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.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
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.
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.
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.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.
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!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Our Nation and The Tea Party
By Daren Gardner
In one year our nation has come a long way. April of 2009 brought the beginning of what is proving to be a movement of American citizens definitely ready for the right change. Tea Party activists all across this land have come out to pound the pavement for a solid year now. Week after week, month after month, and rally after rally. It mattered not where, local, state, or at our Nation’s Capitol, our country is ready for a new beginning, but not the way our elected officials see it.
This new way is really the old way, the way our founding fathers envisioned our country. The sacrifices made by the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, while putting to pen our unalienable rights. The vision of men like John Hancock of Massachusetts, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. As stated;
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (source: The Declaration of Independence)
It is with merit that these words so precisely written by these patriots of our country, that they understood the tyranny that could take place in the future of this nation. These protections given to us as citizens to remain free from such tyrants.
This way really is the old way. As thirty-nine delegates signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787. The likes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, along with convention's secretary William Jackson who also signed the document, not as a delegate, but in attestation of the document's signing, again to protect the citizens of this nation from future destruction and tyranny, had a reason for the first three words to say, “ We The People”.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. (source; US Constitution)
As citizens, it is our obligation to educate ourselves, understand the facts, understand what’s at stake, and understand the consequences of our actions if these rights are ignored. To many times, far more citizens than should, refuse to pay attention to what is happening, which leaves our nation in a peril of which we live in today.
I believe as a nation, and as Tea Party activists, we first must make sure we focus on the end result. To save our freedom and our liberty. I also believe in doing this we cannot allow egos or selfish agenda’s by a few deter this movement from its end goals. To bring America back to the times you could trust your brothers and sisters to do what’s right. You believed what our elected officials would tell us. If Tea Party leadership does not apply the value of common sense to the equation, then we will have exactly what we are fighting against today.
American voter, this is your country , and it is time you believed in something. I would hope your freedom and liberty truly mean something to you, and that your time is worth investing in saving our country. Yes, America belongs to all of us, not a select few. Follow your heart, educate your mind, and support the candidates with your vote that has the right agenda for your locality, your state, and our nation. Do not get caught up in the negativity and bashing of individuals, or groups that have their own agenda, but do what the integrity of your heart tells you to do. You may just have LUCK (Laboring Under the Correct Knowledge) on your side.
America, stand for the truth, it will always set you free!
In one year our nation has come a long way. April of 2009 brought the beginning of what is proving to be a movement of American citizens definitely ready for the right change. Tea Party activists all across this land have come out to pound the pavement for a solid year now. Week after week, month after month, and rally after rally. It mattered not where, local, state, or at our Nation’s Capitol, our country is ready for a new beginning, but not the way our elected officials see it.
This new way is really the old way, the way our founding fathers envisioned our country. The sacrifices made by the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, while putting to pen our unalienable rights. The vision of men like John Hancock of Massachusetts, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. As stated;
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (source: The Declaration of Independence)
It is with merit that these words so precisely written by these patriots of our country, that they understood the tyranny that could take place in the future of this nation. These protections given to us as citizens to remain free from such tyrants.
This way really is the old way. As thirty-nine delegates signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787. The likes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, along with convention's secretary William Jackson who also signed the document, not as a delegate, but in attestation of the document's signing, again to protect the citizens of this nation from future destruction and tyranny, had a reason for the first three words to say, “ We The People”.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. (source; US Constitution)
As citizens, it is our obligation to educate ourselves, understand the facts, understand what’s at stake, and understand the consequences of our actions if these rights are ignored. To many times, far more citizens than should, refuse to pay attention to what is happening, which leaves our nation in a peril of which we live in today.
I believe as a nation, and as Tea Party activists, we first must make sure we focus on the end result. To save our freedom and our liberty. I also believe in doing this we cannot allow egos or selfish agenda’s by a few deter this movement from its end goals. To bring America back to the times you could trust your brothers and sisters to do what’s right. You believed what our elected officials would tell us. If Tea Party leadership does not apply the value of common sense to the equation, then we will have exactly what we are fighting against today.
American voter, this is your country , and it is time you believed in something. I would hope your freedom and liberty truly mean something to you, and that your time is worth investing in saving our country. Yes, America belongs to all of us, not a select few. Follow your heart, educate your mind, and support the candidates with your vote that has the right agenda for your locality, your state, and our nation. Do not get caught up in the negativity and bashing of individuals, or groups that have their own agenda, but do what the integrity of your heart tells you to do. You may just have LUCK (Laboring Under the Correct Knowledge) on your side.
America, stand for the truth, it will always set you free!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Entitlements, Recipients, & Contributors by Julie Ranson
In my last post on entitlements, I focused on the growing bloat of the welfare state in the U.S. This time, let’s talk about the recipient class and the provider class in this entitlement nation.
One of my favorite radio talk show hosts, Andrew Wilkow, speaks often about the recipient class and its members’ status as “zero-liability voters.” A zero-liability voter is a member of the recipient class who receives more money back from the government than he/she put in. We can also call the recipient a “non-contributor” or a “net consumer.” (Among other things….)
FDR's New Deal and the Earned Income Credit (EIC) are significant factors in the growth of the citizen class. The EI credit has been expanded for years 2009 and 2010. Those who earn this credit file taxes and often receive a refund over and above anything paid in. Roughly 40% of Americans pay zero or less in federal taxes. What happens if or when this recipient class exceeds 50%? Imagine the power this group will have to consistently elect those who will continue to pay them. What courageous politicians will be willing to cut entitlement programs and, essentially, commit political suicide?
On the other hand, what motivation does a recipient have to get off of welfare? Consider this scenario that repeats itself across the country and around the globe:
This recipient class has no feeling for the provider class. Rich people can “afford” to pay more, can’t they? Isn’t this what liberals say too often? Listening to a liberal radio talk show host right after healthcare passage, I heard the host opine that “finally the rich will pay their Fair Share.” Another viewpoint decries tax cuts as welfare for the rich. “The key Republican tax proposals during the Bush administration have amounted to massive amounts of welfare for a class of Americans who don't need the help.” It’s THEIR money the government lets them keep. Hardly welfare, but such is the viewpoint of the left.
With a burgeoning federal deficit and no spending cuts in sight, the government will need to seek out more taxpayers or increase the taxes of those who are Taxed Enough Already.
One of my favorite radio talk show hosts, Andrew Wilkow, speaks often about the recipient class and its members’ status as “zero-liability voters.” A zero-liability voter is a member of the recipient class who receives more money back from the government than he/she put in. We can also call the recipient a “non-contributor” or a “net consumer.” (Among other things….)
FDR's New Deal and the Earned Income Credit (EIC) are significant factors in the growth of the citizen class. The EI credit has been expanded for years 2009 and 2010. Those who earn this credit file taxes and often receive a refund over and above anything paid in. Roughly 40% of Americans pay zero or less in federal taxes. What happens if or when this recipient class exceeds 50%? Imagine the power this group will have to consistently elect those who will continue to pay them. What courageous politicians will be willing to cut entitlement programs and, essentially, commit political suicide?
On the other hand, what motivation does a recipient have to get off of welfare? Consider this scenario that repeats itself across the country and around the globe:
A lady in business for herself needed help to meet the demands of her customers. She has hired five different helpers during the past year; each has, after varying lengths of time, simply not shown up for work. The latest hire, who showed the most promise, was given a Christmas bonus and a Christmas gift, after which she never returned. Each of these employees was, in general, poorly educated and receiving, in one form or another, monthly handouts from the state or federal government. There was, therefore, little need for them to hold down a job.
This recipient class has no feeling for the provider class. Rich people can “afford” to pay more, can’t they? Isn’t this what liberals say too often? Listening to a liberal radio talk show host right after healthcare passage, I heard the host opine that “finally the rich will pay their Fair Share.” Another viewpoint decries tax cuts as welfare for the rich. “The key Republican tax proposals during the Bush administration have amounted to massive amounts of welfare for a class of Americans who don't need the help.” It’s THEIR money the government lets them keep. Hardly welfare, but such is the viewpoint of the left.
With a burgeoning federal deficit and no spending cuts in sight, the government will need to seek out more taxpayers or increase the taxes of those who are Taxed Enough Already.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Entitlement Nation: Death of a Republic
My oldest daughter is taking a college political science class. Recently, she emailed me asking for guidance on selecting a period of party dominance in America’s history. She was to write an essay about the era and why it was important. I couldn’t identify them off the top of my head, so I hit the search engine and found three major periods of party dominance. Not surprisingly, the most recent period running from the years 1932 to1968 was dominated by the Democrats. I suggested she look into that period, reminding her briefly the warped history of the “great” Depression, the FDR years, and Johnson’s Great Society. The events of those thirty-six years have paved the way to the current “Entitlement Period” which may very well lead to our destruction. (There are many with whom I won’t disagree that assert this all began with Woodrow Wilson, but I’ll just stick with the most recent 40 years of data, if our readers don’t mind.)
My daughter’s question prompted me to think about the evolution of our country into the “Entitlement Nation” that we are today. I’ve thought about it so much it’s led to this post, which is the result of much research. It’s absolutely depressing and positively frightening to think about the grave danger this extremely large part of government spending poses to our country’s social and economic health. Think about it, what does it say about our society and its future when so many are looking for a handout? There are far too many people who are asking what can their country do for them, and too few who understand and appreciate the intrinsic value of hard work and achieving success by one’s own hand while living as a contributing member of American society. The “Handout Attitude” is going to cost, and cost us dearly.
Consider this: In 1992, the combined Federal, State and Local Welfare Budget was comprised of 34 entitlement programs. According to the House Ways and Means Committee report in 2003, the list of income-tested benefit programs detailed 85 programs! As well, the same report states that expenditures for only income-tested benefits have risen from $16,116,000 in 1968 to $522,156,000 (in current dollars) in 2002. A whopping 3140% increase.
Without significant reform, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise from 18 percent of GDP to 28 percent by 2050. That means that just these three federal government programs will be consuming between a quarter and a third of everything this country produces. Paying for those programs would necessitate raising the corporate and top income tax rates to 88 percent, the current 25 percent tax rate would rise to 63 percent for middle-income workers, and low-income workers would pay not the current 10 percent but 25 percent instead. The catastrophic impact this would have on our economy and American workers cannot be dismissed.
If that’s not enough to really bother you, consider the rest of our country’s financial mess. According to the AP in February 2010,
After reading these dire statistics , I was prompted to look up the phrase, “banana republic” and after wading past the entries for the trendy retailer, I found this definition: Banana republic is a pejorative term originally used to refer to a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique. I am so glad that I’d already started planning my vegetable garden for the summer.... we can get a jump on the banana republic ethic about to slap us silly! Reflecting back to the start of this post, I am absolutely resolute that I, a patriotic American, am self-reliant and won’t be seeking a handout should the stuff really hit the fan. I’d also like to think that one day I can make the independent choice NOT to sign up for Medicare, but then again, maybe it will have gone the way of our liberty and national sovereignty.
My daughter’s question prompted me to think about the evolution of our country into the “Entitlement Nation” that we are today. I’ve thought about it so much it’s led to this post, which is the result of much research. It’s absolutely depressing and positively frightening to think about the grave danger this extremely large part of government spending poses to our country’s social and economic health. Think about it, what does it say about our society and its future when so many are looking for a handout? There are far too many people who are asking what can their country do for them, and too few who understand and appreciate the intrinsic value of hard work and achieving success by one’s own hand while living as a contributing member of American society. The “Handout Attitude” is going to cost, and cost us dearly.
Consider this: In 1992, the combined Federal, State and Local Welfare Budget was comprised of 34 entitlement programs. According to the House Ways and Means Committee report in 2003, the list of income-tested benefit programs detailed 85 programs! As well, the same report states that expenditures for only income-tested benefits have risen from $16,116,000 in 1968 to $522,156,000 (in current dollars) in 2002. A whopping 3140% increase.
Without significant reform, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise from 18 percent of GDP to 28 percent by 2050. That means that just these three federal government programs will be consuming between a quarter and a third of everything this country produces. Paying for those programs would necessitate raising the corporate and top income tax rates to 88 percent, the current 25 percent tax rate would rise to 63 percent for middle-income workers, and low-income workers would pay not the current 10 percent but 25 percent instead. The catastrophic impact this would have on our economy and American workers cannot be dismissed.
If that’s not enough to really bother you, consider the rest of our country’s financial mess. According to the AP in February 2010,
An editorial in a Florida newspaper wrote during last summer’s Obama Healthcare push, “Once upon a time if you wanted something you paid for it. Once upon a time it was embarrassing to ask the government for anything. That was once upon a time. I heard a new version of the reference to "Give a man a fish, he eats for the day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Now it is, "Give a man a fish, he eats for the day; teach him to fish and he'll vote for the one who gave him the fish."“The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding 'mandatory' programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained. Take Social Security, Medicare and other benefits. Add in interest payments on a national debt that now exceeds $12.3 trillion. It all will gobble up 80 percent of all federal revenues by 2020, government economists project.
That doesn't leave room for much else. What's left is the entire rest of the government, including military and homeland security spending, which has been protected and nurtured by the White House and Congress, regardless of the party in power.
The U.S. debt crisis also raises the question of how long the world's leading power can remain its largest borrower.”
After reading these dire statistics , I was prompted to look up the phrase, “banana republic” and after wading past the entries for the trendy retailer, I found this definition: Banana republic is a pejorative term originally used to refer to a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique. I am so glad that I’d already started planning my vegetable garden for the summer.... we can get a jump on the banana republic ethic about to slap us silly! Reflecting back to the start of this post, I am absolutely resolute that I, a patriotic American, am self-reliant and won’t be seeking a handout should the stuff really hit the fan. I’d also like to think that one day I can make the independent choice NOT to sign up for Medicare, but then again, maybe it will have gone the way of our liberty and national sovereignty.
Julie Ranson is a wife and mother of three. She teaches business courses at a community college in Virginia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
