Regarding this budget sequester, the President recently said that these cuts "are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls." Did he forget that these cuts were only made possible by his signature in August 2011? Did he forget that he got an immediate $900 billion debt limit increase and an option for another $1.2-1.5 trillion?
In typical statist fashion, the President is trying to panic people into thinking that only government can solve their problems and any reductions will have disastrous consequences. Here are a few examples.
1. "Veterans will go hungry." These men and women bravely served their nation some in war zones. With the exception of the severely disabled, are they not now capable of at least feeding themselves? Is this not a demeaning way of looking at people?
2. "Meat will spoil." The FDA only inspects meat; they don't store it at the proper temperatures. That's the job of meat-packing plants, grocery stores and customers. Each one realizes that if they fail to do so, their product will spoil which results in no meat sales or no meat to eat.
3. "Poor people will be kicked out of their homes." Poor people shouldn't own homes anyway; they should be renting until they have worked their way up the income scale and can afford homes. Perhaps homes would be more affordable without federal government's myriad of intrusions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, TARP and Dodd-Frank.
4. "Schools won't have teachers." The federal government does not fund teacher salaries; local taxpayers do through sales and property taxes.
5. "The mentally ill won't be treated." Apparently, from the latest rash of mass murders this nation has experienced, they aren't being treated properly now. Again, states address the mentally ill within their borders.
6. "Our military readiness will be jeopardized." Since when did this President care about our military? He has already proposed massive cuts to defense outside of sequester. Plus, the sequester cuts are lopsided toward defense; half of the cuts are to defense which only constitutes 20% of the budget. Furthermore, we have slowly learned that we weren't ready for the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Well, our military was ready, but our leaders were paralyzed by politics or worse did not care.
The President breathed a sigh of relief when the House GOP compromised and struck this "grand bargain" mainly because he got authority to borrow more money. Now that he is looking at the other side of the coin, spending cuts, which are really only reductions in spending, he is scared to death that this government will not grow quite as much as usual. Perhaps the sky will not fall.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Rights or right?
A federal judge in Florida recently issued a temporary injunction on a Florida law requiring welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Judge Mary Scriven ruled that people's fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure would be violated if this law went into effect.
Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."
I am glad to see this applicant aware of and defending his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but where in the Constitution do we find his right to someone else's property without just compensation? In the real world, you can only lay claim to someone else's property in exchange for negotiated labor or other property.
If someone broke into your house and, with loaded gun in hand, demanded your property to make a living, they would be arrested, tried and convicted of burglary and theft. Is it any more right to acquire someone's property using the power of the state? While the state government may have that option under our current Constitution, the federal government does not, but it uses its power to force states into one-size-fits-all policies left solely to the states by the same Constitution.
Assume for a moment that public welfare is right since this system has been in place for so long. Do we expect the state to simply redistribute this property without any strings attached? If state governmentss choose to implement such policies, they should be allowed to apply as many or as few restrictions as they see fit and their budgets allow.
Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."
I am glad to see this applicant aware of and defending his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but where in the Constitution do we find his right to someone else's property without just compensation? In the real world, you can only lay claim to someone else's property in exchange for negotiated labor or other property.
If someone broke into your house and, with loaded gun in hand, demanded your property to make a living, they would be arrested, tried and convicted of burglary and theft. Is it any more right to acquire someone's property using the power of the state? While the state government may have that option under our current Constitution, the federal government does not, but it uses its power to force states into one-size-fits-all policies left solely to the states by the same Constitution.
Assume for a moment that public welfare is right since this system has been in place for so long. Do we expect the state to simply redistribute this property without any strings attached? If state governmentss choose to implement such policies, they should be allowed to apply as many or as few restrictions as they see fit and their budgets allow.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Opt-outs
President Obama is yet again by-passing the rule of law and violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution by offering states the opportunity to exempt themselves from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind law signed by President Bush. He cites the numerous states failing to live up to the provisions of NCLB and a divided Congress unable to reform the law among the reasons to justifiably grant waivers to those states willing to embrace his reforms presumably found in his Race to the Top program.
A course of action respecting the entire Constitution is to repeal NCLB and allow the states to implement their own educational reforms. A course of action respecting at least Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is to ask Congress to repeal NCLB and propose to Congress for their consideration a new law to replace NCLB. If NCLB is so burdensome, it should be easy to repeal. However, his course of action violates the rule of law and the concept of equal protection under the law.
Suppose in a few years the quality of health care and the timing of health care delivery was much worse and the cost of health care and health insurance were much higher than today. States are already cutting their budgets, a significant portion of which is Medicaid, and Obamacare essentially shifts more people into Medicaid. What would stop the next President from granting waivers not only to well-connected, politically-favorable businesses and unions, such as President Obama has done for more than 1000, but also to the states as GOP Presidential-candidate Romney has proposed in a number of debates? It would be no less of a violation of the rule of law and the equal protection clause.
Who believes that a state politically unfriendly to President Obama, such as Texas, or a state politically unfriendly to a President Perry, such as Illinois, requesting a waiver from any burdensome law or regulation would receive one? Burdensome, unconstitutional laws lead to the idea and legitimacy of waivers which lead to rewarding or punishing political friends or enemies, respectively.
I oppose unconstitutional laws such as NCLB and Obamacare as well as any waivers pertaining to them. The federal government was established by the states and the people and is their servant. It is a shame that those same states and people must now beg for mercy from that same servant which has now become their master.
A course of action respecting the entire Constitution is to repeal NCLB and allow the states to implement their own educational reforms. A course of action respecting at least Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is to ask Congress to repeal NCLB and propose to Congress for their consideration a new law to replace NCLB. If NCLB is so burdensome, it should be easy to repeal. However, his course of action violates the rule of law and the concept of equal protection under the law.
Suppose in a few years the quality of health care and the timing of health care delivery was much worse and the cost of health care and health insurance were much higher than today. States are already cutting their budgets, a significant portion of which is Medicaid, and Obamacare essentially shifts more people into Medicaid. What would stop the next President from granting waivers not only to well-connected, politically-favorable businesses and unions, such as President Obama has done for more than 1000, but also to the states as GOP Presidential-candidate Romney has proposed in a number of debates? It would be no less of a violation of the rule of law and the equal protection clause.
Who believes that a state politically unfriendly to President Obama, such as Texas, or a state politically unfriendly to a President Perry, such as Illinois, requesting a waiver from any burdensome law or regulation would receive one? Burdensome, unconstitutional laws lead to the idea and legitimacy of waivers which lead to rewarding or punishing political friends or enemies, respectively.
I oppose unconstitutional laws such as NCLB and Obamacare as well as any waivers pertaining to them. The federal government was established by the states and the people and is their servant. It is a shame that those same states and people must now beg for mercy from that same servant which has now become their master.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Bright idea
Whereas the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves to the states and people issues not found within the U.S. Constitution such as light bulbs, CO2 emissions and global warming, and...
Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...
Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...
Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...
Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...
Whereas the "supreme law of the land" clause of the U.S. Constitution only applies to laws made in pursuance thereof, and...
Whereas the incandescent light bulb has served the world well since its invention by Edison in 1879 as a safe, cheap and reliable source of light and heat, and...
Whereas the fluorescent light bulb contains mercury which is harmful to human health and would be released if broken, and...
Whereas the fluorescent light bulb when used in traffic lights will ice over in snow and ice storms, and...Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...
Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...
Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Real Social Security
Have you ever wondered how much money is sitting in your Social Security retirement account within the SS trust fund in West Virginia? You get monthly, quarterly or annual balance statements from your other private retirement accounts as required by law although sometimes I would rather not see them. When was the last time you got a statement from the SSA other than the one showing how much your monthly benefit will be when you retire?
Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:
"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."
While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.
I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.
Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.
Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.
Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:
"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."
While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.
I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.
Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.
Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Oldy but goody
Which of the following legally-binding statements is easier to understand?
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
or
"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."
The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.
The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.
While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.
According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.
Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
or
"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."
The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.
The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.
While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.
According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.
Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Anti-bullying Wave
On Thursday November 18th, the Dallas Independent School District expanded their anti-bullying policy to include gays, lesbians and transgenders. That policy already applied to the characteristics of national origin, family background, religious and political beliefs. Although there was no particular incident at DISD that led to this policy amendment, the school board felt compelled to do something in the wake of recent bullying incidents in other parts of the country that even led to suicide. They were smart enough to change the policy before something happened. Punishment ranges from counseling to expulsion.
1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.
After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?
While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?
2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?
1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.
After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?
While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?
2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Changes
As I finish my last day as president of the University Kiwanis Club of Wichita Falls, I reflect on this and other interesting things happening in my life and that of my family. I certainly enjoyed leading this club which focuses on improving the lives of the citizens of Wichita Falls, particularly its children.
The club started one new project in December while continuing existing projects. That new project was a Christmas party at one of the poorest elementary schools in town. The students and staff were overwhelmed so much so that the staff helped us at our big fundraiser. We continued existing projects of monthly bingo at the state hospital and concessions for YMCA spring baseball games at Kiwanis Park. We served a record crowd of 12,000+ people and almost a world-record number of pancakes at our annual Pancake Festival in January despite icy weather just across the border in Oklahoma. We also formally approved new by-laws that will guide our club. While I received many thanks for my service, the club is full of self-motivated people that are fully capable of seeking and serving. I thank them for allowing me to lead them for a year.
Another big change is that our church is finally completely replacing the HVAC system in the sanctuary. That work has been needed for at least the past seven years. We elders discussed how we would adjust the worship setting at our meeting earlier this month thinking it would be much later in the year. Well, the contractors had an opportunity to start in the middle of this month to which the building committee agreed. Where we formerly had an early service, Sunday school and a late service, we decided on a two-week trial of one service with a mid-service Sunday school break. After two weeks, we elders have been pleased with the congregation's response to this change which Lutherans tend to resist. Before any of these changes were even considered though, I agreed to lead a new adult Bible class, now one of three from which adults may choose. However, it is now in the rotation on this new Sunday school break which hosted a crowd of 100 people last Sunday. I was a little nervous, but I really enjoyed leading the discussion on the topic of faith and reason.
Last but not least on the list of big recent changes is that my youngest child, Reagan, turned one year old on September 21st. It seems that I enjoyed her company during her first year more than I did Nick or Jenna during their first years. It's not that I love her more than the other two. I simply see how fast they grow, and I don't want to miss a moment. We had a great party for her on the 18th with her sponsors and grandma and on the 21st with her grandpa. These grandparents drove half to full days to be here with her.
Despite these changes, good or bad, we can count on the Lord to stay the same, perfect.
The club started one new project in December while continuing existing projects. That new project was a Christmas party at one of the poorest elementary schools in town. The students and staff were overwhelmed so much so that the staff helped us at our big fundraiser. We continued existing projects of monthly bingo at the state hospital and concessions for YMCA spring baseball games at Kiwanis Park. We served a record crowd of 12,000+ people and almost a world-record number of pancakes at our annual Pancake Festival in January despite icy weather just across the border in Oklahoma. We also formally approved new by-laws that will guide our club. While I received many thanks for my service, the club is full of self-motivated people that are fully capable of seeking and serving. I thank them for allowing me to lead them for a year.
Another big change is that our church is finally completely replacing the HVAC system in the sanctuary. That work has been needed for at least the past seven years. We elders discussed how we would adjust the worship setting at our meeting earlier this month thinking it would be much later in the year. Well, the contractors had an opportunity to start in the middle of this month to which the building committee agreed. Where we formerly had an early service, Sunday school and a late service, we decided on a two-week trial of one service with a mid-service Sunday school break. After two weeks, we elders have been pleased with the congregation's response to this change which Lutherans tend to resist. Before any of these changes were even considered though, I agreed to lead a new adult Bible class, now one of three from which adults may choose. However, it is now in the rotation on this new Sunday school break which hosted a crowd of 100 people last Sunday. I was a little nervous, but I really enjoyed leading the discussion on the topic of faith and reason.
Last but not least on the list of big recent changes is that my youngest child, Reagan, turned one year old on September 21st. It seems that I enjoyed her company during her first year more than I did Nick or Jenna during their first years. It's not that I love her more than the other two. I simply see how fast they grow, and I don't want to miss a moment. We had a great party for her on the 18th with her sponsors and grandma and on the 21st with her grandpa. These grandparents drove half to full days to be here with her.
Despite these changes, good or bad, we can count on the Lord to stay the same, perfect.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Debbie Specht
Our congregation today formally celebrated the reward of eternal life in heaven bestowed on our dear friend Debbie Specht who passed away a little over a week ago after an 18 month battle with brain cancer. While I reflect on how fully she lived her relatively short 48 year life, the last six years of which I witnessed, I will best remember her enduring faith to which her works testified.
Debbie and her husband Bruce were regular fixtures in Pastor Snyder's Sunday morning Bible class. While Bruce probably commented less than the average attendee, Debbie was not shy in discussing how the Bible verses at hand applied to a past or current phase of her life. One story that stands out is one of her father, Ken Walton, who had not accepted Christ as his Savior. It was her earnest desire that he come to that faith. I always enjoyed hearing her talk because I generally like to hear about the struggles and victories of my fellow followers of Christ. I think everyone has a witness story, but she particularly stands out in my mind as someone willing to share hers and thereby strengthen and encourage me and others.
Debbie always seemed genuinely happy to see me and my family which grew from three to five while we knew her. Everyone knows when someone really cares about you and what you say. Debbie was one of those people. Some people may be more inclined to do so, but it takes discipline to focus on others before yourself as our sinful nature wants to do. This testifies to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and her love of Christ.
Debbie also stepped up to be a co-director of our church's early childhood program, Sonshine Learning Center, in its waning months. I think it would be easy to lead something that is growing and successful, but she helped direct a program that had suffered from previous corrupt directors and an ever-increasing regulatory state. While that program was soon closed down, she worked diligently to make the best of it. I remember her specifically telling me that the Lord told her to take this position. While I did not press her on whether or not she literally heard His voice, I was still impressed with the mature level of communication between her and her Lord. It was a great example for me.
Finally, Debbie continued to lend her musical talent to the vocal and bell choirs as much as she physically could well into her cancer treatments sometimes beyond reason. She had every right to stand down and be served rather than serve as her cancer prognoses worsened. We "healthy" members of the body of Christ are without excuse.
See you on the other side, Debbie, and may the Lord bless and comfort your husband, Bruce, and your daughters, Katie and Kayla.
Debbie and her husband Bruce were regular fixtures in Pastor Snyder's Sunday morning Bible class. While Bruce probably commented less than the average attendee, Debbie was not shy in discussing how the Bible verses at hand applied to a past or current phase of her life. One story that stands out is one of her father, Ken Walton, who had not accepted Christ as his Savior. It was her earnest desire that he come to that faith. I always enjoyed hearing her talk because I generally like to hear about the struggles and victories of my fellow followers of Christ. I think everyone has a witness story, but she particularly stands out in my mind as someone willing to share hers and thereby strengthen and encourage me and others.
Debbie always seemed genuinely happy to see me and my family which grew from three to five while we knew her. Everyone knows when someone really cares about you and what you say. Debbie was one of those people. Some people may be more inclined to do so, but it takes discipline to focus on others before yourself as our sinful nature wants to do. This testifies to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and her love of Christ.
Debbie also stepped up to be a co-director of our church's early childhood program, Sonshine Learning Center, in its waning months. I think it would be easy to lead something that is growing and successful, but she helped direct a program that had suffered from previous corrupt directors and an ever-increasing regulatory state. While that program was soon closed down, she worked diligently to make the best of it. I remember her specifically telling me that the Lord told her to take this position. While I did not press her on whether or not she literally heard His voice, I was still impressed with the mature level of communication between her and her Lord. It was a great example for me.
Finally, Debbie continued to lend her musical talent to the vocal and bell choirs as much as she physically could well into her cancer treatments sometimes beyond reason. She had every right to stand down and be served rather than serve as her cancer prognoses worsened. We "healthy" members of the body of Christ are without excuse.
See you on the other side, Debbie, and may the Lord bless and comfort your husband, Bruce, and your daughters, Katie and Kayla.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Nanny state
McDonald's is coming under fire for its inclusion of toys, specifically Shrek toys, in their Happy Meals. It's as if they think kids wouldn't want and parents wouldn't buy Happy Meals, and their supposedly obesity-causing food items, unless they included toys.
Although further intrusions of federal, state or local government into the affairs of a private business should raise eyebrows and objections, it's the following paragraph from the June 23rd L.A. Times story that bothers me.
"In April, Santa Clara County supervisors won praise from nutrition advocates but ridicule from many conservatives when they voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county. The supervisors gave fast food chains 90 days to voluntarily comply before the ordinance became effective."
Do I conclude from this paragraph that conservatives are not nutrition advocates or that nutrition advocates are liberals? Conservatives do care about nutrition; we just don't care for government bans on Happy Meal toys. Conservatives stand for choice. If McDonald's thinks they can increase sales by including toys in their Happy Meals, then they should be free to do so. Are they forcing parents to buy their Happy Meals or even their food? So far at least not in Wichita Falls. McDonald's can't force anyone to do anything; the state however can force people or businesses to do things or face fines and/or jail time. Conservatives oppose this type of state action.
Although further intrusions of federal, state or local government into the affairs of a private business should raise eyebrows and objections, it's the following paragraph from the June 23rd L.A. Times story that bothers me.
"In April, Santa Clara County supervisors won praise from nutrition advocates but ridicule from many conservatives when they voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county. The supervisors gave fast food chains 90 days to voluntarily comply before the ordinance became effective."
Do I conclude from this paragraph that conservatives are not nutrition advocates or that nutrition advocates are liberals? Conservatives do care about nutrition; we just don't care for government bans on Happy Meal toys. Conservatives stand for choice. If McDonald's thinks they can increase sales by including toys in their Happy Meals, then they should be free to do so. Are they forcing parents to buy their Happy Meals or even their food? So far at least not in Wichita Falls. McDonald's can't force anyone to do anything; the state however can force people or businesses to do things or face fines and/or jail time. Conservatives oppose this type of state action.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Government Moratoriums
There is no doubt that the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the last month and a half is a premier disaster. The damage to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida will go far beyond environmental. While oil is big business along parts of that coast, so are fishing, hunting and tourism. I make no apologies for BP or any oil company that does not follow good engineering practices and the law when executing drilling, completion, production and transportation operations. I would not be surprised if BP does not go out of business after all of the lawsuits from federal and state governments as well as private businesses and individuals. At least maybe they will focus on just oil and gas instead of "green" energy.
Laws regarding commerce, whether it be oil and gas, fishing, transportation, etc., in federal waters should be enforced by the appropriate agency consistently over time and across industry players regardless of their lobbying efforts. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) which is under the authority of the Department of the Interior which is under the authority of the President, has the responsibility to enforce oil and gas laws, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee is their oversight authority.
According to CLTV-Chicago and the Center for Responsive Politics, BP spent $16 million lobbying Congress in 2009 and $3.5 million so far this year. Most of this money went to members of this oversight committee. President Obama was the largest recipient of BP campaign contributions in 2008 at $71,000 and second only to Senator McCain in total oil and gas campaign contributions in 2008 at $884,000. While I have no problem with companies contributing to politicians to encourage them to vote favorably for their business, I do have a problem when that money affects how the President enforces or does not enforce laws or how Congress does not thoroughly oversee their respective agencies.
The MMS declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater GOM drilling, cancelled the bi-annual GOM lease sale scheduled for this August, cancelled the 2012 lease sale off the Virginia coast and suspended Shell's permits to drill five exploratory wells in offshore Alaska. I believe that this is an over-reaction that will only further damage our already fragile economy even before this oil spill occurred. I realize that it is a natural political reaction that plays well to our emotions, but this move fails to put this disaster into perspective and consider the long-term implications of delaying exploration.
On May 24-25th, a full month after this spill occurred, USA Today/Gallup asked the following question of 1,029 adults: How serious a threat to the future wellbeing of the United States do you consider each of the following: terrorism, federal debt, healthcare costs, unemployment, illegal immigration, size and power of the federal government, having combat troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, environmental damage, size and power of large corporations and minority discrimination? In the "extremely serious" category, federal debt was second only to terrorism and environmental damage was eighth. Nearly 80% of those polled said that the debt was a very to extremely serious threat whereas only half said the same of environmental damage.
If the government places a moratorium, or freeze, on drilling to protect the environment, which is far from the top of the list of perceived threats to our nation's future wellbeing, why can they not also place a moratorium on spending instead of setting record deficits and debts and refusing to fundamentally reform the big three entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? While protecting the environment is important, the public outcry for debt reduction is far greater. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey declared that their $10.7 billion budget gap could be closed by essentially placing a moratorium, or freeze, on spending. He employed the Saul Alinsky method to eliminating problems...pick you target, isolate it and freeze it. Saul inspired the President; maybe Governor Christie can too.
Laws regarding commerce, whether it be oil and gas, fishing, transportation, etc., in federal waters should be enforced by the appropriate agency consistently over time and across industry players regardless of their lobbying efforts. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) which is under the authority of the Department of the Interior which is under the authority of the President, has the responsibility to enforce oil and gas laws, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee is their oversight authority.
According to CLTV-Chicago and the Center for Responsive Politics, BP spent $16 million lobbying Congress in 2009 and $3.5 million so far this year. Most of this money went to members of this oversight committee. President Obama was the largest recipient of BP campaign contributions in 2008 at $71,000 and second only to Senator McCain in total oil and gas campaign contributions in 2008 at $884,000. While I have no problem with companies contributing to politicians to encourage them to vote favorably for their business, I do have a problem when that money affects how the President enforces or does not enforce laws or how Congress does not thoroughly oversee their respective agencies.
The MMS declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater GOM drilling, cancelled the bi-annual GOM lease sale scheduled for this August, cancelled the 2012 lease sale off the Virginia coast and suspended Shell's permits to drill five exploratory wells in offshore Alaska. I believe that this is an over-reaction that will only further damage our already fragile economy even before this oil spill occurred. I realize that it is a natural political reaction that plays well to our emotions, but this move fails to put this disaster into perspective and consider the long-term implications of delaying exploration.
On May 24-25th, a full month after this spill occurred, USA Today/Gallup asked the following question of 1,029 adults: How serious a threat to the future wellbeing of the United States do you consider each of the following: terrorism, federal debt, healthcare costs, unemployment, illegal immigration, size and power of the federal government, having combat troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, environmental damage, size and power of large corporations and minority discrimination? In the "extremely serious" category, federal debt was second only to terrorism and environmental damage was eighth. Nearly 80% of those polled said that the debt was a very to extremely serious threat whereas only half said the same of environmental damage.
If the government places a moratorium, or freeze, on drilling to protect the environment, which is far from the top of the list of perceived threats to our nation's future wellbeing, why can they not also place a moratorium on spending instead of setting record deficits and debts and refusing to fundamentally reform the big three entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? While protecting the environment is important, the public outcry for debt reduction is far greater. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey declared that their $10.7 billion budget gap could be closed by essentially placing a moratorium, or freeze, on spending. He employed the Saul Alinsky method to eliminating problems...pick you target, isolate it and freeze it. Saul inspired the President; maybe Governor Christie can too.
Monday, May 10, 2010
On Elena Kagan
Maybe my most relished part of our government's Constitutional role is that of the President to nominate and the Senate to advise and confirm, or deny, those judges and justices to the federal judiciary. In addition to being a rare occurence, this situation also presents an opportunity for deep discussions and analyses, both in the news and in committee hearings, on the Constitution and laws of the land and how they affect our lives, good or bad. On this point, I agree with the latest nominee to the Supreme Court, current Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who wrote in a 1995 University of Chicago law review the following:
The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. ... [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.
I also want a serious discussion of the issues and viewpoints. I want a legal analysis. I want an education. I do not want a growing cynicism of government. I have grown weary of hearing or watching all nominees since Bork, to some degree, dodge questions of a political nature that as they typically say "may come before this court in the near future." I suspect it is due to the fact that they well remember what happened to Bork and do not want to be rejected by the Senate or "Borked" for taking firm stands on those political issues as he did. For instance, Bork was explicit on the Constitution's silence on the issue of abortion. While he probably expected that he would "fall on the sword", I think he knew, or hoped, the debate would be good for our Constitutional republic.
This debate on political issues will be even more important with Elena Kagan since she has no judicial experience. Not in over 40 years has someone been nominated to the Supreme Court without some experience on the bench. While this is not and should not be a deal-breaker, the lack thereof provides Senators with no idea how she will interpret the Constitution and laws of the land. Another advantage of judicial experience is that judges and justices usually refrain from taking sides on political issues for fear of having to recuse themselves at a later date if a related case comes before them. She has been free to take sides on political issues up until now, as we all have a right to do, so it is fair game, and the only game, for Senators. Will they take her advice as they advise her?
I will gladly take her advice as I hope Senators do. Here is one example. How does she resolve her view that schools can violate a law, known as the Solomon amendment, by taking federal money while barring voluntary military recuitment from its campus? As Dean of Harvard Law School, which took $517 million in 2005-2006, she not only disagreed with the law, she fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, which soundly rejected the claim, through an organization called FAIR, or Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. It is fine with me if she, as a private citizen or even the dean of an elite university, disagrees with that law or with military recruitment of any kind. However, should not that frustration be directed at changing the law through elected representatives and not whimsical violations? As with most government funding, there are strings attached. If she is elevated to a Supreme Court that hears a similar case, would she rightly recuse herself or rule in favor of the next Ivy League school that violates that law?
Finally, here is another example. In another law review article, she expressed a belief that the courts exist to pay deference to the "despised and disadvantaged." Should not the law, and the interpretation thereof, be blind to race, color, creed or socio-economic conditions? This is how the equal protection clause is honored. If the "despised and disdvantaged", whoever they may be, are violating the law, should not the courts rule against them and in favor of those in the right, no matter what their race, color, creed or socio-economic conditions?
The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. ... [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.
I also want a serious discussion of the issues and viewpoints. I want a legal analysis. I want an education. I do not want a growing cynicism of government. I have grown weary of hearing or watching all nominees since Bork, to some degree, dodge questions of a political nature that as they typically say "may come before this court in the near future." I suspect it is due to the fact that they well remember what happened to Bork and do not want to be rejected by the Senate or "Borked" for taking firm stands on those political issues as he did. For instance, Bork was explicit on the Constitution's silence on the issue of abortion. While he probably expected that he would "fall on the sword", I think he knew, or hoped, the debate would be good for our Constitutional republic.
This debate on political issues will be even more important with Elena Kagan since she has no judicial experience. Not in over 40 years has someone been nominated to the Supreme Court without some experience on the bench. While this is not and should not be a deal-breaker, the lack thereof provides Senators with no idea how she will interpret the Constitution and laws of the land. Another advantage of judicial experience is that judges and justices usually refrain from taking sides on political issues for fear of having to recuse themselves at a later date if a related case comes before them. She has been free to take sides on political issues up until now, as we all have a right to do, so it is fair game, and the only game, for Senators. Will they take her advice as they advise her?
I will gladly take her advice as I hope Senators do. Here is one example. How does she resolve her view that schools can violate a law, known as the Solomon amendment, by taking federal money while barring voluntary military recuitment from its campus? As Dean of Harvard Law School, which took $517 million in 2005-2006, she not only disagreed with the law, she fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, which soundly rejected the claim, through an organization called FAIR, or Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. It is fine with me if she, as a private citizen or even the dean of an elite university, disagrees with that law or with military recruitment of any kind. However, should not that frustration be directed at changing the law through elected representatives and not whimsical violations? As with most government funding, there are strings attached. If she is elevated to a Supreme Court that hears a similar case, would she rightly recuse herself or rule in favor of the next Ivy League school that violates that law?
Finally, here is another example. In another law review article, she expressed a belief that the courts exist to pay deference to the "despised and disadvantaged." Should not the law, and the interpretation thereof, be blind to race, color, creed or socio-economic conditions? This is how the equal protection clause is honored. If the "despised and disdvantaged", whoever they may be, are violating the law, should not the courts rule against them and in favor of those in the right, no matter what their race, color, creed or socio-economic conditions?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Government oversight
Consider the following excerpt from USA Today:
The U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the FCC overstepped its authority in 2008 when regulators barred Comcast from interfering with Internet traffic from peer-to-peer, video-sharing services.
The cable company said the sites were hogging scarce Internet bandwidth, which slowed all Web traffic. The FCC said it wanted to prevent Comcast from using its clout as a broadband service provider to favor some services over others.
But the court unanimously agreed with Comcast that the FCC doesn't have an explicit right to regulate broadband service, and can't infer it from its power to set rules for cable TV and phone services.
In response to this ruling against the FCC, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) said that "without oversight, market giants would be free to do as they wish, even if their actions hindered the free flow of information, treated consumers unfairly or discriminated against content creators."
I do not pretend to know the intricacies of laws regulating cable TV, phone services and broadband services. Lawmakers probably paid little attention to the language when they voted for those laws and wouldn't be able to determine if the FCC was taking too many liberties with the letter of the law in its enforcement of those laws. It took one of the highest courts in the land to determine that the FCC overstepped their bounds.
I do know that as long as there are even just a few market giants instead of a singular market giant, in the long run, as Senator Kerry would say, information will flow freely, consumers will be treated fairly and content creators will see no discrimination. How do I know this? Competition. One search of broadband service providers (BSP) shows a list of 29 all the way from Adelphia to Comcast to Yahoo. What if Comcast continues to engage in such activity? Would disgruntled consumers not switch to another BSP?
Consider also this excerpt from www.fastcompany.com.
An attorney who defended FCC said that the federal court's decision "represents a severe limitation on the agency's future authority."
We should not be worried about severe limitations imposed on the FCC, or any other agency, by our federal courts who strive, or at least should strive, only to interpret laws and see that they honor the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. We should, however, be worried about the largest market giant, namely the federal government, which naturally seeks to insert itself into the daily decisions of millions of free people. We need less government oversight of the free market and more free market oversight of the government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the FCC overstepped its authority in 2008 when regulators barred Comcast from interfering with Internet traffic from peer-to-peer, video-sharing services.
The cable company said the sites were hogging scarce Internet bandwidth, which slowed all Web traffic. The FCC said it wanted to prevent Comcast from using its clout as a broadband service provider to favor some services over others.
But the court unanimously agreed with Comcast that the FCC doesn't have an explicit right to regulate broadband service, and can't infer it from its power to set rules for cable TV and phone services.
In response to this ruling against the FCC, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) said that "without oversight, market giants would be free to do as they wish, even if their actions hindered the free flow of information, treated consumers unfairly or discriminated against content creators."
I do not pretend to know the intricacies of laws regulating cable TV, phone services and broadband services. Lawmakers probably paid little attention to the language when they voted for those laws and wouldn't be able to determine if the FCC was taking too many liberties with the letter of the law in its enforcement of those laws. It took one of the highest courts in the land to determine that the FCC overstepped their bounds.
I do know that as long as there are even just a few market giants instead of a singular market giant, in the long run, as Senator Kerry would say, information will flow freely, consumers will be treated fairly and content creators will see no discrimination. How do I know this? Competition. One search of broadband service providers (BSP) shows a list of 29 all the way from Adelphia to Comcast to Yahoo. What if Comcast continues to engage in such activity? Would disgruntled consumers not switch to another BSP?
Consider also this excerpt from www.fastcompany.com.
An attorney who defended FCC said that the federal court's decision "represents a severe limitation on the agency's future authority."
We should not be worried about severe limitations imposed on the FCC, or any other agency, by our federal courts who strive, or at least should strive, only to interpret laws and see that they honor the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. We should, however, be worried about the largest market giant, namely the federal government, which naturally seeks to insert itself into the daily decisions of millions of free people. We need less government oversight of the free market and more free market oversight of the government.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Foreclosure/unemployment solution
Consider the first and last sentences of a Washington Post article from Friday March 26th entitled "Obama readies steps to fight foreclosures, particularly for unemployed."
There are at least three points to make here. First, the administration assumes that the federal bailout program is on sound financial ground...at least enough to support the FHA. The article doesn't say whether FHA is being bailed out by the $700 billion bailout that Bush signed in the fall of 2008 or the $787 billion bailout that Obama signed in winter 2009. Neither one of these was offset by spending cuts, so are either of these bailouts on sound financial ground? This refinancing program may not strain the FHA's finances, but it will further strain the finances of the budget-at-large. It matters not from which federal pocket the money comes; they are both deficit spending.
Secondly, what right does any government official, elected or not, have to require private lenders to do anything much less how to run their businesses or to even create a public lending entity such as FHA? I have strained my eyes looking for the enumerated Constitutional power Congress has to do such a thing. I might be convinced that lenders who took bailouts and have yet to pay them back can be required to make such loan modifications, but certainly not any other lenders especially those who never took a bailout or paid it back.
Finally, while I appreciate efforts to keep the unemployed in their homes, wouldn't it be better for their self-esteem and the budget if they could make the payments themselves with their own money instead of relying on their unemployment checks which will eventually expire? Wouldn't it be better to create an environment where these people get back to work? A favorable job market requires a strong GDP growth rate.
I keep hearing that the economy is recovering, but a March 2010 radio news report stated that economists believe the 5.6% annualized GDP growth rate seen in just the last quarter of 2009 must be sustained for an entire year to reduce the unemployment rate by even a whole point. That good number was supported primarily by inventory changes and is not expected to last. An analysis by the NYT economist Paul Krugman in August 2009 showed that a 2% GDP growth rate is needed just to keep unemployment flat! Economists are only predicting a 2.4% GDP growth rate this year, so the unemployment rate may only slightly fall this year.
Instead of treating the symptoms of unemployment, one of which being imminent foreclosures, deal instead directly with unemployment by creating a friendly, pro-growth environment where businesses are able to hire the unemployed. This certainly does not include increasing the financial burden on businesses such as Caterpillar which expects an additional tax liability of $100 million thanks to the recently signed health care law. That is not just my opinion but is in their March 25th press release and regulatory filing. Add to them Deere & Co., $150 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; Valero Energy, $20 million; and AT&T, $1 billion.
" The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it is tackling the foreclosure crisis in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday."
and
"Administration officials say this refinancing program should not strain the FHA's already weakened finances because the effort will be financed with up to $14 billion out of the federal bailout program."There are at least three points to make here. First, the administration assumes that the federal bailout program is on sound financial ground...at least enough to support the FHA. The article doesn't say whether FHA is being bailed out by the $700 billion bailout that Bush signed in the fall of 2008 or the $787 billion bailout that Obama signed in winter 2009. Neither one of these was offset by spending cuts, so are either of these bailouts on sound financial ground? This refinancing program may not strain the FHA's finances, but it will further strain the finances of the budget-at-large. It matters not from which federal pocket the money comes; they are both deficit spending.
Secondly, what right does any government official, elected or not, have to require private lenders to do anything much less how to run their businesses or to even create a public lending entity such as FHA? I have strained my eyes looking for the enumerated Constitutional power Congress has to do such a thing. I might be convinced that lenders who took bailouts and have yet to pay them back can be required to make such loan modifications, but certainly not any other lenders especially those who never took a bailout or paid it back.
Finally, while I appreciate efforts to keep the unemployed in their homes, wouldn't it be better for their self-esteem and the budget if they could make the payments themselves with their own money instead of relying on their unemployment checks which will eventually expire? Wouldn't it be better to create an environment where these people get back to work? A favorable job market requires a strong GDP growth rate.
I keep hearing that the economy is recovering, but a March 2010 radio news report stated that economists believe the 5.6% annualized GDP growth rate seen in just the last quarter of 2009 must be sustained for an entire year to reduce the unemployment rate by even a whole point. That good number was supported primarily by inventory changes and is not expected to last. An analysis by the NYT economist Paul Krugman in August 2009 showed that a 2% GDP growth rate is needed just to keep unemployment flat! Economists are only predicting a 2.4% GDP growth rate this year, so the unemployment rate may only slightly fall this year.
Instead of treating the symptoms of unemployment, one of which being imminent foreclosures, deal instead directly with unemployment by creating a friendly, pro-growth environment where businesses are able to hire the unemployed. This certainly does not include increasing the financial burden on businesses such as Caterpillar which expects an additional tax liability of $100 million thanks to the recently signed health care law. That is not just my opinion but is in their March 25th press release and regulatory filing. Add to them Deere & Co., $150 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; Valero Energy, $20 million; and AT&T, $1 billion.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Doing it for or to the children?
"Our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands."
Who said it and what was the subject? Here are the choices.
A) Rush Limbaugh concerning solvency of Social Security
B) Sean Hannity concerning solvency of Medicare/Medicaid
C) Al Gore concerning man-made global warming
D) Glenn Beck concerning deficit spending and accumulating debt
E) Sarah Palin concerning latest healthcare reform bills
F) James Dobson on degradation of traditional families
While there may be a tinge of this rhetoric from each of these people on their respective issues, the exact quote belongs to Al Gore in reference to man-made global warming or climate change.
However, even after record snowfalls across the globe including six separate snow events (from flurries to 12") here in Wichita Falls, the release of emails from experts at U.K.'s East Anglia University detailing suppression of evidence countering their theory, the failure of the U.N.'s Copenhagen summit to craft a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol due to the lack of science and false claims made in the 2007 IPCC report regarding melting glaciers and rising sea levels, he continues to promote, for all intents and purposes, the adoption of his "religion" into law. He may say the debate is over and the science is settled, but all of the foregoing items only heat up the debate. Nothing should be codified until we completely understand the climate which in my opinion will never happen.
At least we have some hard numbers on choices A, B & D. When the trustees of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid issue dire reports of the solvency of these "trusts" with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of $ and the CBO projects and warns of continued deficit spending of $1 trillion plus per year and we as a society through our elected officials ignore them, our posterity will look back on us as a criminal generation.
Who said it and what was the subject? Here are the choices.
A) Rush Limbaugh concerning solvency of Social Security
B) Sean Hannity concerning solvency of Medicare/Medicaid
C) Al Gore concerning man-made global warming
D) Glenn Beck concerning deficit spending and accumulating debt
E) Sarah Palin concerning latest healthcare reform bills
F) James Dobson on degradation of traditional families
While there may be a tinge of this rhetoric from each of these people on their respective issues, the exact quote belongs to Al Gore in reference to man-made global warming or climate change.
However, even after record snowfalls across the globe including six separate snow events (from flurries to 12") here in Wichita Falls, the release of emails from experts at U.K.'s East Anglia University detailing suppression of evidence countering their theory, the failure of the U.N.'s Copenhagen summit to craft a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol due to the lack of science and false claims made in the 2007 IPCC report regarding melting glaciers and rising sea levels, he continues to promote, for all intents and purposes, the adoption of his "religion" into law. He may say the debate is over and the science is settled, but all of the foregoing items only heat up the debate. Nothing should be codified until we completely understand the climate which in my opinion will never happen.
At least we have some hard numbers on choices A, B & D. When the trustees of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid issue dire reports of the solvency of these "trusts" with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of $ and the CBO projects and warns of continued deficit spending of $1 trillion plus per year and we as a society through our elected officials ignore them, our posterity will look back on us as a criminal generation.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Inheritance & responsibility
In our form of government, citizens rotate through positions of power and authority according to terms spelled out in our Constitution. Nobody has a birthright to positions within the executive, legislative or judicial branches. Citizens who seek office tell us what they like and/or don't like about the country, state, county or city and what they intend to do about it. If a majority or plurality agree with them and elect them to that office, they assume the successes or failures of the policies put in place by previous officeholders.
We constantly hear media and President Obama himself say that he inherited a economic recession...especially when the news of higher unemployment, falling wages, higher home foreclosures, less liquidity, falling retirement portfolio values, etc. comes out. The recession did start before he assumed office, but could it have been less severe or shorter? At what point is the new guy responsible for economic or other conditions resulting from his actions or inactions.
Vice President Biden recently said "troop withdrawals and a stable Iraqi government could be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration." I don't recall such a rosey assessment of Iraq before his becoming second in command of the very armed forces fighting over there right now. In fact, I recall that he had very low expectations of Iraq under Bush's command. He called for splitting Iraq into three states or nations because three ethnic groups couldn't be expected to co-exist. He opposed the troop surge. He was silent when the surge and the war were called failures. Are we to believe that in one year Iraq has changed from a total failure to a total success?
Let's assume they are correct; today, the economy is bad and Iraq is good. Well, you can't have it both ways...either you were dealt a bad economy and a good Iraq on Inauguration Day, or your policies made it that way. If after a year of your policies, the economy is still bad but Iraq is good, do you only take credit for the good and blame the bad on the last guy?
Take the bad with the good and strive to improve the bad. Own up to it. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility. You're in charge now. That's what the citizens elected you to do.
We constantly hear media and President Obama himself say that he inherited a economic recession...especially when the news of higher unemployment, falling wages, higher home foreclosures, less liquidity, falling retirement portfolio values, etc. comes out. The recession did start before he assumed office, but could it have been less severe or shorter? At what point is the new guy responsible for economic or other conditions resulting from his actions or inactions.
Vice President Biden recently said "troop withdrawals and a stable Iraqi government could be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration." I don't recall such a rosey assessment of Iraq before his becoming second in command of the very armed forces fighting over there right now. In fact, I recall that he had very low expectations of Iraq under Bush's command. He called for splitting Iraq into three states or nations because three ethnic groups couldn't be expected to co-exist. He opposed the troop surge. He was silent when the surge and the war were called failures. Are we to believe that in one year Iraq has changed from a total failure to a total success?
Let's assume they are correct; today, the economy is bad and Iraq is good. Well, you can't have it both ways...either you were dealt a bad economy and a good Iraq on Inauguration Day, or your policies made it that way. If after a year of your policies, the economy is still bad but Iraq is good, do you only take credit for the good and blame the bad on the last guy?
Take the bad with the good and strive to improve the bad. Own up to it. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility. You're in charge now. That's what the citizens elected you to do.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Bipartisanship
I never liked this term no matter which side promotes it. It involves legislators compromising their principles. I contend that they aren't elected to "work across the aisle" but to promote and act on those principles on which they campaigned and for which they were elected.
Usually the minority party promotes it. Consider the current speaker's comments prior to her party regaining control of Congress in 2006.
"[I would like] to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House"
When the party in the minority assumes the majority though, it's fun listening to them change their tone. Consider the current speaker's recent comments.
"We also have the responsibility, if we can't find that common ground, to stand our ground on principles. If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."
This is a welcome comment that I hope the GOP issues when they eventually assume the majority in the cycles of politics. Her party has the majority duly elected by the people, so I would expect them to push their agenda unless in the midst of that elction cycle their constituents strongly petition them otherwise. Each member of that majority must decide how much they will compromise their principles versus how much they desire re-election.
The question before each politician is this: "How many people voted for me to be bipartisan and work together and how many voted for me to advance my principles which will probably involve no bipartisanship?"
Usually the minority party promotes it. Consider the current speaker's comments prior to her party regaining control of Congress in 2006.
"[I would like] to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House"
When the party in the minority assumes the majority though, it's fun listening to them change their tone. Consider the current speaker's recent comments.
"We also have the responsibility, if we can't find that common ground, to stand our ground on principles. If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."
This is a welcome comment that I hope the GOP issues when they eventually assume the majority in the cycles of politics. Her party has the majority duly elected by the people, so I would expect them to push their agenda unless in the midst of that elction cycle their constituents strongly petition them otherwise. Each member of that majority must decide how much they will compromise their principles versus how much they desire re-election.
The question before each politician is this: "How many people voted for me to be bipartisan and work together and how many voted for me to advance my principles which will probably involve no bipartisanship?"
KSM's Rights
The POTUS has decided to at least consider moving the murder trial of KSM et al out of Manhattan. If KSM et al have the full rights of a citizen, then shouldn't their trial be held in Manhattan? The beginning of the 6th amendment to the Constitution reads...
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
In order to have a jury of the district hear and consider the facts of a trial and render a decision, shouldn't it be relatively convenient for them to attend the trial? The district where the crime took place is Manhattan; therefore the trial should take place in Manhattan. (There is precedent for moving such a high profile case though; Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted in Denver, CO despite committing his heinous crime in OKC.) NY state and city officials want it somewhere else due to security and cost concerns. Although Mayor Bloomberg initially favored the venue, an estimated annual security cost of $200 million must have changed his mind. I can't blame him. They are already in the hole.
The DOJ seemed to be standing their ground on the choice of venue despite the howls from Manhattan and New York citizens, members of Congress outside of NY and other people across the fruited plain. What or who changed their mind or better yet why? If this is the right thing to do, to ensure that their Constitutional rights are preserved, then why backslide? Justice is blind...or it should be. The DOJ's decision to conduct the trial in Manhattan seemed to have been made independent of the POTUS, but he supported it. Now he seems to be leaning on them to move it. Did enough of the NY political machine howl after watching the electorate rise up in both the polls and in recent elections?
It appears to be just politics as usual. At least there's some "hope" that the mood of the public can change a bad idea into a not-so-bad idea. Let me suggest a better idea. How about using the military tribunal system that Congress has established and oversees, and that many of whom are now recommending, to try and detain, or release, KSM et al along with all other enemy combatants, who are not citizens, in this continuing war on Islamic terror?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
In order to have a jury of the district hear and consider the facts of a trial and render a decision, shouldn't it be relatively convenient for them to attend the trial? The district where the crime took place is Manhattan; therefore the trial should take place in Manhattan. (There is precedent for moving such a high profile case though; Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted in Denver, CO despite committing his heinous crime in OKC.) NY state and city officials want it somewhere else due to security and cost concerns. Although Mayor Bloomberg initially favored the venue, an estimated annual security cost of $200 million must have changed his mind. I can't blame him. They are already in the hole.
The DOJ seemed to be standing their ground on the choice of venue despite the howls from Manhattan and New York citizens, members of Congress outside of NY and other people across the fruited plain. What or who changed their mind or better yet why? If this is the right thing to do, to ensure that their Constitutional rights are preserved, then why backslide? Justice is blind...or it should be. The DOJ's decision to conduct the trial in Manhattan seemed to have been made independent of the POTUS, but he supported it. Now he seems to be leaning on them to move it. Did enough of the NY political machine howl after watching the electorate rise up in both the polls and in recent elections?
It appears to be just politics as usual. At least there's some "hope" that the mood of the public can change a bad idea into a not-so-bad idea. Let me suggest a better idea. How about using the military tribunal system that Congress has established and oversees, and that many of whom are now recommending, to try and detain, or release, KSM et al along with all other enemy combatants, who are not citizens, in this continuing war on Islamic terror?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Options for preventing attacks
I am really surprised at the nation's ho-hum reaction to the recent failed attack on Northwest Airline Flight 253 bound for Detroit on Christmas day. It has only been a little over eight years since the last successful attack on the homeland. How soon we have forgotten and become complacent. Everyone should be breathing a collective sigh of relief that this terrorist was incompetent and unsuccessful. So should we rely solely on the ineptitude of terrorists to prevent future attacks?
The recent headline, "Lawmakers' goal: One step ahead", is a no-brainer, but how do you stay one step ahead? The article essentially lays out two approaches being considered by lawmakers. One approach is enhanced airport screening using full-body imaging and/or randomly choosing people to take off shoes, belts, other clothes, open bags, confiscate sharp objects and tubes of liquid, etc. Nearly everyone who has flown since 911 has either seen or experienced one of these methods. (If they're going to take my toothpaste, at least give me a few bucks to replace it.) Now this method isn't being touted as a cure-all, but if it's important now, why didn't TSA continue to employ them, or better yet, why did Congress, in their oversight role, become lax in pressing them to continue employing them? I don't know how a terrorist could carry out his or her plans if this method was fully employed, but I don't want to kill the infidel either. Faith makes people do extraordinary things...for better or worse.
The second approach is not politically correct but is more effective; therefore it will probably not be employed based on the desire of most politicians not to offend anyone...even the sworn enemies of America whom we are formally fighting in two countries. That approach is Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn's desire to "treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant." A spokeswoman for the senator said, "Cornyn thinks the Nigerian suspect shouldn’t have been given a lawyer, read his rights and encouraged to remain silent. Cornyn believes we must put a stop to this harmful trend and afford our intelligence community with the tools they need to secure the American people before we afford would-be-terrorists rights they have not earned." In other words, ask him some questions without a lawyer present which leads to the second part of this approach: information sharing. “It looks like various parts of the government had pieces of information, but they just weren’t put together,” said Texas Republican Congressman Thornberry. Remember the 911 report which chastised the intelligence community for not sharing information? Do we need another successful attack, another report and another bureaucracy?
If he had been a citizen, he would and should have these rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, he is not a citizen, so he has not earned them and should not be afforded them. Now that he has been told to remain silent and has counsel for his defense, he cannot "give up" the names, addresses and phone numbers of the other terrorists in his network, which by now has probably morphed into a new group with the same goal. Instead, he has been charged with attempting to destroy an airplane and for putting an explosive device on the same. Since he is being treated like a criminal instead of an enemy combatant, how about 289 counts of attempted murder? Is the DOJ more concerned with an airplane than with people? Is this justice?
The primary job of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It seems that the politicians would rather take away more of our liberties than defend them.
The recent headline, "Lawmakers' goal: One step ahead", is a no-brainer, but how do you stay one step ahead? The article essentially lays out two approaches being considered by lawmakers. One approach is enhanced airport screening using full-body imaging and/or randomly choosing people to take off shoes, belts, other clothes, open bags, confiscate sharp objects and tubes of liquid, etc. Nearly everyone who has flown since 911 has either seen or experienced one of these methods. (If they're going to take my toothpaste, at least give me a few bucks to replace it.) Now this method isn't being touted as a cure-all, but if it's important now, why didn't TSA continue to employ them, or better yet, why did Congress, in their oversight role, become lax in pressing them to continue employing them? I don't know how a terrorist could carry out his or her plans if this method was fully employed, but I don't want to kill the infidel either. Faith makes people do extraordinary things...for better or worse.
The second approach is not politically correct but is more effective; therefore it will probably not be employed based on the desire of most politicians not to offend anyone...even the sworn enemies of America whom we are formally fighting in two countries. That approach is Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn's desire to "treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant." A spokeswoman for the senator said, "Cornyn thinks the Nigerian suspect shouldn’t have been given a lawyer, read his rights and encouraged to remain silent. Cornyn believes we must put a stop to this harmful trend and afford our intelligence community with the tools they need to secure the American people before we afford would-be-terrorists rights they have not earned." In other words, ask him some questions without a lawyer present which leads to the second part of this approach: information sharing. “It looks like various parts of the government had pieces of information, but they just weren’t put together,” said Texas Republican Congressman Thornberry. Remember the 911 report which chastised the intelligence community for not sharing information? Do we need another successful attack, another report and another bureaucracy?
If he had been a citizen, he would and should have these rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, he is not a citizen, so he has not earned them and should not be afforded them. Now that he has been told to remain silent and has counsel for his defense, he cannot "give up" the names, addresses and phone numbers of the other terrorists in his network, which by now has probably morphed into a new group with the same goal. Instead, he has been charged with attempting to destroy an airplane and for putting an explosive device on the same. Since he is being treated like a criminal instead of an enemy combatant, how about 289 counts of attempted murder? Is the DOJ more concerned with an airplane than with people? Is this justice?
The primary job of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It seems that the politicians would rather take away more of our liberties than defend them.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wolf in sheep's clothing
As documented by Americans for Tax Reform, here are 18 of Senator Reid's tax hikes within H.R. 3590 with bill section and estimated cost. Which ones will cost you in terms of dollars or quality of service?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)