Unintended Consequences

   "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. 

"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.