Reforming the Entitled

In recent decades (yes, decades), much has been said about reforming the cumbersome entitlement programs that have ballooned since first inception. A few dabbles at reform have been relatively successful, but political posturing especially during election periods reveals a lack of honesty and will when it comes to REAL reform.

That being said, the entitlement reform that is the topic of this post is “political entitlement.” Performing a few hits on a search engine, I learned that the politicians, serial killers, and sociopaths share several similar traits. One of these shared traits is a “grand sense of entitlement.” I give you Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and Charlie Rangel.

Not only do politicians in Washington feel they are entitled to keep the seats held by their respective states, but they also vote for themselves rather extravagant benefits at the expense of the taxpayer.

Though it’s oft told, it is not true that our elected officials are not participants in Social Security. Since the early 1980s they have been. As well, the 1980s brought reforms to the basic retirement options in which they can participate. What IS true and alarming is that after five years of service, a member of Congress will be entitled to a retirement check. Of course, rules apply based on age, years of service, and so on. In final analysis though, “Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.”

Many of you may remember (SHOULD remember!) the President stating that all Americans should have the healthcare insurance options that those in Washington have. Ahh, to be so fortunate. They actually get:
• a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state.
• special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities
• access to their own pharmacy, doctors, nurses and medical technicians in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers (for a few hundred dollars a month).

“In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.”

Not only do we need to change the faces in DC, we need to change the employment laws on the books for these folks. We need to return the legislators to their home communities to continue to serve at the fire department, a church, or a PTA. Rather than spending a full career gathering power and perks at the expense of the American electorate, they should leave Washington to earn a salary and retirement pension that doesn't gouge the taxpayer.

Read more about Congressional Retirement Benefits

Julie Ranson is a college professor, wife, and mother who lives in Virginia.

Courting the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States.)

At a recent dinner celebrating Ramadan, the President made it abundantly clear to us that our nation’s religious freedoms grants any group the right to build on private land. Clarifying the next day, he didn’t mean to imply that he thought it is “right” or “wise” to build a community center containing a mosque close to Ground Zero in NYC. (If “walking back comments” becomes an Olympic event, Mr. Obama may be eligible for the American team!)

Most Americans are well aware of the religious freedom provisions in the First Amendment. Though, admittedly, some get confused about freedom of religious vs. freedom from religion. This is a religious nation, a pluralistic society in which we all try to live in religious harmony. It’s disappointing that there are people and groups that single out certain religious faiths (Christians and Jews come to mind) as less deserving of “tolerance." And of course, there’s the famous July 2010 story of the students banished from praying on the Supreme Court steps. We truly are living in strange times. But I digress.

The NY Mosque case highlights the current administration’s mixed messaging over the past 20 months about the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The rights are not granted BY the government, they are protected FROM government infringement because they are natural rights, inalienable rights accorded to all of God’s creatures.

Consider Nancy Pelosi’s recent challenge that individuals opposing the NY Mosque should be investigated to learn how they are funded. What is wrong with individuals lawfully offering opinions and personal feelings regarding this proposed building? To have the government investigate you is an intimidating process, yet Speaker Pelosi feels comfortable to offer such a threat on camera! Strange times in an America that has always lauded the First Amendment, indeed. By the way, Pelosi may also make that Olympic “walking back” team as her spokesperson later said we should also investigate the funding of the Mosque.

Step in the way-back machine to 2009 and let me remind you of an Oval Office conversation with Republicans during which the President “called out” Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The problems continued in a CBS interview, Obama called both Limbaugh and Beck “troublesome” and the interviewer Harry Smith replied, “It’s beyond that.” (Good news here is that Smith didn't jump into Obama's lap during the interview) Yay, free press!! (It’s only “free” if you agree with this bunch as evidenced by the engineered attack against Fox News.) What is truly “troublesome” is the practice of the President and the likes of Nancy Pelosi concerning themselves publicly with the words of private citizens.

Julie Ranson is the mother of three who lives and teaches at a community college in Virginia.

Devilish Details

Much of original American law was derived from English common law. Today, it’s unlikely that the American body of law resembles English law. Two hundred–plus years of legislating (mischief-making, most of it) have changed the legal landscape of the United States.

Where do we find most of our American Law?
U.S. Constitution – I can carry a copy of the Constitution in my purse! The Constitution is available here in a single HTML page.
Legislation (or "statutory law") is law which has been enacted by a legislature or other governing body. (See above commentary about the size of the Constitution)
Administrative Law --administrative authority entails the power to issue rules and regulations based on statutes, grant licenses and permits to facilitate the conduct of government business. Code upon code regulates nearly every activity of American Life, dwarfing the size of the bill that started the ball rolling, including those 2000-page bills. (See above commentary about the size of the Constitution)

It is in Administrative Law that we get lost. In this body of law, agencies like the Department of Education (created in 1979) or the Department of Energy (created in 1977) make the rules and regulations that enact and enforce the statutes passed by Congress. Unelected bureaucrats ultimately implement legislation. Consider the enormous power these agencies have. As Presidents and their cabinet appointees come and go, agency bureaucrats work their “magic” day in and day out… so little accountability and so great a compensation package.

Did you know that when the Dept of Education was created, the U.S. graduate rate was under 75 percent? After 30 years existence, the E. D. succeeded in ensuring that the U.S. graduation rate remains under 75 percent. (Great job, guys and gals!) How much are we spending to get such paltry results? In the table here, you will see that the Obama’s 2011 Budget request for the E.D. increases from 2010 by $18.6 billion, a 31.4% increase!! Goodness gracious! WHY? (I’m doing a great job at work which is actually quantifiable, but I haven’t had a pay increase in 3 years! What gives?)

Look, it is in the administrative buildings where your tax money is spent with little oversight and no accountability. It’s time we start doing something about this…. Pay attention to the budgets of these mammoth agencies and elect representatives who will work to eliminate many of these behemoths. We don’t need them if they aren’t fulfilling their mission. The Devil is indeed in the details (and in these agencies).

Julie Ranson, wife and mother of three, lives and teaches in Virginia.

Where's the Trust?

It isn’t news that a majority of Americans distrust Washington. A Pew survey found this year that only 22% trusted Washington most of the time. "Only twice since the 1950s has public skepticism dipped this deeply — from 1992 to 1995 during which time it hit 17 percent, and 1978 to 1980, bottoming out at 25 percent. The nation was going through economic struggles during both of those periods." (Name those presidents, anyone?)

Recently, I was surprised to learn that my rather conservative English relatives were happy that Obama was elected President. I don’t know when they stopped liking Bush, or if they ever did. How is it that someone who speaks well gets a leg-up on the trust factor? Doesn’t anyone ever learn that clever, glib, clean and articulate (umm, sorry, channeling Biden there) absolutely do not convey anything related to trustworthiness? So, back to the English relatives and their opinion… it doesn’t matter at all what the general population of another country thinks of our president. It DOES matter whether foreign leaders believe they can trust our American “leadership” such that it is.

How can you tell someone is lying? (Insert “lips are moving” joke here). I checked it out through a handy-dandy web search and I suggest you try it! Anyway, I did find these two useful items:

Something Sounds Fishy – 2,400 page bills, protecting the New Black Panthers, singling out AZ’s immigration enforcement

Overly Defensive (usually shifts blame) - Blame GOP for lack of immigration progress,
blame stupid public for not understanding the healthcare bill, and a myriad of inherited crises.

Perhaps there are some folks in Washington who care about deficits, be they budget deficits or trust deficits. Here are a few recommendations for working on the latter: do what you say; never lie; tell the truth; be competent; operate with a strong moral ethic; be fair and don’t apply double standards.

Looks like some folks have some serious work to do……. just saying.

Julie Ranson, wife and mother of three, lives and teaches in Virginia.

Was Scrooge A Progressive At Heart? by Freddy Boisseau

I do not believe that it is easy to answer that question, as things are different now than what they were then. The meanings of beliefs, acts, and words have changed over time and trying to place them into today’s context may not draw valid conclusions. But recently a passage of Dickens' A Christmas Carol came to my mind and after thinking about it, it seemed that a lot of it could be attributed to those that support the progressive agenda.

This lunatic, in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?"
"Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years," Scrooge replied. "He died seven years ago, this very night."
"We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner," said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word "liberality," Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

What I see above are several themes that can be attributed to those leading the progressive movement in the past and today. First, let’s look at what Mr. Scrooge replies when asked for money by the two gentlemen. He asks them if there are not government services to take care of or deal with the poor. Upon being told there are such services, he responds that he supports them enough as it is. We assume that he is talking about doing so by paying his taxes. Right there, we see a common trait of those that promote government as the solution to these problems. They tend not to give to charities and they support the idea of government taking care of or dealing with the poor. I would also imagine that Mr. Scrooge took every legal means he could to reduce the taxes he paid. Sort of like certain progressive celebrities that count the number of days they stay in California, so they are not subject to that state’s high taxes.

I would also like to point to the last part of the exchange, where he says that the poor better die and decrease the surplus population. There have been progressives throughout the last century that have advocated those that are not productive to “society” should be killed. For example, take this quote from George Bernard Shaw “We should all be obliged to appear before a board every five years and justify our existence... on pain of liquidation.” I think there would be a lot of things that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Scrooge could agree on when it comes to how to handle the poor of society. We could also look at the “complete lives system” that Dr. Zeke Emmanuel has promoted.

The one difference I see between Mr. Scrooge and most progressives like Mr. Shaw, Mr Scrooge had the error of his ways shown to him and thus changed those ways in the end. The sentiments he expresses at the end of the book are true conservative values. Selflessly giving to help others, instead of relying on the government to take care of the poor. Also he learned the value of family and became close to his nephew. I would imagine that he improved his relationship with God.

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset….His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
He had no further intercourse with Spirits, but lived upon the Total Abstinence Principle, ever afterwards; and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!

Mr. Scrooge was a happier man, and studies have shown that those of us who do not hold to progressive beliefs, experience more joy in our life. The helping of others in need give us joy, while complaining about the government not doing enough leads only to heartache.

The Alternate Reality Files by Julie Ranson

I don’t know about you, but the list of political events in recent weeks completely amazes me by its scope and its absurdity. I have commented to others that it feels like we’re living in a parallel universe. It appears that part of the mystery of all that is Washington DC is starting to clear up: those folks in D.C. live in an alternate reality, no doubt about it now. And the liberal media? Yes, they too reside in that specially scented air of the alternate reality. With all the troubles this country is facing right now, our Congress takes time to celebrate this.

In mid-February, Joe Sestak (D-PA) dropped a bombshell when he revealed that he’d be offered a job by the White House in return for him dropping out of a primary challenge against Arlen Specter (D-PA, formerly R-PA). For the past three months, the WH has dodged explaining this story. We were assured by a variety of WH folks, President Obama included, that “nothing improper happened” as if we’d all just blindly accept any White House’s internal investigation of itself! (See first paragraph about alternate reality.)

This past Friday, it was reported that Rep. Joe Sestak would not have been eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was supposedly offered by WH emissary, the former President Bill Clinton. So, they take three months to come up with a “good story” that isn’t very good at all.

Immigration continues to boil on the front burner in the news and in the hearts and minds of the American people. I saw a sign over the weekend at the anti-AZ immigration law rally – “Stop ripping apart families.” Isn’t that what we do when we send fathers or mothers to jail for their crimes? You know that old saw, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” Proposed by George Will (and this writer), one solution to this sticky problem for those illegal immigrants creating families here in the USA is to end the birthright citizenship of children born to illegals.

This past week we glimpsed the alternate reality called the House of Representatives with a visit from the president of Mexico. Calderon took several opportunities to condemn the new immigration law in Arizona at the White House and in the House. In fact, the Democrats in the House gave him a standing ovation! I ask....Where am I?

For those of us interested in retiring at a decent age, the tanking of the DOW to its worst levels in 70 years caused much consternation. “U.S. stocks slid, capping the worst May for the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1940, while the euro slumped and Treasuries rose as a downgrade of Spain’s debt rating and escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula triggered a flight from riskier assets. The Dow tumbled 122.36 points, or 1.2 percent, to 10,136.63 at 4 p.m. in New York and lost 7.9 percent this month.” For the last two years, investments have taken one step forward and two steps back far too often. What we need is some evidence of a growing economy, not just promises.

I started this blog post intending discussion of six news topics for which I have some passion. So overwhelming is this political theatre I daily observed, I can illuminate only three for you this weekend. While I would never disparage the World Wide Web, it goes without saying that the availability of information from myriad of sources and perspectives is a significant distraction to us mere mortals. Wait a minute, that’s not me talking; that’s what Obama said at a recent commencement address. I don’t agree with Obama about much and, as an academic, I could not vilify “information” anyway.

One problem with information is what we do with it. With the advent of the Web and the 24/7 cable news cycle, overload is inevitable for those of us who devour it. Here at Citizen’s Roundtable, our purpose is to educate. So, here’s a tip, fellow citizen: Find the area where you have the most interest and become an expert on that topic. Use a variety of sources; and for heaven’s sake, don’t quote a story told by a television or radio personality unless you’ve checked out the information sources for yourself first.

Julie Ranson is a community college business professor in Virginia.

What Type of Conservative Are You and Why it Matters

by Freddie Boisseau

The first step in fixing a problem is to identify the problem. To do that you have to be honest to yourself about what the problem is. The conservatives in this country suffer from the problem of ignoring the different types of conservatism and how those parts can work with and against each other. To resolve this problem we first need to be honest about who we are and resolve the conflicts between our different factions. Split asunder we are used against each other, and thus, made weak.

From my perspective, the three factions of conservatism are political, fiscal and social. They each have their good points and their own unique weaknesses. These weaknesses can and must be tempered by the strengths of the other forms of conservatism. This can only happen if we understand those strengths and weaknesses, and that is what I hope to develop with this article.

I would like to start with Political Conservatism, or what can also be called originalism. This group tends to believe in the principle of limited government that our Founders setup for us. They tend to support personal freedom and liberty, negative rights, and the free market system. They are the defenders of the Constitution and the Republic. They truly understand the ideas of John Locke and the republic that Madison designed, but they also understand the concerns the Founders like Patrick Henry expressed about that republic. Unfortunately, they do not have the whole answer to our problems, they have their own weaknesses.

The Political Conservatism policies are not necessarily bound by fiscal or social boundaries, and this is where they make their mistakes. For example a Political Conservative could be lead astray to supporting major military expenses, because they are authorized by the Constitution. Without the restraint of Fiscal Conservative principles, there is nothing to restraint their belief that the expense is legitimate. They need the beliefs of the other two to keep them from falling into traps like this one.

Fiscal Conservatives are the members of our society that watch the pocketbook. They tend to support limiting government spending and thus they prefer lower taxes paid to the government. They also seem to support other sound fiscal policies dealing with money, such as borrowing and rules dealing with banking. They also are the primary supporters of the free market and the principles set forth by Adam Smith. They understand the differences in views of Jefferson and Hamilton regarding the central bank.

But their primary weakness mirrors that of the Political Conservatives, they are not as beholden to the Constitution as their Political Conservative brothers. They can and have been led astray in supporting programs that are unconstitutional, because they sound good and the expense is zero or very low. For example, a Fiscal Conservative would have no problems with implementing regulations eliminating home schooling, as long as the additional cost to the government and citizens are low or non-existence. Since they are less bound by the Constitution, they have no problem violating the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit. They need the Political Conservatives’ ideals to help them recognize when they go astray.

I left the Social Conservatives for the last, because, to me, they are the most important, though they are also the most likely to be led astray. They are the heart and soul of the conservative movement. They hold and promote the rules that we use to define how we treat each other and it is from these rules that we formed our Constitution and our republic. They are the ones that promote our morals and helping of those in our society that are less fortunate. They are the heirs of all great religious leaders that have shaped our world for the better. This is where we draw our greatest strength, and it is also our greatest weakness.

It is our greatest weakness, because while their beliefs were used to create our Constitution that the Political Conservatives hold dear, they are not bound by it. They are not also bound by the beliefs of the Fiscal Conservatives; they have a higher purpose to uphold. It is this purpose helping those less fortunate than them that can be very destructive. If they lose focus because while we should be a moral people and help each other, those charges are individual in nature. We cannot force people to live up to those standards, nor can we protect people from their own destructive behavior. We must realize that while some of the beliefs and values expressed by Social Conservatives are good for both the individual and society as a whole, each of us must come to those beliefs and values willingly.

Finally, I have been speaking as if these three type of conservatism need to be brought in balance in the group as a whole, but actually these three types of conservatism need to be in balance in all of us. If they are in balance in all of us, then they are in balance in whole. For example how many of you have not helped someone who asked for and needed help when you could? Have you lied to a police officer if you broke a law, even speeding? Is doing that holding to the principle of a Social Conservative, helping other people and upholding social norms?

How many you have promoted not allowing someone to express their opinion because you disagreed? How many of you have discounted or persecuted another religion because it was one you disagreed with? Is that holding to the principles of a Political Conservative, protecting the rights of others given to them by the Creator?

How many of you spend money that you do not have? How many of you live from paycheck to paycheck? Is that holding to the principles of a Fiscal Conservative, not building up debt and controlling spending?

I know that I cannot answer no to all of the above. I know that I have failings, but acknowledging that fact is the first step to recovery. I know that I have a lot of work to do to bring myself in balance, but I also know that I can count on you to help me do that, just like you can count on me to help you.