ever been in their lives.
For Christ Followers, marriage has a religious aspect to it, but even for the non-religious it has utilitarian benefits that no other institution brings to the table.
When children are involved the absence of both a mom and dad in the home has a tremendous social cost. Of the children under age 6 who live below the poverty line, 59 percent live with single mothers, while a mere 6 percent live in households with married couples. Single parent families make less than one third of two parent families and the poverty rate for single parent families is six times that of two parent families. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are extraordinarily costly to American taxpayers. The Institute for Marriage and Family puts the price tag at over $100 billion every year. We have spent billions on the "war on poverty", but if Congress wants to combat poverty, the place to start is to institute policy that strengthens marriage.
The financial cost is not the only price that America is paying for devaluing marriage. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship says, "Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. .........Every time I set foot inside a prison, I see the results of splintered families. So many of the prisoners I talk to tell me about growing up without dad."
Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that more than 60 percent of prisoners grew up in households without a father. Some 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. Without a doubt the absence of a father in the home contributes to the reason that we can not build prisons fast enough. If we want to solve the crime problem, we have to find a way to strengthen marriage.
The psychological effect of divorce on children is disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fare worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimentation, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy and drug use. Adults may think that they are doing the right thing to abandon a marriage that no longer provides them the thrill of romance, but their inability to sustain the relationship that counted the most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seems to have eroded the young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
Nor does remarriage seem to be a solution: children in step families were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. The associated social costs to American taxpayers for these social ills is in the billions every year.
After viewing how their parents have walked away from marriage, the young are trending toward co-habitation in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls, but this is not the answer either. Living together without commitment is not the same as marriage. One of the partners has his "stuff" and the other has her "stuff" with the idea that either can leave at any time. If a co-habiting couple does marry, they have an 80% greater chance of divorce, which puts them back at square one.
In an era when Americans are looking for answers to their economic, social and crime problems they have to look no further than the solution of strengthening the institution of marriage. Far from being obsolete, solid marriages are more in need than ever before.
The Pew Study reveals that twenty-nine per cent of children in this country are living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never married. This is a five fold increase from 1960. It is no surprise to learn that the younger generation has a dim view of marriage since one third of marriages in this country end in divorce. Those who are Christians may decry this state of affairs, but those who are identified as evangelical Christians by George Barna actually have a divorce rate that is slightly greater than the population at large.
Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University is quoted as saying, "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them". Nothing could be further from the truth. More people may accept different definitions of family, but the trend away from the two parent, married heterosexual couple is a recipe for disaster for our country.
Today, most get married fully expecting their new partner to fulfill all of their expectations. When in the natural course of events, the partner doesn't, then the choice is usually to opt out of the marriage.
Divorce has been sold as a normal occurrence when one partner is not "fulfilled". We have bought into the lie that it is better for everyone involved to opt out of an "unhappy" marriage rather than remain and have everyone be miserable. Never mind research that reveals that those who stay and work out their problems claim to be happier five years later than they have ever been in their lives.
For Christ Followers, marriage has a religious aspect to it, but even for the non-religious it has utilitarian benefits that no other institution brings to the table.
When children are involved the absence of both a mom and dad in the home has a tremendous social cost. Of the children under age 6 who live below the poverty line, 59 percent live with single mothers, while a mere 6 percent live in households with married couples. Single parent families make less than one third of two parent families and the poverty rate for single parent families is six times that of two parent families. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are extraordinarily costly to American taxpayers. The Institute for Marriage and Family puts the price tag at over $100 billion every year. We have spent billions on the "war on poverty", but if Congress wants to combat poverty, the place to start is to institute policy that strengthens marriage.
The financial cost is not the only price that America is paying for devaluing marriage. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship says, "Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. .........Every time I set foot inside a prison, I see the results of splintered families. So many of the prisoners I talk to tell me about growing up without dad."
Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that more than 60 percent of prisoners grew up in households without a father. Some 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. Without a doubt the absence of a father in the home contributes to the reason that we can not build prisons fast enough. If we want to solve the crime problem, we have to find a way to strengthen marriage.
The psychological effect of divorce on children is disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fare worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimentation, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy and drug use. Adults may think that they are doing the right thing to abandon a marriage that no longer provides them the thrill of romance, but their inability to sustain the relationship that counted the most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seems to have eroded the young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
Nor does remarriage seem to be a solution: children in step families were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. The associated social costs to American taxpayers for these social ills is in the billions every year.
After viewing how their parents have walked away from marriage, the young are trending toward co-habitation in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls, but this is not the answer either. Living together without commitment is not the same as marriage. One of the partners has his "stuff" and the other has her "stuff" with the idea that either can leave at any time. If a co-habiting couple does marry, they have an 80% greater chance of divorce, which puts them back at square one.
In an era when Americans are looking for answers to their economic, social and crime problems they have to look no further than the solution of strengthening the institution of marriage. Far from being obsolete, solid marriages are more in need than ever before.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Homecoming
My oldest son Saddler came home Saturday after a year's tour in Afghanistan with the 178th Field Artillery of the South Carolina Army National Guard. This was the unit's second combat deployment, having deployed previously to Iraq in 2005. All of the South Carolina troops made it home safely although they did lose two soldiers from the Pennsylvania Guard who were attached to their unit. Needless to say, it is a burden lifted from the hearts of a father and mother to have their son safely back on U.S. soil and we grieve for those whose ultimate fear has been realized.
The unit left Afghanistan on November the 5th, went to Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia, Maine and on to Camp Atterbury, Indiana where they were debriefed and went through some family counseling sessions on reintegration into family life. Having a husband away from home for a year is extremely hard on active duty wives, but more so on National Guard wives as they don't have the built in support system of having others around that are going through the same hardship. While those who are not military families can sympathize, they can not possibly really know the sacrifice that is being paid to keep them free. Not only are the troops paying a tremendous price to keep us free and safe, but the families, especially the wives are paying a steep price also. During my Navy career, we had a saying, "Navy wife, the toughest job in the Navy", and I think during these times, its true for every branch of service.
We were down for the welcome home ceremony at Eagle Aviation in Columbia and I am not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes when the hangar doors opened and the unit marched in. I am so proud of the sacrifice that the young men have made and to see the joy on the faces of the families at their return is almost overwhelming.
There is one neat story, at least I think its neat, about Saddler's return. During his deployment, we kept a lighted electric candle in our window signifying his absence. The bulb had lasted, without replacement, throughout the deployment. In fact it was still lit on Sunday morning when we left to go welcome him home. Upon our return, it was out. Now some may consider this a coincidence, but I prefer to think that it is God's way of telling us that He has been faithful to answer our prayers.
In any event, just like Ty Pennington on Extreme Home Makeover. There is only one thing left to say: Welcome home, 178th, Welcome home!!!!!!
The unit left Afghanistan on November the 5th, went to Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia, Maine and on to Camp Atterbury, Indiana where they were debriefed and went through some family counseling sessions on reintegration into family life. Having a husband away from home for a year is extremely hard on active duty wives, but more so on National Guard wives as they don't have the built in support system of having others around that are going through the same hardship. While those who are not military families can sympathize, they can not possibly really know the sacrifice that is being paid to keep them free. Not only are the troops paying a tremendous price to keep us free and safe, but the families, especially the wives are paying a steep price also. During my Navy career, we had a saying, "Navy wife, the toughest job in the Navy", and I think during these times, its true for every branch of service.
We were down for the welcome home ceremony at Eagle Aviation in Columbia and I am not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes when the hangar doors opened and the unit marched in. I am so proud of the sacrifice that the young men have made and to see the joy on the faces of the families at their return is almost overwhelming.
There is one neat story, at least I think its neat, about Saddler's return. During his deployment, we kept a lighted electric candle in our window signifying his absence. The bulb had lasted, without replacement, throughout the deployment. In fact it was still lit on Sunday morning when we left to go welcome him home. Upon our return, it was out. Now some may consider this a coincidence, but I prefer to think that it is God's way of telling us that He has been faithful to answer our prayers.
In any event, just like Ty Pennington on Extreme Home Makeover. There is only one thing left to say: Welcome home, 178th, Welcome home!!!!!!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Protestants and Catholics
The Pope was recently in Spain for the dedication of Barcelona's basilica, the Sagrada Familia. While there he criticized the policies of Spain's socialist government and its laws allowing homosexual marriage, fast-track divorce and easy access to abortions. Predictably, he took a lot of criticism for his views.
I applaud the Pope for this stand on homosexual marriage, the institution of marriage and abortion. Evangelicals have also spoken out on this, but the Pope has tremendous worldwide stature and respect. In my view, his voice is welcome.
The fact remains that there was a reason for the Protestant Reformation. Catholics and Protestants have some major theological differences, none more stark than the means of salvation. Catholics believe in salvation through Jesus Christ plus, i.e., plus having to be a member of the Catholic Church and the faith adds works as a requirement for forgiveness of sins. Protestants believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ plus nothing. These differences are non-negotiable for Protestants.
My question is: In light of these differences and many more, can we make common cause with Catholics on social issues such as was done with the Manhattan Declaration and still remain faithful to Scripture and to Christ? Can we ally with Catholics in social causes such as these without damaging our message?
I applaud the Pope for this stand on homosexual marriage, the institution of marriage and abortion. Evangelicals have also spoken out on this, but the Pope has tremendous worldwide stature and respect. In my view, his voice is welcome.
The fact remains that there was a reason for the Protestant Reformation. Catholics and Protestants have some major theological differences, none more stark than the means of salvation. Catholics believe in salvation through Jesus Christ plus, i.e., plus having to be a member of the Catholic Church and the faith adds works as a requirement for forgiveness of sins. Protestants believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ plus nothing. These differences are non-negotiable for Protestants.
My question is: In light of these differences and many more, can we make common cause with Catholics on social issues such as was done with the Manhattan Declaration and still remain faithful to Scripture and to Christ? Can we ally with Catholics in social causes such as these without damaging our message?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election results
But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people -John 2:24
If the polls can be believed, the mid-term election should be a landslide victory for Republicans. Now I admit up front that I am all for this as I vehemently oppose the policies of President Obama and the Democratic congress. But having said that, we are fooling ourselves if we think that a change of the guard is going to solve all of our problems. The people we are electing, no matter what party, are still flawed human beings.
The reason the country is in this mess is because of bad policy, but that bad policy comes from a breakdown of ethics in Congress, the business world and in society. Everyone seems to be focusing on the economy, but you can not separate economics and morality. Capitalism is a three legged stool and requires religious freedom, economic freedom and Biblical ethics. Removed the ethics and the system doesn't work.
We have seen that in the recent recession. Congress forced lending to individuals who can't afford the mortgages, families lied to buy houses that they can not afford and Wall Street manipulated the system for short term profits. It did not take long for the Ponzi scheme to come crashing down. Was the solution to let the "Law of the Harvest" run its course? Of course not.
We want the solutions to our problems to be painless. We have lost the Protestant work ethic: a willingness to postpone gratification, work hard and invest for the future. We had rather assign blame than take responsibility for our actions. We demand a bailout. And Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, in their quest to retain and extend power, are only too happy to meet our demands while abandoning the Biblical precept of stewardship. Thus we find ourselves in debt that we can't possibly pay off.
While we may justifiably rejoice over the results of today's election, if we put new people in Congress and continue to expect them to meet all of our needs, we are pursuing a false god. "We the people" can not continue to elect politicians and keep them in power based solely on the amount of "free" goodies that they provide. Covetousness destroys the moral fabric of any society.
If the polls can be believed, the mid-term election should be a landslide victory for Republicans. Now I admit up front that I am all for this as I vehemently oppose the policies of President Obama and the Democratic congress. But having said that, we are fooling ourselves if we think that a change of the guard is going to solve all of our problems. The people we are electing, no matter what party, are still flawed human beings.
The reason the country is in this mess is because of bad policy, but that bad policy comes from a breakdown of ethics in Congress, the business world and in society. Everyone seems to be focusing on the economy, but you can not separate economics and morality. Capitalism is a three legged stool and requires religious freedom, economic freedom and Biblical ethics. Removed the ethics and the system doesn't work.
We have seen that in the recent recession. Congress forced lending to individuals who can't afford the mortgages, families lied to buy houses that they can not afford and Wall Street manipulated the system for short term profits. It did not take long for the Ponzi scheme to come crashing down. Was the solution to let the "Law of the Harvest" run its course? Of course not.
We want the solutions to our problems to be painless. We have lost the Protestant work ethic: a willingness to postpone gratification, work hard and invest for the future. We had rather assign blame than take responsibility for our actions. We demand a bailout. And Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, in their quest to retain and extend power, are only too happy to meet our demands while abandoning the Biblical precept of stewardship. Thus we find ourselves in debt that we can't possibly pay off.
While we may justifiably rejoice over the results of today's election, if we put new people in Congress and continue to expect them to meet all of our needs, we are pursuing a false god. "We the people" can not continue to elect politicians and keep them in power based solely on the amount of "free" goodies that they provide. Covetousness destroys the moral fabric of any society.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Secretariat and the Death Tax
"Render to all what is due to them: tax to whom tax is due .........."-Romans 13:7
Muriel and I went to see "Secretariat" this past Friday night. Christian writer, director, and producer Randall Wallace has made an excellent film appropriate for all ages. "Secretariat" is a feel good movie and because the overall framework of the story is based on history, the outcome is predictable. None of this diminishes its enjoyment.
Wallace says that one of the themes is that there is joy in becoming what you were made to be, an echo of the reformation theology of vocation, but, maybe due to the political season, I picked up on another theme that made me angry.
In one of the sub-plots, Penny Chenery takes over her father's horse farm when he passes away. Her most immediate obstacle is finding a way to pay the $6 million estate tax without selling the farm. Imagine. Her father had worked all of his life to build up a successful business and upon his death, the government steps in and takes so much that the family has to scramble to find a way to hang onto their inheritance. This is nothing more than outright thievery.
The reason that it made me so angry is that this year the estate tax is at the level that it should be--zero. On January 1st, 2011, it is going to rise to 55% unless Congress acts to extend what is known as "The Bush Tax Cuts". So far they have refused to act before the elections and if the Dems lose the House and Senate, may refuse to act out of spite. The American Revolution was brought on by taxation policies less confiscatory than this.
Secretariat's story took place in 1973, but Dell Tackett tells a modern version of the same taxation story at http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid599539952001?bctid=629270648001 . Dr. Tackett tells the story of 80 year old Eugene Sukup of Sheffield, Iowa, who has built up a successful business and what the family faces upon his death in light of taxes policies that are soon to be put in place. If this doesn't light your fire, your wood is wet.
Muriel and I went to see "Secretariat" this past Friday night. Christian writer, director, and producer Randall Wallace has made an excellent film appropriate for all ages. "Secretariat" is a feel good movie and because the overall framework of the story is based on history, the outcome is predictable. None of this diminishes its enjoyment.
Wallace says that one of the themes is that there is joy in becoming what you were made to be, an echo of the reformation theology of vocation, but, maybe due to the political season, I picked up on another theme that made me angry.
In one of the sub-plots, Penny Chenery takes over her father's horse farm when he passes away. Her most immediate obstacle is finding a way to pay the $6 million estate tax without selling the farm. Imagine. Her father had worked all of his life to build up a successful business and upon his death, the government steps in and takes so much that the family has to scramble to find a way to hang onto their inheritance. This is nothing more than outright thievery.
The reason that it made me so angry is that this year the estate tax is at the level that it should be--zero. On January 1st, 2011, it is going to rise to 55% unless Congress acts to extend what is known as "The Bush Tax Cuts". So far they have refused to act before the elections and if the Dems lose the House and Senate, may refuse to act out of spite. The American Revolution was brought on by taxation policies less confiscatory than this.
Secretariat's story took place in 1973, but Dell Tackett tells a modern version of the same taxation story at http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid599539952001?bctid=629270648001 . Dr. Tackett tells the story of 80 year old Eugene Sukup of Sheffield, Iowa, who has built up a successful business and what the family faces upon his death in light of taxes policies that are soon to be put in place. If this doesn't light your fire, your wood is wet.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The "Rich" and Taxes
Below is a link to a good article on how the rich view taxes. The Dems have really fouled things up by not extending the Bush tax cuts. And Obama wonders why the economy is not improving. Go figure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
We're No. 1(1)
The link below is to an article by Thomas Friedman on the reasons for why the U.S. seems to be lagging in a number of areas. Well worth the read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12friedman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12friedman.html
Monday, September 20, 2010
Misguided Generosity
There is something intrinsically wrong with enacting legislation to fix economic problems because economic problems cannot be fixed with political solutions. The results always carry unintended consequences because those enacting the legislation are acting from a flawed worldview. Taking money from people who one thinks do not deserve it and giving it to those who one thinks do deserve it is not compassion, it is cheap generosity . Worse yet, it is outright theft.
In a Biblical worldview, yes, we are supposed to care for the poor, but it is not the government's responsibility to do so, it is the responsibility of the church. When government intrudes on what is not its rightful sphere two things happens. In this case, the church abdicates its responsibilities and the government usually makes matters worse.
The recent mortgage crisis is a case in point of good intentions gone awry. The Fair Housing Act was a nice idea, but based on a flawed premise which was the idea that everyone who wishes, should be able to have a house, whether they can afford it or not. So what did congress do? Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd , they enacting legislation to force lending institutions, to abandon sound lending practices and lend to borrowers who would not have ordinarily qualified. The quasi-government institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, major contributors to the Democrats, then put then bought these "sub prime" mortgages from the banks giving the impression that the mortgages were government backed, which encouraged the banks to continue the practice. Of course other factors came into play and I am not absolving the banks of wrong doing, but congress was the major catalyst. The result was a massive bailout of the banks with taxpayer money, Frank and Dodd denying all responsibility, the banks taking all of the blame and the mortgagees getting off with no penalty.
Now congress is at it again. President Obama is touring the nation blaming the continuation of the current recession on the refusal of businesses to hire while sitting on massive amounts of cash. Unemployment hovers around 10% and stubbornly refuses to come down despite massive infusion of taxpayer dollars. No one stops to think that maybe congress, once again offering political solutions to economic problems, has contributed to the problem of non-expansion by business.
It works like this. Employment benefits have traditionally been given for 26 weeks. Congress has responded to the recession by extending them another 73 weeks. Think about it. That is almost two years worth of benefits for not working. Once again, congress has taken money from some and given it to others with unintended consequences. In Pennsylvania, 73 weeks of unemployment translates to $2260 a month or $41,245 over the 73 week period. Why would anyone work when they can make more on the dole and many have reached that conclusion. Small businesses that would like to expand can't for lack of workers willing to take the entry level positions available.
If Obama wants the recession to go away, he only need to look to himself and his party for the reasons. Democrats played a huge part in creating this mess and they are playing a huge part in its continuation.
In a Biblical worldview, yes, we are supposed to care for the poor, but it is not the government's responsibility to do so, it is the responsibility of the church. When government intrudes on what is not its rightful sphere two things happens. In this case, the church abdicates its responsibilities and the government usually makes matters worse.
The recent mortgage crisis is a case in point of good intentions gone awry. The Fair Housing Act was a nice idea, but based on a flawed premise which was the idea that everyone who wishes, should be able to have a house, whether they can afford it or not. So what did congress do? Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd , they enacting legislation to force lending institutions, to abandon sound lending practices and lend to borrowers who would not have ordinarily qualified. The quasi-government institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, major contributors to the Democrats, then put then bought these "sub prime" mortgages from the banks giving the impression that the mortgages were government backed, which encouraged the banks to continue the practice. Of course other factors came into play and I am not absolving the banks of wrong doing, but congress was the major catalyst. The result was a massive bailout of the banks with taxpayer money, Frank and Dodd denying all responsibility, the banks taking all of the blame and the mortgagees getting off with no penalty.
Now congress is at it again. President Obama is touring the nation blaming the continuation of the current recession on the refusal of businesses to hire while sitting on massive amounts of cash. Unemployment hovers around 10% and stubbornly refuses to come down despite massive infusion of taxpayer dollars. No one stops to think that maybe congress, once again offering political solutions to economic problems, has contributed to the problem of non-expansion by business.
It works like this. Employment benefits have traditionally been given for 26 weeks. Congress has responded to the recession by extending them another 73 weeks. Think about it. That is almost two years worth of benefits for not working. Once again, congress has taken money from some and given it to others with unintended consequences. In Pennsylvania, 73 weeks of unemployment translates to $2260 a month or $41,245 over the 73 week period. Why would anyone work when they can make more on the dole and many have reached that conclusion. Small businesses that would like to expand can't for lack of workers willing to take the entry level positions available.
If Obama wants the recession to go away, he only need to look to himself and his party for the reasons. Democrats played a huge part in creating this mess and they are playing a huge part in its continuation.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Bittersweet
One cannot explain to those who haven't experienced it the joy of a father when his son returns from war. My oldest son, Saddler, arrived home from Afghanistan for two weeks of R and R.
I think back to my joy when he came home from Iraq in 2005 and I think it is stronger this time around. Does that mean that the love that a father has for his son grows stronger over time? I think it must.
During the first combat tour, I found out what my Dad must have experienced when I was in Vietnam. A constant nagging of missing my son and a background worry for his safety. I don't know if my Dad prayed for me or not, he passed away in 1986, but I sure lift Saddler up in prayer every day, sometimes several times a day.
Civilians will never understand the sacrifices that our men and women and their families are making for the country. There is no way to explain it to them so that they truly understand. It is not only the soldiers who bear the burden, but the wives and children also. My daughter-in-law has been a single mom for almost a year now, coping with the demands of raising three children and home schooling two of them. My grans miss their Dad terribly. This, without the built in support of an active duty family as Saddler is with the National Guard.
If you happen to see our men and women in uniform, please do not pass up a chance to thank them personally for doing what most will not do. Sacrifice themselves for the good of others.
I think back to my joy when he came home from Iraq in 2005 and I think it is stronger this time around. Does that mean that the love that a father has for his son grows stronger over time? I think it must.
During the first combat tour, I found out what my Dad must have experienced when I was in Vietnam. A constant nagging of missing my son and a background worry for his safety. I don't know if my Dad prayed for me or not, he passed away in 1986, but I sure lift Saddler up in prayer every day, sometimes several times a day.
Civilians will never understand the sacrifices that our men and women and their families are making for the country. There is no way to explain it to them so that they truly understand. It is not only the soldiers who bear the burden, but the wives and children also. My daughter-in-law has been a single mom for almost a year now, coping with the demands of raising three children and home schooling two of them. My grans miss their Dad terribly. This, without the built in support of an active duty family as Saddler is with the National Guard.
If you happen to see our men and women in uniform, please do not pass up a chance to thank them personally for doing what most will not do. Sacrifice themselves for the good of others.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tax Cuts for the Rich
In addition to death and taxes, there is another thing in life that is certain. When attempting to gain political power or hold on to it, the Democrats are going to ratchet up their class warfare rhetoric.
With the looming November elections and facing the prospect of losing control of the House and maybe the Senate also, Obama is crisscrossing the country spouting nonsense about the "rich" not paying their fair share of taxes. Obama accuses the Republicans of wanting to cut taxes for millionaires, regulations for special interests and basically let Americans fend for themselves. He then offers the standard Democrat talking points: Raise taxes on the rich, target tax cuts to the middle class ( which never seems to happen) and raise taxes on businesses (which is impossible).
The question is, are the Democrats on to something? The fact is that the top 1% of wage earners, those making more than $400,000 pay 40% of all federal income taxes collected and the top 5%, those making more than $160,000, pay 61% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners, those making $33,000 or less, pay less than 3% of all federal income taxes collected. Forty percent of Americans pay no income tax at all. No wonder there is a constituency that doesn't mind how much the federal government goes into debt. They have no skin in the game.
Bill Freeze of "Real Clear Markets" has crunched the numbers on who pays what in taxes and the results will surprise a lot of people. It turns out that George Bush did not decrease taxes on the rich, he increased them. Both Clinton and Bush served eight years in the Presidency, but when Clinton was in office, Federal Revenue from individual income taxes was $5.66 trillion. When George Bush was in office, Federal Revenue from individual income taxes was $7.45 trillion. The "rich", the top %1 of taxpayers, not only forked over a trillion dollars more to the Federal Government under Bush, their share of the burden increased from 33% to 38%. In addition, the rich paid a blended rate of 20.6% under Clinton but paid income tax at a blended rate of 21.3% under Bush.
What is a "blended rate". Well, when one pays income tax, say on $500,000, one doesn't pay a flat rate of 35% on the entire amount. Rounded off, the first $8,000 is taxed at a rate of 15%, from 8001 to $34,000 is taxed at a rate of 15%, from $34,001 to %172,000 is taxed at a rate of 28%, from 172,001 to $374,000 is taxed at a rate of 33% and all over $374,001 is taxed at 35%. Hence the "rich" paid a "blended average" of 21.3% under Bush.
How did Bush cut taxes and have the "rich" paying not only more, but a greater effective rate?
Well, when taxes go down, the "rich" change their behavior. Those that work, work harder and longer. They expand their business, creating jobs. The "idle rich" change their investment behavior and instead of investing in low yield bonds, invest in higher yield taxable vehicles, the kind of investments that finance companies that create jobs. When marginal tax rate go up, the opposite happens. The rich cut back on work and contract instead of expand business and the "idle rich" alter their investments to vehicles that require less taxes. The "rich" are usually happy to pay more of a "blended" tax rate as long as they are taking home more after tax dollars.
If Bush had reigned in spending during his tenure as President, then he would have left Obama a surplus instead of a deficit because revenues to the treasury went up 30% percent under his watch. Now Obama is dead set on letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession. Tighten your belts folks, because we are in for some hard times until we get rid of this fellow.
With the looming November elections and facing the prospect of losing control of the House and maybe the Senate also, Obama is crisscrossing the country spouting nonsense about the "rich" not paying their fair share of taxes. Obama accuses the Republicans of wanting to cut taxes for millionaires, regulations for special interests and basically let Americans fend for themselves. He then offers the standard Democrat talking points: Raise taxes on the rich, target tax cuts to the middle class ( which never seems to happen) and raise taxes on businesses (which is impossible).
The question is, are the Democrats on to something? The fact is that the top 1% of wage earners, those making more than $400,000 pay 40% of all federal income taxes collected and the top 5%, those making more than $160,000, pay 61% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners, those making $33,000 or less, pay less than 3% of all federal income taxes collected. Forty percent of Americans pay no income tax at all. No wonder there is a constituency that doesn't mind how much the federal government goes into debt. They have no skin in the game.
Bill Freeze of "Real Clear Markets" has crunched the numbers on who pays what in taxes and the results will surprise a lot of people. It turns out that George Bush did not decrease taxes on the rich, he increased them. Both Clinton and Bush served eight years in the Presidency, but when Clinton was in office, Federal Revenue from individual income taxes was $5.66 trillion. When George Bush was in office, Federal Revenue from individual income taxes was $7.45 trillion. The "rich", the top %1 of taxpayers, not only forked over a trillion dollars more to the Federal Government under Bush, their share of the burden increased from 33% to 38%. In addition, the rich paid a blended rate of 20.6% under Clinton but paid income tax at a blended rate of 21.3% under Bush.
What is a "blended rate". Well, when one pays income tax, say on $500,000, one doesn't pay a flat rate of 35% on the entire amount. Rounded off, the first $8,000 is taxed at a rate of 15%, from 8001 to $34,000 is taxed at a rate of 15%, from $34,001 to %172,000 is taxed at a rate of 28%, from 172,001 to $374,000 is taxed at a rate of 33% and all over $374,001 is taxed at 35%. Hence the "rich" paid a "blended average" of 21.3% under Bush.
How did Bush cut taxes and have the "rich" paying not only more, but a greater effective rate?
Well, when taxes go down, the "rich" change their behavior. Those that work, work harder and longer. They expand their business, creating jobs. The "idle rich" change their investment behavior and instead of investing in low yield bonds, invest in higher yield taxable vehicles, the kind of investments that finance companies that create jobs. When marginal tax rate go up, the opposite happens. The rich cut back on work and contract instead of expand business and the "idle rich" alter their investments to vehicles that require less taxes. The "rich" are usually happy to pay more of a "blended" tax rate as long as they are taking home more after tax dollars.
If Bush had reigned in spending during his tenure as President, then he would have left Obama a surplus instead of a deficit because revenues to the treasury went up 30% percent under his watch. Now Obama is dead set on letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession. Tighten your belts folks, because we are in for some hard times until we get rid of this fellow.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Proposition 8
So U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California's Proposition 8, passed by over 7 million Californians to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Imagine the hubris of an unelected guy in a black robe to overturn the historical and traditional definition of marriage that has been in existence since the dawn of civilization. Now I know that some will say that different cultures have defined marriage differently and point to those that allowed polygamy. Well, even in polygamous households, the marriages took place one at a time, not as a group. Each marriage was still between one man and one woman.
The arrogance of an unelected judge to overturn the express will of the people of a state is beyond comprehension. silly me, I thought that under the Constitution we were a government of the people and by the people. If Judge Walker's ruling is allowed to stand, and there is a 50/50 chance that it will, then the people of California have come under the rule of one man.
That this issue is a Constitutional issue is absurd. It is a stretch to say that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies, because no one is being denied their rights on the basis of citizenship. Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as that of any citizen. they can choose to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they wish. No citizen has the constitutional right to enjoy special privileges based on his actions.
In Judge Walker's ruling is the idea that laws, which have any basis in faith or even commonsense morality, are unconstitutional as he stated that, "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite sex couples. Did you get that?: The idea that morality or a religious basis cannot be a factor in deciding law.
Now that would be a shock to the late Dr. M.L. King who based his entire civil rights movement on the idea of Biblical morality. The Black pastors of Birmingham asked Dr. King why he was breaking the law and he replied in his famous "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" that there were two types of laws: just and unjust. King state that one had a moral and legal responsibility to obey just laws, but one had a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. the difference was that a just law was a law was in accordance with the moral law of God land an unjust law was a law that was out of harmony with the moral law. This is straight out of the tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and later, Blackstone, whose "Commentaries" formed the basis of our legal system for the first 150 years of America's existence before we devolved to case law and began relying solely on the opinion of judges.
Being a homosexual himself, Walker's opinion exudes resentment to the idea that the state can somehow consider heterosexual couples superior to homosexual couples and he doesn't believe that there is any reason from the state's point of view to differentiate between them. Well, he could not be more wrong. From the state's point of view, heterosexual couples are superior.
Although for various reasons, not all heterosexual marriages produce children, in the normal course of things, they do. Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children by themselves. Marriage then normally leads to a family, and it is the family that is the basic building block of any society. The only reason that government would have any interest in the institution of marriage at all is that of promoting the welfare of families. It is in the family that future generations are socialized, taught responsibility, discipline and a host of other virtues that will produce good citizens. Therefore any wise government will institute policies that will support an institution that produces good citizens.
Judge Walker, in his arrogance, fails to realize that we don't get to define marriage. It has already been defined by history, tradition, and yes, by God himself. All we get to do is to recognize it.
Imagine the hubris of an unelected guy in a black robe to overturn the historical and traditional definition of marriage that has been in existence since the dawn of civilization. Now I know that some will say that different cultures have defined marriage differently and point to those that allowed polygamy. Well, even in polygamous households, the marriages took place one at a time, not as a group. Each marriage was still between one man and one woman.
The arrogance of an unelected judge to overturn the express will of the people of a state is beyond comprehension. silly me, I thought that under the Constitution we were a government of the people and by the people. If Judge Walker's ruling is allowed to stand, and there is a 50/50 chance that it will, then the people of California have come under the rule of one man.
That this issue is a Constitutional issue is absurd. It is a stretch to say that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies, because no one is being denied their rights on the basis of citizenship. Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as that of any citizen. they can choose to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they wish. No citizen has the constitutional right to enjoy special privileges based on his actions.
In Judge Walker's ruling is the idea that laws, which have any basis in faith or even commonsense morality, are unconstitutional as he stated that, "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite sex couples. Did you get that?: The idea that morality or a religious basis cannot be a factor in deciding law.
Now that would be a shock to the late Dr. M.L. King who based his entire civil rights movement on the idea of Biblical morality. The Black pastors of Birmingham asked Dr. King why he was breaking the law and he replied in his famous "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" that there were two types of laws: just and unjust. King state that one had a moral and legal responsibility to obey just laws, but one had a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. the difference was that a just law was a law was in accordance with the moral law of God land an unjust law was a law that was out of harmony with the moral law. This is straight out of the tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and later, Blackstone, whose "Commentaries" formed the basis of our legal system for the first 150 years of America's existence before we devolved to case law and began relying solely on the opinion of judges.
Being a homosexual himself, Walker's opinion exudes resentment to the idea that the state can somehow consider heterosexual couples superior to homosexual couples and he doesn't believe that there is any reason from the state's point of view to differentiate between them. Well, he could not be more wrong. From the state's point of view, heterosexual couples are superior.
Although for various reasons, not all heterosexual marriages produce children, in the normal course of things, they do. Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children by themselves. Marriage then normally leads to a family, and it is the family that is the basic building block of any society. The only reason that government would have any interest in the institution of marriage at all is that of promoting the welfare of families. It is in the family that future generations are socialized, taught responsibility, discipline and a host of other virtues that will produce good citizens. Therefore any wise government will institute policies that will support an institution that produces good citizens.
Judge Walker, in his arrogance, fails to realize that we don't get to define marriage. It has already been defined by history, tradition, and yes, by God himself. All we get to do is to recognize it.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Easter
Do you believe that Easter is true? I am not talking about the Easter Bunny but about the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave. If you don't believe it, what proof do you have that it isn't true? If you do believe it, what difference does his bodily resurrection make in your life?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Decline of the Republic
The House passage of the "comprehensive" health care bill is being hailed by Democrats, liberals and the media (there I go, repeating myself again) as an historic event in American history. They are right, but not quite in the sense they mean it. It is an historic event alright, but only because we have just witnessed the shredding of our Constitution, the imposition of authoritarian rule and the beginning of the decline of the Republic.
Silly me. I thought that the powers of the federal government were supposed to be "few and defined" and that any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government were to be reserved to the states. Now admittedly, this has not stopped either Democrats or Republicans in the past from imposing unconstitutional legislation on the nation, but never in our history has congress expanded the reach of government into the lives of its citizens to this extent against the clear will of those citizens. The arrogance of a government takeover of health care,which is opposed by 75% of the electorate who had let congress know in no uncertain terms that they wanted no part of this legislation, is just beyond comprehension. I guess Rep. Alcee Hastings summed it up when he said, " There are no rules, we make them up as we go along".
That there is something wrong here is evident in the fact that it took tremendous pressure, maneuvering, and deal making by Obama, Reid and Pelosi in order to convince members of their own party to vote for this monstrosity. No one in congress, the administration or the media knows all of the specifics that this 2000+ page monstrosity contains because they haven't read the thing. As Nancy Pelosi pleaded, "We must pass this in order to find out what is in it". Say what?
We do know some of what is in it and it is not good. For the first time in the history, the government will have the power to tax someone for not buying a product, in this case health insurance. The Dems are calling it a fine, but it is really a tax, because this regulation will be enforced by our friendly IRS and can result in taxes up to 2.5% of a persons income for failure to comply. If a citizen goes without health care for a month, he will be forced to pay a one twelfth of the tax. Imagine that the government told you that you had to own an automobile and imposed a tax on you if you refused to do so.
Regardless of how Obama tries to spin it, this bill is going to drive up insurance premiums, require an increase of $570 million in taxes (and those taxes won't just be on the "rich"), transfer the millions of private doctor/patient decisions in to the hands of government bureaucrats and lower the quality of health care for everyone. All this without lowering the cost of health care one cent.
The provision that those with pre-existing conditions are entitled to purchase health care on the open market and not from a high risk pool is madness. (Why can't I wait until I have a wreck to buy auto insurance?) The inevitable result of the "pre-existing" provision will be to drive insurance companies out of business and force everyone into a government run health plan which has been the end game all along. Once under government control, the only outcome will be longer waits for treatment and rationing of health care by government panels. Exactly what the Canadians have now. Which brings up the question, "Now where are they going to go for medical care"?
There is no way that the country can afford this. We are already $1.5 trillion dollars in debt and now we are going to add another $940 billion to that? China is already balking at further lending and if they refuse to buy any more of our debt, the only solution is to print money, which the government is already doing. This will lead to hyper inflation, driving up the cost of goods and services and once again putting health care out of the reach of those phantom 33 millions Americans who can't afford it now. Folks, we are headed straight for third world nation status.
One thing is certain, Americans should not be surprised at this. Obama promised change and this is the type of change he was talking about. Anyone who looked beyond the manner of speech to the actual content in his campaign would have known that he is a socialist. When he told "Joe the plumber" that he was going to spread the wealth, that should have sent off alarms nationwide, but all it did was produce a collective yawn from the media and Americans.
I have to give the Democrats credit. They were smart enough to ensure that the pain this bill is going to cause will not take effect until after the November elections with most of it not kicking in until after the elections in 2012. What they are hoping is that it will have been the law of the land long enough with no adverse consequences and have become so entrenched that citizens will view government provided universal health care as a right.
The bottom line is that we have now wrecked what was the best health care system in the world for 90% of the population in order to accommodate the other 10%. The Democrats don't really care, because this whole deal isn't really about health care, it is about expanding the power of the federal government and basically changing our form of government. Obama has gone on record as saying that he thinks the Constitution limits government too much and that the Founders never intended to lock us into one form of government.
I can see only two solutions to this. First, remember who voted for this in November, vote them out and try to repeal this mess. Secondly, don't get sick after this legislation takes affect.
Silly me. I thought that the powers of the federal government were supposed to be "few and defined" and that any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government were to be reserved to the states. Now admittedly, this has not stopped either Democrats or Republicans in the past from imposing unconstitutional legislation on the nation, but never in our history has congress expanded the reach of government into the lives of its citizens to this extent against the clear will of those citizens. The arrogance of a government takeover of health care,which is opposed by 75% of the electorate who had let congress know in no uncertain terms that they wanted no part of this legislation, is just beyond comprehension. I guess Rep. Alcee Hastings summed it up when he said, " There are no rules, we make them up as we go along".
That there is something wrong here is evident in the fact that it took tremendous pressure, maneuvering, and deal making by Obama, Reid and Pelosi in order to convince members of their own party to vote for this monstrosity. No one in congress, the administration or the media knows all of the specifics that this 2000+ page monstrosity contains because they haven't read the thing. As Nancy Pelosi pleaded, "We must pass this in order to find out what is in it". Say what?
We do know some of what is in it and it is not good. For the first time in the history, the government will have the power to tax someone for not buying a product, in this case health insurance. The Dems are calling it a fine, but it is really a tax, because this regulation will be enforced by our friendly IRS and can result in taxes up to 2.5% of a persons income for failure to comply. If a citizen goes without health care for a month, he will be forced to pay a one twelfth of the tax. Imagine that the government told you that you had to own an automobile and imposed a tax on you if you refused to do so.
Regardless of how Obama tries to spin it, this bill is going to drive up insurance premiums, require an increase of $570 million in taxes (and those taxes won't just be on the "rich"), transfer the millions of private doctor/patient decisions in to the hands of government bureaucrats and lower the quality of health care for everyone. All this without lowering the cost of health care one cent.
The provision that those with pre-existing conditions are entitled to purchase health care on the open market and not from a high risk pool is madness. (Why can't I wait until I have a wreck to buy auto insurance?) The inevitable result of the "pre-existing" provision will be to drive insurance companies out of business and force everyone into a government run health plan which has been the end game all along. Once under government control, the only outcome will be longer waits for treatment and rationing of health care by government panels. Exactly what the Canadians have now. Which brings up the question, "Now where are they going to go for medical care"?
There is no way that the country can afford this. We are already $1.5 trillion dollars in debt and now we are going to add another $940 billion to that? China is already balking at further lending and if they refuse to buy any more of our debt, the only solution is to print money, which the government is already doing. This will lead to hyper inflation, driving up the cost of goods and services and once again putting health care out of the reach of those phantom 33 millions Americans who can't afford it now. Folks, we are headed straight for third world nation status.
One thing is certain, Americans should not be surprised at this. Obama promised change and this is the type of change he was talking about. Anyone who looked beyond the manner of speech to the actual content in his campaign would have known that he is a socialist. When he told "Joe the plumber" that he was going to spread the wealth, that should have sent off alarms nationwide, but all it did was produce a collective yawn from the media and Americans.
I have to give the Democrats credit. They were smart enough to ensure that the pain this bill is going to cause will not take effect until after the November elections with most of it not kicking in until after the elections in 2012. What they are hoping is that it will have been the law of the land long enough with no adverse consequences and have become so entrenched that citizens will view government provided universal health care as a right.
The bottom line is that we have now wrecked what was the best health care system in the world for 90% of the population in order to accommodate the other 10%. The Democrats don't really care, because this whole deal isn't really about health care, it is about expanding the power of the federal government and basically changing our form of government. Obama has gone on record as saying that he thinks the Constitution limits government too much and that the Founders never intended to lock us into one form of government.
I can see only two solutions to this. First, remember who voted for this in November, vote them out and try to repeal this mess. Secondly, don't get sick after this legislation takes affect.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom
From Chuck Colson's Breakpoint
Gay Marriage v. Religious FreedomA Cautionary Tale March 8, 2010
Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., has announced changes to its employees’ health care benefits. Normally, this wouldn’t be big news. But this story isn’t only about deductibles and co-pays—it’s about the increasingly fragile state of religious freedom in the America.
Employees were told that starting March 2, Catholic Charities would “not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees not already enrolled” in the health plan. Spouses currently covered under the plan would still be covered.
The timing of the changes wasn’t a coincidence. On March 3, same-sex “marriage” became legal in the District of Columbia. In connection with the new law, the D.C. Council insisted that, as a city contractor, Catholic Charities had to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples that it did to heterosexual ones.
In other words, Catholic Charities had to choose between church teaching and ministering to the city’s neediest residents.
To put it mildly, the Council wasn’t sympathetic to the Archdiocese’s concerns. One Council member called them “childish.”
It’s also no surprise that the D.C. Archdiocese is being portrayed as the villain. The Washington City Paper’s headline ran “To Avoid Funding Gay Marrieds, Catholic Charities Denies Benefits to All Spouses,” with the emphasis on “all.” In case the reader didn’t get it, the City Paper added a visual reminder: a picture of a rosary.
There’s no recognition that what the Washington Post called a “bitter debate” between the District and the Archdiocese was, in fact, a profound infringement of religious freedom–an infringement done at the behest of a tiny minority within a tiny minority.
Nor was there any acknowledgment that these kinds of infringements aren’t limited to government contractors. Ordinary people are being asked to choose between their livelihood and obedience to their faith—like photographers, landlords, and caterers.
You will also search in vain for mainstream media coverage of the indispensible role played by Christian institutions in caring for the vulnerable and marginalized. Almost 25 percent of the world’s AIDS patients are cared for in Catholic institutions alone. Christian hospitals in the U.S. serve a disproportionate percentage of the urban poor.
All we read about, however, is the Catholic Church’s “stubbornness” or “recalcitrance.”
But it’s not just Catholics. All faithful Christians engaged in charitable work increasingly are being told to choose between serving their neighbors or following the dictates of their faith.
This threat to religious freedom was one of the driving concerns behind the Manhattan Declaration. Interestingly enough, one of the original signers was Archbishop Wuerl of D.C., who refused to bend to the District’s demand. More than 425,000 people have now pledged not to “comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions” to do that which God has forbidden.
Christians no longer have the luxury of sitting idly by while religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the institution of marriage come under more assault.
Gay Marriage v. Religious FreedomA Cautionary Tale March 8, 2010
Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., has announced changes to its employees’ health care benefits. Normally, this wouldn’t be big news. But this story isn’t only about deductibles and co-pays—it’s about the increasingly fragile state of religious freedom in the America.
Employees were told that starting March 2, Catholic Charities would “not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees not already enrolled” in the health plan. Spouses currently covered under the plan would still be covered.
The timing of the changes wasn’t a coincidence. On March 3, same-sex “marriage” became legal in the District of Columbia. In connection with the new law, the D.C. Council insisted that, as a city contractor, Catholic Charities had to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples that it did to heterosexual ones.
In other words, Catholic Charities had to choose between church teaching and ministering to the city’s neediest residents.
To put it mildly, the Council wasn’t sympathetic to the Archdiocese’s concerns. One Council member called them “childish.”
It’s also no surprise that the D.C. Archdiocese is being portrayed as the villain. The Washington City Paper’s headline ran “To Avoid Funding Gay Marrieds, Catholic Charities Denies Benefits to All Spouses,” with the emphasis on “all.” In case the reader didn’t get it, the City Paper added a visual reminder: a picture of a rosary.
There’s no recognition that what the Washington Post called a “bitter debate” between the District and the Archdiocese was, in fact, a profound infringement of religious freedom–an infringement done at the behest of a tiny minority within a tiny minority.
Nor was there any acknowledgment that these kinds of infringements aren’t limited to government contractors. Ordinary people are being asked to choose between their livelihood and obedience to their faith—like photographers, landlords, and caterers.
You will also search in vain for mainstream media coverage of the indispensible role played by Christian institutions in caring for the vulnerable and marginalized. Almost 25 percent of the world’s AIDS patients are cared for in Catholic institutions alone. Christian hospitals in the U.S. serve a disproportionate percentage of the urban poor.
All we read about, however, is the Catholic Church’s “stubbornness” or “recalcitrance.”
But it’s not just Catholics. All faithful Christians engaged in charitable work increasingly are being told to choose between serving their neighbors or following the dictates of their faith.
This threat to religious freedom was one of the driving concerns behind the Manhattan Declaration. Interestingly enough, one of the original signers was Archbishop Wuerl of D.C., who refused to bend to the District’s demand. More than 425,000 people have now pledged not to “comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions” to do that which God has forbidden.
Christians no longer have the luxury of sitting idly by while religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the institution of marriage come under more assault.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Trends for 2010
Excerpts from Chuck Bentley, CEO, Crown Financial Ministries in the January issue of Money Matters:
"1. The federal government will continue to expand and increase: Although operating dangerously close to insolvency, the financial crisis of 2008 has given way to the "spend our way out of this" strategy currently in use by those who are entrusted with the use of our tax dollars. As George Bernard Shaw observed, " A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul".
2. Banks will continue to have less loan activity: A correction is underway as the amount of money borrowed by businesses and individuals is reduced so that existing debt can be paid back. This would be a healthy trend if it did not have such an [negative] impact on our economic recovery.
3. A commercial real estate crisis: As delinquencies rise on commercial mortgages surge and vacancy rates rise, highly leveraged properties will continue to be in jeopardy of foreclosure. At present, more than 3,000 banks and savings institutions have more than 300 percent of their risk-based capital in commercial real estate loans.
4. State budget crisis: At least 48 states have addressed or still face shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2010. State budgets are built upon tax revenues. With declining residential property values and downward pressure on commercial real estate valuations, more states could find themselves in a financial bind and in need of severe corrections to their expenditures, increasing taxes or seeking federal bailout money.
5. Pivotal mid-term elections: The U.S. government is wildly increasing its indebtedness while the general population is struggling to decrease its indebtedness as rapidly as possible. The government has threes sources of income: taxes, borrowing, or printing currency. When taxes and borrowing become insufficient to handle their appetite for spending, they will resort to the final option of further devaluation, printing worthless money.
Our appropriate response, regardless of our political affiliation, is to vote for those seeking office who see themselves as stewards of the resources supplied by the citizens and will commit to see our nation live within our means. All others are not worthy of holding office. If the midterm elections of 2010 do not achieve this result, a painful correction is looming large for all of us."
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Breach of Social Etiquette?
Scott Cost, a local columnist in Fort Mill, SC, has published a column complaining that anyone who approaches him and brings up the subject of faith is in breach of social etiquette. It seems that Scott takes great offense at the audacity of someone who would claim to know truth and try to persuade him to a different way of thinking. I think it illustrates an age old problem of man, wanting to be his own god and not willing to submit to anyone or anything outside of himself.
I wonder if Scott would think me arrogant if we were at a social gathering and I told him not to drink the punch as I knew for certain that it was poisoned. Probably not, as he would quickly realize that I had his best interest at heart. You see, a claim to absolute truth is not arrogant in and of itself. Everyone lives their life under the basic assumption that what they believe is absolutely true. It is the same with those who spread what they consider to be the Good News of the Gospel. They assume it to be true and are so convinced that it is indeed "good news" that they want to share it with others. It is done out of love, not arrogance.
Admittedly, some Christians can come across as being arrogant, but Christianity itself is an invitation, not a command. In Matthew 11:28-29, Jesus said, "Come unto Me, all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".
People issue invitations because they want you to share in something that they believe will be to your benefit. If Scott takes offense, it says a lot more about him than those who invite him to church or into a relationship with Christ. He is perfectly free to reject the Gospel. It is a proposal, not an imposition. .
I wonder if Scott would think me arrogant if we were at a social gathering and I told him not to drink the punch as I knew for certain that it was poisoned. Probably not, as he would quickly realize that I had his best interest at heart. You see, a claim to absolute truth is not arrogant in and of itself. Everyone lives their life under the basic assumption that what they believe is absolutely true. It is the same with those who spread what they consider to be the Good News of the Gospel. They assume it to be true and are so convinced that it is indeed "good news" that they want to share it with others. It is done out of love, not arrogance.
Admittedly, some Christians can come across as being arrogant, but Christianity itself is an invitation, not a command. In Matthew 11:28-29, Jesus said, "Come unto Me, all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".
People issue invitations because they want you to share in something that they believe will be to your benefit. If Scott takes offense, it says a lot more about him than those who invite him to church or into a relationship with Christ. He is perfectly free to reject the Gospel. It is a proposal, not an imposition. .
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Where's the Controversy?
The headline reads "Controversial Ga. billboards link abortion, race". In the article by Errin Harris of the Associated Press we find that there is a "Too Many Aborted" billboard campaign in Atlanta by Georgia Right to Life. The campaign is aimed at reducing abortions within the black community.
The article itself exposes Harris' views on abortion. The group producing the billboards is referred to as "anti-abortion". Now they are, and on the surface this may seem innocuous, but it is a psychological ploy. People are naturally suspicious of any group that is "anti" and Harris could have easily referred to Georgia Right to Life as being "pro-life". One never hears of those in favor of abortion being referred to as "anti-life", it is always "pro-choice".
One has to wonder what is controversial about the campaign? Are people who tell the truth and bring that truth before the public the ones causing controversy or is the controversy caused by those who do not want the truth to be told?
Planned Parenthood of Georgia spokesman Leola Reis says that "The language in the billboard is using messages of fear and shame to target women of color" and then parrots the party line euphemism that the only way to stop abortions is to provide "quality, affordable health care" to women. This is the same as saying that the only way to stop abortions is to make them widely available.
The PR problem that Planned Parenthood has is that the billboards expose the truth. Planned Parenthood was founded by the noted racist Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a promoter of eugenics and abortion to reduce the numbers of what she considered to be inferior races, notably blacks. Today in this country, black women make up 13% of the population, yet have 35% of the abortions. The great majority of Planned Parenthood abortion mills are in black neighborhoods. So the evidence is there that the abortion industry targets blacks.
Imagine the audacity of pro-life blacks opposing a disproportionate killing of their unborn. Where is the controversy in that?
The article itself exposes Harris' views on abortion. The group producing the billboards is referred to as "anti-abortion". Now they are, and on the surface this may seem innocuous, but it is a psychological ploy. People are naturally suspicious of any group that is "anti" and Harris could have easily referred to Georgia Right to Life as being "pro-life". One never hears of those in favor of abortion being referred to as "anti-life", it is always "pro-choice".
One has to wonder what is controversial about the campaign? Are people who tell the truth and bring that truth before the public the ones causing controversy or is the controversy caused by those who do not want the truth to be told?
Planned Parenthood of Georgia spokesman Leola Reis says that "The language in the billboard is using messages of fear and shame to target women of color" and then parrots the party line euphemism that the only way to stop abortions is to provide "quality, affordable health care" to women. This is the same as saying that the only way to stop abortions is to make them widely available.
The PR problem that Planned Parenthood has is that the billboards expose the truth. Planned Parenthood was founded by the noted racist Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a promoter of eugenics and abortion to reduce the numbers of what she considered to be inferior races, notably blacks. Today in this country, black women make up 13% of the population, yet have 35% of the abortions. The great majority of Planned Parenthood abortion mills are in black neighborhoods. So the evidence is there that the abortion industry targets blacks.
Imagine the audacity of pro-life blacks opposing a disproportionate killing of their unborn. Where is the controversy in that?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A scientist comes to Christ
The drumbeat of modernists is that science and religion are incompatible, that only science deals with reality and religion is relegated to the realm of the subjective with no basis in fact.
Well, enter Francis Collins, MD, PhD, former director of the US Human Genome Project. Collins has an amazing testimony of how science led him to Christ. He was raised in a non-Christian home and declared himself an atheist in college, having little tolerance for belief in God. He had developed a belief that science held all the answers regarding ultimate "truth".
It was only after Collins began his pursuit of a medical degree, because of his interest in DNA and RNA, that his worldview began to change. One day, an elderly patient with heart disease shared her deep faith in God with him and asked him "What do you believe"? From her innocent question, Collins realized that up to that point, he had rejected God because of intellectual dishonesty. After all, a scientist is supposed to consider the evidence before rejecting a conclusion and he had never investigated the possibility that Christianity might be true.
Expecting an investigation of the rational basis of faith to shore up his atheism, he began to study world religions. It was then that a pastor gave him a copy of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Lewis, who had once been an atheist himself, presented powerful, logical arguments for the existence of God. A major premise that got to Collins was the idea that we all have an intuitive sense of right and wrong that spans all cultures. This idea could have no basis in evolution, a philosophy embracing survival of the fittest. This Moral Law was a signpost, potential evidence of a Law Giver.
Another signpost for Collins was the fact that the physical laws of the universe could be expressed in simple, beautiful mathematics. And what about the characteristics of our universe, with fifteen constants that determine the behavior of electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the gravitational force perfectly calibrated to make complexity possible. Any minuscule change in these characteristics would be catastrophic. The implication of design was overpowering.
The more Collins investigated, the more he accepted God's existence and the more he despaired in being so far away from God's plan. His despair was resolved when he met the person of Jesus Christ and his promise of forgiveness. In his twenty seventh year, Collins yielded his life to Christ while hiking in the Pacific Northwest. He states that, in 30 years, he has found no conflicts between what he knows as a scientist and what he believes as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Collins work in DNA has only strengthened his belief in Christ. DNA is the instruction book for all living things. It is a marvelous code made up of a double helix, carrying information in a digital code consisting of chemical bases that scientists have labeled A,C, G, and T. It is arranged in base pairs, that, if read aloud without stopping, it take 31 years to read it. Scientist have now completed the sequence of all 3.1 billion letters of this human instruction book and Collins believes that anything this complex could have never risen purely by chance. It points to an intelligence which he believes is the God revealed in Scripture.
So, far from being in conflict with Christianity, Collins believes that science confirms that our universe was made by an intelligent God of order who established fixed physical laws that are ours to discover.
The heavens surely declare the glory of God and life at the sub-cellular level clearly reveals His handwork.
Well, enter Francis Collins, MD, PhD, former director of the US Human Genome Project. Collins has an amazing testimony of how science led him to Christ. He was raised in a non-Christian home and declared himself an atheist in college, having little tolerance for belief in God. He had developed a belief that science held all the answers regarding ultimate "truth".
It was only after Collins began his pursuit of a medical degree, because of his interest in DNA and RNA, that his worldview began to change. One day, an elderly patient with heart disease shared her deep faith in God with him and asked him "What do you believe"? From her innocent question, Collins realized that up to that point, he had rejected God because of intellectual dishonesty. After all, a scientist is supposed to consider the evidence before rejecting a conclusion and he had never investigated the possibility that Christianity might be true.
Expecting an investigation of the rational basis of faith to shore up his atheism, he began to study world religions. It was then that a pastor gave him a copy of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Lewis, who had once been an atheist himself, presented powerful, logical arguments for the existence of God. A major premise that got to Collins was the idea that we all have an intuitive sense of right and wrong that spans all cultures. This idea could have no basis in evolution, a philosophy embracing survival of the fittest. This Moral Law was a signpost, potential evidence of a Law Giver.
Another signpost for Collins was the fact that the physical laws of the universe could be expressed in simple, beautiful mathematics. And what about the characteristics of our universe, with fifteen constants that determine the behavior of electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the gravitational force perfectly calibrated to make complexity possible. Any minuscule change in these characteristics would be catastrophic. The implication of design was overpowering.
The more Collins investigated, the more he accepted God's existence and the more he despaired in being so far away from God's plan. His despair was resolved when he met the person of Jesus Christ and his promise of forgiveness. In his twenty seventh year, Collins yielded his life to Christ while hiking in the Pacific Northwest. He states that, in 30 years, he has found no conflicts between what he knows as a scientist and what he believes as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Collins work in DNA has only strengthened his belief in Christ. DNA is the instruction book for all living things. It is a marvelous code made up of a double helix, carrying information in a digital code consisting of chemical bases that scientists have labeled A,C, G, and T. It is arranged in base pairs, that, if read aloud without stopping, it take 31 years to read it. Scientist have now completed the sequence of all 3.1 billion letters of this human instruction book and Collins believes that anything this complex could have never risen purely by chance. It points to an intelligence which he believes is the God revealed in Scripture.
So, far from being in conflict with Christianity, Collins believes that science confirms that our universe was made by an intelligent God of order who established fixed physical laws that are ours to discover.
The heavens surely declare the glory of God and life at the sub-cellular level clearly reveals His handwork.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Don't ask, Don't tell
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would be the right thing to do.
Now I served in the military for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. In giving his testimony, I can assure you that Admiral Mullen was speaking as a politician, parroting the position of those in the administration, and not as a warrior concerned with the welfare of his men.
Admiral Mullen stated in his testimony that the policy now in place is forcing young men and women to lie about who they are in order to serve. He could not be more wrong. Columnists Clarence Page unknowingly framed the argument when he stated that men and women should be punished for what they do, not who they are. The current policy has nothing to do with forcing anyone to lie about who they are, but has everything to do with forbearance in letting them conceal what they do. What they do is rightfully viewed as a perversion by most of their fellow soldiers.
Whether one believes in evolutionism or creation, the human body is designed to perform a certain way. No one would observe someone sniffing cocaine and conclude that the nose was designed for the purpose of ingesting cocaine into the lungs. By the same token, no one would align two naked humans of the same sex and conclude that they were designed to fit together sexually. In both cases, the acts would be a perversion of purpose. Homosexual behavior is banned because it’s immoral, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace said before he was shown the door for violating political correctness. The discrimination is based on actions, not inherited traits.
As for media treatment of this issue, G.K. Chesterton had it exactly right when he said: “Men always attempt to avoid condemning a thing upon merely moral grounds. ….modern journalism has a standing fear. It will call the action anything else – mad, bestial, vulgar, idiotic, rather than call it sinful.” Unsurprisingly journalists have jumped on the civil rights bandwagon, snatching numbers involving homosexuals who serve and those who are separated out of thin air to support their case, despite the fact that there is not one scintilla of evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic.
Since the 1991 Tailhook incident, women have moved into roles that were traditionally off limits and the results have been a degradation of combat effectiveness. Discounting the loss of manpower due to pregnancy, the biggest problem that the services face today is fraternization between the sexes within the chain of command and the inevitable resentment due to favoritism. Politicians have turned the military into a social experiment, forcing men and women to serve for extended periods in close proximity in the intense environment of deployment, expecting no fall out. It hasn’t worked. The military has its hands full dealing with this issue , but as always, it has adapted and overcome. Now the campaign is to throw another social experiment with a sexual component into the equation.
Surveys show a majority of service personnel oppose lifting the ban, and at least 10 percent say they would not re-enlist. More than 1,150 retired generals and admirals have signed a letter opposing this radical change. They know that currently our military is the finest in the world, and anything that even hints of detracting from its effectiveness should be rejected out of hand. Serving one’s country is a privilege, not a right.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Obama's New Deal
President Obama recently submitted a 3.8 billion dollar budget to Congress which includes $100 billion for job stimulus programs. This is on top of the nearly $800 billion that he set aside for creating jobs several months ago. Added to the $700 billion that George Bush provided for bailouts in the TARP program, the government has now spent or will spend $1.6 trillion in efforts to save the economy. As the great Yogi Berra once said, "Its deja vu all over again". We as a nation have been down this road before.
FDR's administration tried the same thing and for years was given credit for bringing the economy out of the Great Depression. It was a myth. The New Deal worsened the situation. One year after the stock market crash of 1929, the unemployment rate stood at 5%. One year after the Hoover-FDR New Deal went into effect, the unemployment rate was 15%. In May of 1939, it stood at 20%, prompting Henry Morgenthou, Secretary of the Treasury to complain, "We have tried spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.....We have never made good on our promises.....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.....And an enormous debt to boot!".
The fact is, that every federal dollar that goes into creating jobs takes money out of the private sector, reduces spending by consumers and lessens the creation of jobs in the private sector. Most economists are now convinced that if government had just gotten out of the way and let the economy correct itself that recovery would have occurred years earlier.
Another downside to the New Deal was that once he had brought about massive unemployment, FDR found it necessary to raise taxes to astronomical levels to pay for all of his federal programs. The top marginal tax rate became 79%, then 90%, which discouraged investors who had already been crowded from access to funds due to massive government borrowing. If the present economy ever starts a recovery, look for the Democrats to enact massive tax increases on the "rich" to pay the expenses of the "poor".
The current so-called stimulus package is nothing more than an updated version of FDR's New Deal, only worse in that it is not designed to stimulate anything, only to give away money that the government doesn't have in order to curry political favor.
The Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper, developed the idea of sphere sovereignty. What that means in this case is that God has granted a sphere of control to government and a sphere of control to the private sector. When government steps out of its rightful sphere and meddles in the private sector, disastrous results are sure to follow because it violates the Divine order. All I know is that unemployment was below 8% before the stimulus and now is at 10% and not forecast to come below that for the foreseeable future. Go figure.
FDR's administration tried the same thing and for years was given credit for bringing the economy out of the Great Depression. It was a myth. The New Deal worsened the situation. One year after the stock market crash of 1929, the unemployment rate stood at 5%. One year after the Hoover-FDR New Deal went into effect, the unemployment rate was 15%. In May of 1939, it stood at 20%, prompting Henry Morgenthou, Secretary of the Treasury to complain, "We have tried spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.....We have never made good on our promises.....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.....And an enormous debt to boot!".
The fact is, that every federal dollar that goes into creating jobs takes money out of the private sector, reduces spending by consumers and lessens the creation of jobs in the private sector. Most economists are now convinced that if government had just gotten out of the way and let the economy correct itself that recovery would have occurred years earlier.
Another downside to the New Deal was that once he had brought about massive unemployment, FDR found it necessary to raise taxes to astronomical levels to pay for all of his federal programs. The top marginal tax rate became 79%, then 90%, which discouraged investors who had already been crowded from access to funds due to massive government borrowing. If the present economy ever starts a recovery, look for the Democrats to enact massive tax increases on the "rich" to pay the expenses of the "poor".
The current so-called stimulus package is nothing more than an updated version of FDR's New Deal, only worse in that it is not designed to stimulate anything, only to give away money that the government doesn't have in order to curry political favor.
The Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper, developed the idea of sphere sovereignty. What that means in this case is that God has granted a sphere of control to government and a sphere of control to the private sector. When government steps out of its rightful sphere and meddles in the private sector, disastrous results are sure to follow because it violates the Divine order. All I know is that unemployment was below 8% before the stimulus and now is at 10% and not forecast to come below that for the foreseeable future. Go figure.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Are they really pro-choice?
Super Bowl Sunday is approaching and this year it seems that the commercials are garnering more attention than the game itself. Focus on the Family is sponsoring an ad this year that stars Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam Tebow.
I don't know what is in the ad, but from all reports, it is a celebration of family and of the decision that Pam made not to abort him when she was being urged by her doctors to do so, due to her illness and the drugs she was taking that could have possibly caused birth defects.
The rumor mill of what the ad contains has created a firestorm in the media and among the "pro-choice" crowd who has issued demands that CBS censor it. Isn't it ironic to see people who present themselves as "pro-choice" get upset when someone exercises a choice to keep her baby. CBS has invited the protesters to run their own ad, but so far has no takers. They just want to squelch the Christian, pro-life message.
My question is, "If they are really "pro-choice", then one of those choices has to be to keep the baby by not aborting him. So why all the ruckus?"
I don't know what is in the ad, but from all reports, it is a celebration of family and of the decision that Pam made not to abort him when she was being urged by her doctors to do so, due to her illness and the drugs she was taking that could have possibly caused birth defects.
The rumor mill of what the ad contains has created a firestorm in the media and among the "pro-choice" crowd who has issued demands that CBS censor it. Isn't it ironic to see people who present themselves as "pro-choice" get upset when someone exercises a choice to keep her baby. CBS has invited the protesters to run their own ad, but so far has no takers. They just want to squelch the Christian, pro-life message.
My question is, "If they are really "pro-choice", then one of those choices has to be to keep the baby by not aborting him. So why all the ruckus?"
Monday, January 18, 2010
Our drift toward socialsim
Consider the following two quotes:
“What is government but itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government”.
“Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism”, any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course…….”
The first quote is by James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and our fourth President which is from Federalist Paper # 51. The second is by Barack Obama, our forty-fourth and current President and is quoted in his book, “The Audacity of Hope”. One has to ask, why the obvious difference in worldview? Why would Madison feel the need to explain the case for limited government and Obama feel the need to explain why politicians can’t let the Constitution inhibit them?
I believe the difference is to a large degree the result of a state run educational system. I’m not talking about the dumbing down of the American electorate to the point that they cannot follow anything more complex than a ten second sound bite. That is a discussion for another day. What I am talking about is the systematic divorcing of a Biblical worldview from education over the last sixty years. [
The educator Samuel Johnson once said that the primary purpose of education is to teach students right from wrong and to get them to prefer the right. And that is the primary difference between the educational system that was in place in this country up until the 1940’s and the educational system that we have had since then. Those responsible for forming the nation were the products of a liberal arts education informed by a Biblical worldview. Our present day legislators were educated with a secular worldview. They therefore reject the concept of absolute truth, the idea that man is subject to God’s laws, they do not have a proper understanding of the nature of man or understand the proper role of government. The fruits of these different worldviews can be seen in the legislation passed by both groups.
The Homestead Act, passed in 1862, was probably one of the greatest acts of impartial legislation ever passed in this country. It took the land in the West--one of the greatest assets held by any government in history— and gave it in 160 parcels to anyone willing to settle it. As a result we witnessed the greatest spurt in economic development in our history.
The Homestead Act gave land to any citizen, regardless of race or economic status and with the certainty that those settling on this land would not be constrained to vote for a certain politician. The land was available to all Americans, with no strings attached, in perfect keeping with the spirit of ‘promoting the general welfare’. It wasn’t just available some particular minority group or constituency.
What is important is the worldview behind this legislation. There were two parts: The idea of human equality, that all men were created by God with equal rights and the idea that there were universal moral laws, i.e., the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and that government was subject to those laws and should be limited in its reach. It was these beliefs that allowed Congress to dispense a national asset while forgoing the opportunity to expand federal power.
For our first 100 years, legislators understood themselves to bound and limited by the laws of God. It is precisely this understanding that is missing among our political leadership today and in fact this concept is anathema to them. For example, when Clarence Thomas was undergoing grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings, the most intense questioning was about the idea of natural law. This was a dangerous idea to the senators. They did not wish to have a Supreme Court Judge who viewed himself under the authority of God. It would hinder their political ambitions.
Today’s senators and congressmen have been educated with the idea that government is the ultimate authority and that they can and should use it as a means to change society to conform to their idea of what it should be, regardless of what the Constitution says. Hence we get the current health care legislation that Democrats seemed determined to force on us, “for our own good”, despite the opposition of an overwhelming majority of Americans. The Democrats have forgotten the lessons of history: that once government takes the view that the king is law it quickly becomes a despot.
We have beeen educated out of the immutable truths of God and the fallout is destroying the republic. Courts and politicians have abandoned the concept of adhering to original intent and embraced the “living Constitution” so that it can be manipulated at the whim of those in power. This is why Obama refers to the thought of absolute truth being tyrannical. Absolute truth is an impediment to “change” and to those who have determined that their version of change is what is good. Once the idea of absolute truth is abandoned, the definition of “good” becomes subjective and the only standard of behavior is what politicians want, and they justify bullying the rest of us to get what they want.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Health care or tyranny?
When the President, Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) talk abut the need for health care "reform" and mention health care as being a basic right of all Americans, the public should know that what they really mean is that they view government as having the right to forcefully take money out of one person's pocket and give it to another. If an individual did this he would be prosecuted for robbery.
This effort to insert government bureaucracy into the health care system with taxpayer money, if successful, will eventually destroy the system and bankrupt the country. Our present system admittedly has flaws, but is still the best in the world and a government takeover will most certainly lead to a decline in both quality and quantity. What we are witnessing is not about reforming health care anyway, it is grab for power and a blatant attempt to impose government control over what for 250 years has been none of the government's business.
Professor and author J.P. Moreland explains the principle paradigm behind this movement in his book, "Love Your God With All of Your Mind". To quote Moreland:
Now one has to admit that Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats in not letting a silly thing like our governing document stand in the way of creating "rights" and then providing seemingly free goodies to their constituents to ensure re-election, but this President and this Democratic Congress want to take things to a new level. When the federal government can forcefully take over banks, the automobile industry, tell corporate CEO's how much money that they can make and do a host of other unconstitutional things , then the very structure of our government has already been altered. Now Democrats and the President want to institute government control over the most elementary decisions of Americans to force them into a single payer government health care system which the country can't afford and which will give bureaucrats final say over who gets what health care.
How will they do this? Embedded in every overhaul proposal currently being considered by Democrats (no sane person would call it reform) are provisions that would force citizens to carry health insurance or face fines. In a note written by Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, refusal to pay those fines could result in a misdemeanor charge by the Internal Revenue Service with Americans facing $250,000 in fines and a year in jail. The founding Fathers in their wildest dreams did not envision a federal government with the power to remove the freedom of its citizens with threats of fines and incarceration because they simply refused to buy a product.
There is a Constitutional right associated with government health care, but not in the sense that liberals mean when they assert that every American has a right to tax funded health insurance. The right associated with health care is a negative right. The right to be free from government tyranny.
This effort to insert government bureaucracy into the health care system with taxpayer money, if successful, will eventually destroy the system and bankrupt the country. Our present system admittedly has flaws, but is still the best in the world and a government takeover will most certainly lead to a decline in both quality and quantity. What we are witnessing is not about reforming health care anyway, it is grab for power and a blatant attempt to impose government control over what for 250 years has been none of the government's business.
Professor and author J.P. Moreland explains the principle paradigm behind this movement in his book, "Love Your God With All of Your Mind". To quote Moreland:
"A congresswoman made the following comment: "Government should honor children's rights. Therefore, just as government should vouchsafe a child's right not to be molested, so it should do so for a child's right to government sponsored day care".Viewing rights as positive rights stands in direct contrast to the political views of those who wrote the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers had a political philosophy, informed by a Biblical worldview, in which they absolutely feared a powerful federal government, which they knew would gather to itself more and more power. The Founding Father's concept of liberty embraced negative rights. They viewed freedom as being "freedom from", i.e., freedom from tyranny. etc. In their political theory, the government's role was to maintain order, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare by ensuring justice in domestic matters, i.e., a level playing field for all citizens. In fact, the Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights providing protection from the federal government, with the 10th Amendment specifically limiting its power to intrude into the lives of citizens.
"Now what is wrong with this argument as it stands? Do you see what I see in this piece of reasoning? It may help your seeing if I place a mental distinction in your mind: the distinction between negative and positive rights. A negative right is a right to be protected from some sort of harm. Negative rights place a duty on the government to keep others from doing something to me. A positive right is a right to to have something provided for me. Positive rights place a duty on the government to force others (for instance by taxation) to do something for me. For example, if health care is a negative right, the government must see to it that I can get whatever health care I can afford by my own labor unhindered by unfair limitations based on race, creed or gender. But if health care is a positive right, the government has a duty to raise the taxes sufficient to provide me with health care."
Now one has to admit that Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats in not letting a silly thing like our governing document stand in the way of creating "rights" and then providing seemingly free goodies to their constituents to ensure re-election, but this President and this Democratic Congress want to take things to a new level. When the federal government can forcefully take over banks, the automobile industry, tell corporate CEO's how much money that they can make and do a host of other unconstitutional things , then the very structure of our government has already been altered. Now Democrats and the President want to institute government control over the most elementary decisions of Americans to force them into a single payer government health care system which the country can't afford and which will give bureaucrats final say over who gets what health care.
How will they do this? Embedded in every overhaul proposal currently being considered by Democrats (no sane person would call it reform) are provisions that would force citizens to carry health insurance or face fines. In a note written by Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, refusal to pay those fines could result in a misdemeanor charge by the Internal Revenue Service with Americans facing $250,000 in fines and a year in jail. The founding Fathers in their wildest dreams did not envision a federal government with the power to remove the freedom of its citizens with threats of fines and incarceration because they simply refused to buy a product.
There is a Constitutional right associated with government health care, but not in the sense that liberals mean when they assert that every American has a right to tax funded health insurance. The right associated with health care is a negative right. The right to be free from government tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)