In lieu of penning my own blog post this week, I am taking the easy way out and posting an eloquent short piece written by Mike Gonzalez of the Heritage Foundation. Enjoy.
Having failed to convince the country that we should reorder one-sixth of our economy (health care) in one fell swoop, liberals in the Administration and Congress are now doubling down and moving on to the next big thing. This time it’s the transformation of everything, through climate legislation. One could almost stand agape, admiring the boldness of the overreach, were not so much prosperity at stake.
The latest attempt to force the U.S. economy to turn away from readily available, affordable fuels and leaving it to the tender mercies of untried, experimental and expensive technologies is a bipartisan effort by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). A legislative package from them, according to The Washington Post on Saturday, would individually cap how much traditional energy the main pillars of the American economy would be able to use. This would of course cripple our economy and threaten our prosperity. Any doubts about how broad and deep this effort is are dispelled by reading the following paragraph in the Post:
"According to several sources familiar with the process, the lawmakers are looking at cutting the nation’s greenhouse gas output by targeting, in separate ways, three major sources of emissions: electric utilities, transportation and industry."
The reason the Senators could not act through their preferred vehicle, a “cap-and-trade” scheme that would put an across-the-economy ceiling on the use of traditional sources of fuel such as coal, oil and natural gas—above which companies using these fuels would have to pay for extra rights—is that the whole edifice of global warming is now falling apart.
It is collapsing with such rapidity that it is worth pausing from time to time to take stock.
The foundations of such edifice rest on a single assumption. This hypothesis—one that drove many people, even some reasonable ones, to contemplate upending the world as we know it — is that that traditional fuels will have cataclysmic consequences on the environment because they emit gases that make the world too hot.
The authority to turn this assumption into fact rested largely on a U.N. document - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report - which declared climate change “unequivocal” and its man-made origin “very likely.” The purpose of the IPCC report was to turn hypothesis into fact.
The reason Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman had to turn away from cap-and-trade, and target industries individually, is that the idea of an iron-clad scientific consensus is now being revealed to be a bit, shall we say, exaggerated. The IPCC’s turning of hypothesis into fact now looks less like the scientific process and more like the magician you paid $50 an hour to pull flowers out of hats at your daughter’s birthday.
The first scales began to come off the global warming edifice in November, when emails from the University of East Anglia in the UK revealed how scientists at that key global research center had tried to suppress the opinion of peers who dissented from their view and hid evidence that countered the theory of man-made global warming.
Then the U.N.’s Copenhagen summit that was supposed to produce a global agreement to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol fell apart in December, with the key countries refusing to hobble their own economies for the sake of science that was less and less there.
Then, last month it started to become clear that the 2007 IPCC report was more hollow than hallowed. Its claims that half the Netherlands is below sea level was off by a factor of two. Ditto for the outlandish fear-mongering that the glaciers of the Himalayas would melt by 2035. The IPCC was forced to admit that, actually, its projections were that that would happen by 2350. Oops!
Then last Friday, the news pages of The Wall Street Journal published yet one more devastating story on the IPCC and its hapless chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. The front page story detailed how inconclusive science, political pressure and shoddy administration all led to the Cassandra-like pronouncements of the IPCC report. Imagine that: politicians putting pressure on scientists to come up with theories that would vastly add to their regulatory and taxing powers.
Things have gotten so desperate that Al Gore himself had to come out of seclusion and pen a piece for The New York Times. On Saturday he implored readers that all these cascading events didn’t amount to a hill of beans. The article was vintage Gore. Let’s say it was not restrained. Here’s Gore on what will happen if we fail to act now:
"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."
The former Vice President and failed presidential candidate was so exercised he even took a jab at FOX, apparently blaming it for the troubles global warming is experiencing: “Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment.”
Alas for Gore, Pachauri, et al., the climate alarums are working less and less not because of FOX, but because the alarmists overreached. Even an embarrassed U.N. was forced to announce Saturday that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the IPCC.
Unfortunately, climategate and IPCCgate have not put a dent on the Obama Administration’s plan to (mis)use the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2, and thereby the companies that power our nation. Its Administrator Lisa Jackson was out in front of Congress last week again repeating the same shibboleths on a scientific consensus on global warming. This should make us all wonder if stopping global warming really was ever the end game.
As for Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, their reaction is to slap carbon controls on individual sectors of the economy separately, instead of setting a national target through cap-and-trade. The foundations for doing cap-and-trade have been torn asunder. Our research shows that cap-and-trade would be a $1.9 trillion tax on businesses over eight years, more expensive than the Vietnam War, Hurricane Katrina or the New Deal. But taxing the different pillars of our economy individually would be just as economically suicidal.
Sen. Kerry told the Post last week about his legislative effort, “What people need to understand about this bill is this really is a jobs bill, an economic transformation for America, an energy independence bill and a health/pollution-reduction bill that has enormous benefits for the country,” Kerry said. Notice he said nothing about global warming or climate change, the reason we were supposed to take this long walk off a short pier. Notice also he didn’t say it was about handing the political class the reins of the private economy. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman want electric power to be first on the economic chopping block. Previous analysis of similarly severe carbon cuts project electricity prices will rise over 70 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Not only is this a nightmare for household utility bills, the higher cost will hit consumers over and over since businesses must pass on their higher costs as well.
Direct link with hyperlinks:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/01/morning-bell-the-edifice-falls-2/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Monday, March 1, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
37 Years of Abortion
January 22nd, 2010 marked the 37th year since the United States Supreme Court decision roe vs. wade. In those 37 years, approximately 50 million children have been killed. To put that into perspective, in all the wars in American history combined, from the Revolution to the War on Terror, approximately 910,000 people have lost their lives. We lose more children to abortion each day than all the lives lost in all the tragedies on September 11, 2001 combined.
What is astounding is the sticking power of the pro-choice groupies who claim they support a "women's right to choose." This is their chosen mantra of a 37-year genocide? About 1 in 5, or 20 percent, of our nation's youth had their lives end before it even began. African Americans account for 1.3 million abortions each year (which is 37% of all abortions performed yearly, even though African Americans make up 12% of our population. Latinos, 15% of our population, account for 22% of abortions).
But don't bother pro-choicers with those statistics. A women's right to choose is clearly more valuable than a child's opportunity to live. A woman can carry on with her life, making choices every single day and pursue those dreams she desires, but a child that is aborted will never get the opportunity. Her own child.
A friend of mine told me that when she got pregnant at the age of 17, the doctor presented her with the option of having an abortion. "Just think of all that you'll miss out on," he said. "You won't get to hang out with your friends and go to parties if you have a baby to take care of." Even though she felt scared about motherhood at her age, she looked at the doctor in his eyes and calmly responded, "So you want me to kill this baby so I can go to some parties?"
Approximately 98 percent of all abortions are done out of convenience rather than health issues.
On day 18 after conception, a baby has a heartbeat.
At 6 weeks following conception, a baby's brain waves can be measured.
At 8 weeks after conception, the stomach, liver, and kidneys of the baby are functioning and fingerprints have formed.
At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.
700,000 abortions are performed each year in America after 9 weeks into the pregnancy. That is after the baby has a heartbeat, has brain activity, has a functioning stomach, liver and kidneys, and after the baby can feel pain. But still, pro-choice activists spout that the mother's right to choose whether she wants the responsibility of caring for a child is more valuable than that life itself.
Ayn Rand, the Russian-American novelist of the 1957 Atlas Shrugged once said "A man who takes it upon himself to prescribe how others should dispose of their own lives - and who seeks to condemn them by law, i.e., by force, to the drudgery of an unchosen, lifelong servitude (which, more often than not, is beyond their economic means or capacity) - such a man has no right to pose as a defender of rights. A man with so little concern or respect for the rights of the individual, cannot and will not be a champion of freedom or of capitalism."
Rand likens parenthood to lifelong servitude thrust upon an individual by force. She admits that outlawing abortion is in direct opposition to our inalienable right to life. But again, the focus is placed on the life which is seen. The life which is unseen has no right to exist nor any defender to give him an opportunity to exist.
Leonard Peikoff, an American Objectivist philosopher and former professor has said this regarding pro-life advocates: "Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm, which has no life in the human sense of the term. It is sheer perversion of language for people who demand this sacrifice to call themselves 'right-to-lifers.'"
This idea of equating mothers to slaves is truly disturbing. Peikoff even equates motherhood to a type of death sentence in which she can no longer pursue a life of happiness or fulfillment. I don't know how or why this theory has any validity. It seems to me one way to impact this world and influence an entire generation is to give life and raise an entire generation.
These quotes, along with the mainstream beliefs of pro-choicers, are nothing more than a sly way to promote an elitist, eugenic view that only those with the most to offer (economically, educationally, or otherwise) have a right to life. Anyone unseen, with an endless amount of potential, the elderly, with an endless amount of wisdom, and the disabled, with an endless amount of purpose should not be given the same rights as Ayn, Leonard, or fill-in-the-blank.
50 million lives have been lost in this country because of abortion- so far. The "pursuit of happiness" should first and foremost protect those who have unlimited amount of happiness to pursue. If we cannot protect the lives of those unseen we can certainly not value the life that is seen.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
From the Politico:
"The Obama-Biden Administration will expand make student loans more affordable by limiting a borrower’s payments to 10 percent of his or her income above a basic living allowance. It will also keep the total cost of loan repayment manageable by forgiving all remaining debt after 10 years of payments for those in public service work and 20 years for all others. The monthly payment for a single borrower earning $30,000 who owes $20,000 in loans would be $115 a month, compared with $228 a month under the standard 10-year repayment plan. These steps — which build on the Income-Based Repayment plan implemented last summer — will help with the staggering burden of student loan debt and allow a generation of young adults to enter public service and other careers with historically low pay."
Essentially, what the administration is telling young adults is this: you don't have to pay back what you borrow; let the American taxpayer do that instead. Given our current economic crisis in which millions of average Americans are learning a hard lesson in managing a high debt-to-income ratio, one would think it would be wise to teach college-bound kids that borrowing more than you can afford to pay back is not the way to achieve the American Dream.
Once again the administration has it wrong. Giving hand-outs to people who carry a high debt burden does nothing to teach fiscal responsibility. But trying to explain that to a liberal administration is like trying to teach an infant not to cry. It's in their blood- it's an innate reaction to life. Anything which agitates an infant, he cries. Anything which agitates a liberal, they solve with OPM (other people's money).
The Obama administration wants to make loans more affordable to the college graduate who is living on a $30k yearly income. Our government wants to balance the checkbook of college graduates. This is not the role of government; it is yet another example of the perverted interpretation regarding the scope of power our elected officials should have.
The administration wants to forgive all outstanding debt after 10 years of anyone who goes into "public service." We don't know yet how "public service" is defined, but undoubtedly the members of ACORN, SEIU and the teacher's union are considered "public servants." The government will also waive a carrot in front of the face of any college student taking courses in entrepreneurship. No, don't study that...come over here where the debt is forgiven and the job security is infinite...to where the taxpayer pays for your health insurance and your lavish retirement plan.
This administration wants to prepare young adults for the real world by sheiding them from the real world- on the backs of those living in reality. If more and more young adults "mature" in the mentality that the government is their caretaker and will arrive at their doorstep to slap a band-aid on every elbow scratch, eventually the government will run out of band-aids.
The taxpayer will only stand for so much taxation. America has a strong history of fighting for such a reason. If college students learn American history it may not repeat itself, and it will cost far less than their loan payments.
"The Obama-Biden Administration will expand make student loans more affordable by limiting a borrower’s payments to 10 percent of his or her income above a basic living allowance. It will also keep the total cost of loan repayment manageable by forgiving all remaining debt after 10 years of payments for those in public service work and 20 years for all others. The monthly payment for a single borrower earning $30,000 who owes $20,000 in loans would be $115 a month, compared with $228 a month under the standard 10-year repayment plan. These steps — which build on the Income-Based Repayment plan implemented last summer — will help with the staggering burden of student loan debt and allow a generation of young adults to enter public service and other careers with historically low pay."
Essentially, what the administration is telling young adults is this: you don't have to pay back what you borrow; let the American taxpayer do that instead. Given our current economic crisis in which millions of average Americans are learning a hard lesson in managing a high debt-to-income ratio, one would think it would be wise to teach college-bound kids that borrowing more than you can afford to pay back is not the way to achieve the American Dream.
Once again the administration has it wrong. Giving hand-outs to people who carry a high debt burden does nothing to teach fiscal responsibility. But trying to explain that to a liberal administration is like trying to teach an infant not to cry. It's in their blood- it's an innate reaction to life. Anything which agitates an infant, he cries. Anything which agitates a liberal, they solve with OPM (other people's money).
The Obama administration wants to make loans more affordable to the college graduate who is living on a $30k yearly income. Our government wants to balance the checkbook of college graduates. This is not the role of government; it is yet another example of the perverted interpretation regarding the scope of power our elected officials should have.
The administration wants to forgive all outstanding debt after 10 years of anyone who goes into "public service." We don't know yet how "public service" is defined, but undoubtedly the members of ACORN, SEIU and the teacher's union are considered "public servants." The government will also waive a carrot in front of the face of any college student taking courses in entrepreneurship. No, don't study that...come over here where the debt is forgiven and the job security is infinite...to where the taxpayer pays for your health insurance and your lavish retirement plan.
This administration wants to prepare young adults for the real world by sheiding them from the real world- on the backs of those living in reality. If more and more young adults "mature" in the mentality that the government is their caretaker and will arrive at their doorstep to slap a band-aid on every elbow scratch, eventually the government will run out of band-aids.
The taxpayer will only stand for so much taxation. America has a strong history of fighting for such a reason. If college students learn American history it may not repeat itself, and it will cost far less than their loan payments.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
On Politics and Christianity
Brit Hume, senior political analyst for Fox News and former anchor of Special Report With Brit Hume candidly opened up about the ongoing Tiger Woods scandal while a guest on Fox’s Sunday political talk show.
"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."
It should come as no surprise that speaking the words of Christianity on such a large platform would immediately generate every kind of outrage and vitriol from the American left. After all, the American left has evolved into a secular-humanist cult forcefully pronouncing its belief system on every facet of American life. From schools to media/entertainment outlets to so-called public service positions at every level of American government, generic platitudes of tolerance for all religions and moral relativism have seeped into our culture.
These ostensible practitioners of tolerance and equality are nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. Something my Christian God warned me about many, many years ago. (Did I just write that? You betcha.)
Prestigious commentators such as MSNBC’s David Shuster supported his creed’s Ten Commandments of Tolerance by stating, “This isn’t church, this isn’t some sort of holy setting, this is a political talk show. Doesn’t that minimize the significance of Christianity, when you bring a discussion of Christianity into a conversation about politics? I do think it diminishes the discussion of Christianity … when you have a conversation out-of-the-blue on a political talk show. This wasn’t the ‘700 Club,’ this wasn’t ‘Theocracy Today.’” He further insinuated that the “separation of church and television” was grossly violated by Hume’s out-of-the-blue comments.
His charming co-anchor, Tamron Hall, felt it necessary to further explain her personal obedience to all-things-tolerant by saying, “[D]o we need to run down the list, just in the past year, of so-called Christian politicians who’ve been accused, or in many case[s] flat-out admit because they were backed up against the wall, that they had affairs and other discretions? I mean, to the heart of what David is saying, if this is just about religion, all are flawed. Isn’t that what the Christian Bible says?”
Like freshly-bloomed lilacs on the first day of spring, I can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that our liberal left still holds a view of Christianity edified by their Harvard professors and Washington D.C. beltway buddies. I smell tolerance in the air. Besides Shuster and Hall’s gross factual misrepresentations, the heart of what they say is an all-too-common philosophy in American society. Christianity must stay out of politics. And since politics encompasses every aspect of our daily lives, Christianity must stay out of our daily lives. Go find a closet, Christ, and lock yourself inside for all eternity.
I think the ACLU needs to make that last statement their new epigram. No reason to be ambiguous with lawsuits against high schools that hold graduation ceremonies inside churches or crosses displayed on public property all in the name of “separation of church and state.” Christianity and the name of Jesus Christ play no role in our spoken society. But feel free to think thoughts of Christianity. Or, wait…
“It takes a religious zealot to strap explosives around his or her waist and, murmuring prayers, blow up a CIA facility in Afghanistan, or take down an airplane over Detroit, or steer a jet into the World Trade Center. Or, for that matter, to treat the world to Crusades and Inquisitions and the kind of faith-based savagery we've seen in places like Belfast, Bosnia, Beirut, and Jerusalem. That is what made Brit's comments so creepy: the self-certainty that ‘my god is better than yours.’ Hume has the right to yak. People get paid to say all sorts of provocative things these days. I have no doubt that some of his best friends are Jewish, or Buddhist, or of a different Christian denomination. I am sure he loves all wogs, in his way. But, jeez, what a stupid thing to think.”
John Aloysius Farrell, the “award-winning Washington reporter” and US News and World Report contributing editor believes that Christian principles are not something to think proudly. Apparently you are in company with terrorists who blow up airplanes and kill thousands of innocent Americans when you believe that your God may be better than someone else’s. Maybe I should subject myself to a full-body scan the next time I want to get on a plane. I could be the next one…
To sum up, Christianity doesn’t play any part in politics, should not be pronounced to another on television, or even in held as an intellectual thought. And if by chance you slip up and spew forth such bigoted beliefs, there is only one resolve: apologize. In the Washington Post, Tom Shales explains this resolution thoroughly. “In a way that many others had spoken of this particular faith, Hume seemed so bolstered by Christianity that he just had to go tell it on the mountain. And the golf course. And Fox news-talk shows. First off, apologize. You gotta. Just say you are a man who is comfortable with his faith, so comfortable that sometimes he gets a wee bit carried away with it.”
I, and many other well-intentioned Americans, have a lot to be sorry for. To think of all the countless times I got a wee bit carried away and professed myself a Christian to anyone, which by the very act diminutives all other religions and surely thrusts judgment upon their souls. So long as our politicians don’t jump to conclusions and characterize the radical Islamists as anything other than poor, lost souls engaging in man-made disasters I suppose all is not yet lost.
David Shuster also said, “ Why go there? Why – I mean, look, we all respect Brit’s view, the faith works for him, it work’s for you, my faith works for me. But why go on a political show and anoint yourself the adviser to a celebrity in trouble and say ‘my faith is the right one, his is a failure for him’?” Along with the Ten Commandments of Tolerance, the American left hold tightly to the golden rule of moral relativism. What’s right for you is right for you and what’s right for me is what’s right for me. We live in a gray world, not a black and white world. Brit Hume can believe in Christianity but that doesn’t mean he has any right to say so. But what is missing is the right side of that equation. If Christians should not be allowed to spread the good news of Jesus Christ as the one and only way, then Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Islamists and atheists cannot share their answer to the world’s ails either. But when was the last time a public display of Buddhism or atheism was shunned? I will not wait for an answer.
The problem the left has with Hume’s comments do not stem from a desire to level the playing field of all the world’s religions. It comes from a place of fear. Fear of what they don’t understand, fear of what they don’t want to hear, and fear of our own country’s Christian heritage. And fear that America’s first principles such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms actually come from a religion that they so desperately want to deny and silence.
To which I say, good luck. Since you have no faith you wish to speak of, you will need that rabbit's foot. A battle of unprecedented proportions is on the forefront and all hell will break loose.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Congress Needs an Allowance
I received an allowance as a kid. It was a reasonable weekly wage equivalent to the amount of chores I completed. Like clockwork, my dad handed me crisp bills every Friday night, usually after dinner, and I felt such satisfaction. I could do whatever I wanted with the money because I earned it.
When I went to the store and found a toy or a new bracelet I wanted to buy, I pulled open my wallet to see what I had. Too often a wave of disappointment came over me when I realized I didn't have enough. Back to the shelf that gold bracelet went. Even if I tried to pull the old "puhhlleeaassee!" with my parents, their response always included a certain four-letter word: save. You can't spend what you don't have. As much as I hated to hear it back then, I appreciate that lesson today.
It's unfortunate our members of congress didn't have parents who gave them an allowance to manage.
This week, the House approved a short-term $290 billion extension in the nation's debt ceiling, postponing a decision until February about a larger increase in the borrowing cap. Once the House realized that a larger increase may not pass the Senate because of a lack of support, they decided to pass a smaller increase for now. In February they will address a "need" for a larger increase, possibly the $1.8 Trillion increase in the ceiling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) wants.
This increase in the debt limit raises the total debt the federal government can hold to $12.394 billion from $12.104 billion. Okay, let's go back. Steny Hoyer wants to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 Trillion ... $1.8 TRILLION. How can any country survive if it is trillions of dollars in debt? How does any average Joe survive if he is billions of dollars in debt? He doesn't. Average Joe knows he can't increase the limit on his credit card to buy a new plasma TV. If his credit card is maxed out, he must deal with that issue first before making a new purchase.
Anyone who has debt understands that you become a slave to those you owe money to. Someone will come after you if you don't pay. Not only is America in debt slightly over $12 trillion dollars, but our interest just on our debt alone is $367 billion. Whose coming after us, and when? The Wall Street Journal writes, "[i]ncreasing the debt ceiling is largely symbolic as the public debt is the accumulation of past deficits, or money already spent. But were the U.S. to breach its debt limit, it would default on its obligations, potentially lose its prized top-shelf credit rating and have to pay significantly higher interest to its creditors. Such a scenario, albeit an extremely unlikely one, would have tremendous ramifications for the wider financial markets."
Getting past the notion that the U.S. has a "top-shelf credit rating," I can't help but wonder why our government believes it is a good idea to spend more money we don't have. Average Joe can't do that, so why does the federal government? I understand I am taking a complex situation and simplifying it to compare with one person's financial lifestyle. But that's why I simplify it. Because it is that simple. Behind every decision lies a principle.
Don't spend what you don't have.
Don't borrow what you can't pay back. In fact, don't borrow more than you can pay back with your next paycheck.
Waste not, want not.
Congress is operating under an entirely different set of principles. Dangerous, frivolous, and destructive. One of my favorite principles is this: he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. I would vote for Average Joe who balanced his checkbook and successfully managed his personal finances to handle the national budget over such characters as Hoyer, Pelosi and Reid. Just because they are "congressmen" and "senators" does not make them smarter than you or I. They have no right to run up our debt, borrow more than we can pay back and throw our children into financial bondage. We demonstrate daily in our personal finances that we are smarter than that.
Let congress prove they can one run program --one-- successfully, within budget, before we allow them to fiddle with health reform or any other massive program. Let's give them an allowance and see if they can be faithful in little before we give them much-- if at all.
Don't stare too long at this website, it will make you nauseous:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126099939736594429.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
When I went to the store and found a toy or a new bracelet I wanted to buy, I pulled open my wallet to see what I had. Too often a wave of disappointment came over me when I realized I didn't have enough. Back to the shelf that gold bracelet went. Even if I tried to pull the old "puhhlleeaassee!" with my parents, their response always included a certain four-letter word: save. You can't spend what you don't have. As much as I hated to hear it back then, I appreciate that lesson today.
It's unfortunate our members of congress didn't have parents who gave them an allowance to manage.
This week, the House approved a short-term $290 billion extension in the nation's debt ceiling, postponing a decision until February about a larger increase in the borrowing cap. Once the House realized that a larger increase may not pass the Senate because of a lack of support, they decided to pass a smaller increase for now. In February they will address a "need" for a larger increase, possibly the $1.8 Trillion increase in the ceiling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) wants.
This increase in the debt limit raises the total debt the federal government can hold to $12.394 billion from $12.104 billion. Okay, let's go back. Steny Hoyer wants to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 Trillion ... $1.8 TRILLION. How can any country survive if it is trillions of dollars in debt? How does any average Joe survive if he is billions of dollars in debt? He doesn't. Average Joe knows he can't increase the limit on his credit card to buy a new plasma TV. If his credit card is maxed out, he must deal with that issue first before making a new purchase.
Anyone who has debt understands that you become a slave to those you owe money to. Someone will come after you if you don't pay. Not only is America in debt slightly over $12 trillion dollars, but our interest just on our debt alone is $367 billion. Whose coming after us, and when? The Wall Street Journal writes, "[i]ncreasing the debt ceiling is largely symbolic as the public debt is the accumulation of past deficits, or money already spent. But were the U.S. to breach its debt limit, it would default on its obligations, potentially lose its prized top-shelf credit rating and have to pay significantly higher interest to its creditors. Such a scenario, albeit an extremely unlikely one, would have tremendous ramifications for the wider financial markets."
Getting past the notion that the U.S. has a "top-shelf credit rating," I can't help but wonder why our government believes it is a good idea to spend more money we don't have. Average Joe can't do that, so why does the federal government? I understand I am taking a complex situation and simplifying it to compare with one person's financial lifestyle. But that's why I simplify it. Because it is that simple. Behind every decision lies a principle.
Don't spend what you don't have.
Don't borrow what you can't pay back. In fact, don't borrow more than you can pay back with your next paycheck.
Waste not, want not.
Congress is operating under an entirely different set of principles. Dangerous, frivolous, and destructive. One of my favorite principles is this: he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. I would vote for Average Joe who balanced his checkbook and successfully managed his personal finances to handle the national budget over such characters as Hoyer, Pelosi and Reid. Just because they are "congressmen" and "senators" does not make them smarter than you or I. They have no right to run up our debt, borrow more than we can pay back and throw our children into financial bondage. We demonstrate daily in our personal finances that we are smarter than that.
Let congress prove they can one run program --one-- successfully, within budget, before we allow them to fiddle with health reform or any other massive program. Let's give them an allowance and see if they can be faithful in little before we give them much-- if at all.
Don't stare too long at this website, it will make you nauseous:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126099939736594429.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
Monday, December 7, 2009
I took my dog to the dog park recently. As I threw his soggy tennis ball and watched him slide through the muddy grass to scoop it up, I overheard a fascinating conversation taking place between two college students.
A young man stood against the fence and introduced himself to a young woman sitting on the wood bench watching her poodle bounce around. After a few minutes of general conversation, they quickly found a mutual topic to discuss: politics.
Their intellectual prattling intrigued me.
"I don't know why all these people are freaking out about what Obama is doing. At least he's actually doing something, unlike Bush who only wanted to fight a pointless war." The young man shook his head in disapproval.
"Oh, I know. Like hello! There were no weapons-of-mass-whatever. Like we totally wasted all that money and all those people died for nothing." (I forced myself to not count how many times she would use the word 'like.')
"And then there's Fox News out there acting like a reputable news source, when everyone knows it's made up all those conservative whack jobs. Does anyone actually listen to them?" Okay, I thought to myself, he's completely unaware of the size audience Fox News has. He's never watched it. "What news do you watch?"
"Oh, me? I don't know. I don't watch much news. It's so depressing."
"Me too. I pretty much get all my news from 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.'" Did he just say he gets all his news from a show on Comedy Central???
"Oh, yea, that's a good one. Did you see last night when he was making fun of Sarah Palin and the whole 'death panel' thing?" She chuckles, obviously replaying the skit- I mean script- in her head.
"No, I missed it."
"Oh, it was soooo good! Sarah's so stupid. Like, you can tell she has no education like whatsoever, because 'death panel' isn't even in the bill. How scary would it have been if she were like in the White House."
"Everyone who is against the health care bill should just...die. That'll save us lots of money!" He grabs his beer belly and laughs.
"I totally agree! Like, seriously, and everyone who says we want to pull the plug on grandma. Well...maybe we should. I mean, old people don't exactly help us out that much anyways. The only people who should get health care are those who actually contribute to society, ya know?"
"I know. It's the same thing as socialism. Everyone freaks out when you say it's actually a good idea, but that's just because they don't understand it."
"Oh my god, totally! Like, I totally support socialism. Everyone would have a job, and money, and health care- so why is that bad?" The woman calls her poodle and stands to her feet.
"I support it also. It's the only fair way for everyone to have a chance. And just because it didn't work well for other countries doesn't mean we can't do it good here." They shake hands, leash up their dogs, and walk to their cars.
Biting my lips and debating whether I should chase them down and unleash upon them any and all common sense they apparently lack, I remind myself that it would do no good. Years of liberal education cannot be undone in a two-minute rant by some crazy woman at the dog park. (Common sense...okay, I would need way more than two minutes.)
I genuinely felt bad for them. Nothing is more oppressive than not knowing what you don't know.
And nothing is more liberating than knowing you're learning the truth.
A young man stood against the fence and introduced himself to a young woman sitting on the wood bench watching her poodle bounce around. After a few minutes of general conversation, they quickly found a mutual topic to discuss: politics.
Their intellectual prattling intrigued me.
"I don't know why all these people are freaking out about what Obama is doing. At least he's actually doing something, unlike Bush who only wanted to fight a pointless war." The young man shook his head in disapproval.
"Oh, I know. Like hello! There were no weapons-of-mass-whatever. Like we totally wasted all that money and all those people died for nothing." (I forced myself to not count how many times she would use the word 'like.')
"And then there's Fox News out there acting like a reputable news source, when everyone knows it's made up all those conservative whack jobs. Does anyone actually listen to them?" Okay, I thought to myself, he's completely unaware of the size audience Fox News has. He's never watched it. "What news do you watch?"
"Oh, me? I don't know. I don't watch much news. It's so depressing."
"Me too. I pretty much get all my news from 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.'" Did he just say he gets all his news from a show on Comedy Central???
"Oh, yea, that's a good one. Did you see last night when he was making fun of Sarah Palin and the whole 'death panel' thing?" She chuckles, obviously replaying the skit- I mean script- in her head.
"No, I missed it."
"Oh, it was soooo good! Sarah's so stupid. Like, you can tell she has no education like whatsoever, because 'death panel' isn't even in the bill. How scary would it have been if she were like in the White House."
"Everyone who is against the health care bill should just...die. That'll save us lots of money!" He grabs his beer belly and laughs.
"I totally agree! Like, seriously, and everyone who says we want to pull the plug on grandma. Well...maybe we should. I mean, old people don't exactly help us out that much anyways. The only people who should get health care are those who actually contribute to society, ya know?"
"I know. It's the same thing as socialism. Everyone freaks out when you say it's actually a good idea, but that's just because they don't understand it."
"Oh my god, totally! Like, I totally support socialism. Everyone would have a job, and money, and health care- so why is that bad?" The woman calls her poodle and stands to her feet.
"I support it also. It's the only fair way for everyone to have a chance. And just because it didn't work well for other countries doesn't mean we can't do it good here." They shake hands, leash up their dogs, and walk to their cars.
Biting my lips and debating whether I should chase them down and unleash upon them any and all common sense they apparently lack, I remind myself that it would do no good. Years of liberal education cannot be undone in a two-minute rant by some crazy woman at the dog park. (Common sense...okay, I would need way more than two minutes.)
I genuinely felt bad for them. Nothing is more oppressive than not knowing what you don't know.
And nothing is more liberating than knowing you're learning the truth.
Obama held his job summit last week. Or should I say, Professor Obama gave a lecture last week in his "Capitalism: Greed, Pollution and Poverty" course at the White House.
What Obama said: "I need everybody to bring their A-game here today. I'm going to be asking some tough questions, I will be listening for some good answers and I don't want to just brainstorm up at 30,000 feet. I want details in our discussion today. I'm looking for specific recommendations that can be implemented that will spur on job growth as quickly as possible. I want to be clear. We won't overcome our unemployment challenge in just a few hours this afternoon. I assure you there is extraordinary skepticism that any discussions like this can actually produce results. I'm well aware of that. I don't mind skepticism. If I listened to the skeptics I wouldn't be here, but I am confident that we'll make progress..."
What I heard: "Now, good students, do your work while I go the teacher's lounge to watch Sports Center. Union members, career politicians, Google management team and environmentalists, don't be afraid to help out your less fortunate classmates- yes, you guys in the back from Wall Street. Stop playing on your Blackberry's like spoiled rich kids (Wall Streeters apologize emphatically).
Bring me the best ideas on how I can fix this economic problem, and turn in your assignment by the end of the day. Does anyone have a red pen? And for those of you who need extra credit to pick up your grade before the end of the semester, ahem ... those in back, write an essay answering this question: (writing on the black board) 'If you spoke to the state-organized media, how would you spin our economic and environmental woes to place the blame solely on small business and the wealthy?' The amount of extra credit you earn will be based on how well your response makes me look." (He leaves the room)
What Obama said: "Despite the progress we've made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it's not translating into hiring and so that's the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?"
What I heard: (Walking into the classroom) "Sorry it took me so long to come back. Michelle wanted to go shopping for a new cocktail dress before we go to dinner with the Jolie-Pitt's tonight. I see you all turned in your papers here on my desk, and I will be reading and grading them for the rest of the semester.
(Students groan). Now, now, it takes time to solve such severe problems that I didn't cause. Let me tell you a little story. (Students groan again and slump in their chairs) When I was a community organizer in the heart of Chicago, standing face-to-face with mothers who can't feed their babies because of their high cell phone bills, and young brothers who were given guns instead of a chance to succeed because we don't have a national gun ban, I saw how evil America is. That's why I decided to get into politics. I wanted to become your leader and to make America the darkened village on the backside of a hill.
And that's why I brought you here today. Americans everywhere are crying out for a job, but what we need to show them is that they don't need a job. No, they need me. They need my administration. They need their government to blame small business owners for making them slave away for $13/hour wages (cheers from the labor union students). Private business isn't the answer, because private business doesn't hire people (confused whispers amongst students). That may sound weird, but that's just because you haven't been in college long enough. Trust me, soon enough, it'll all make sense. Why do you think I'm a supporter of "W12" (womb-to-12) Schools?" (Winks)
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514131
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/jobs_summit_will_not_produce_j.html
What Obama said: "I need everybody to bring their A-game here today. I'm going to be asking some tough questions, I will be listening for some good answers and I don't want to just brainstorm up at 30,000 feet. I want details in our discussion today. I'm looking for specific recommendations that can be implemented that will spur on job growth as quickly as possible. I want to be clear. We won't overcome our unemployment challenge in just a few hours this afternoon. I assure you there is extraordinary skepticism that any discussions like this can actually produce results. I'm well aware of that. I don't mind skepticism. If I listened to the skeptics I wouldn't be here, but I am confident that we'll make progress..."
What I heard: "Now, good students, do your work while I go the teacher's lounge to watch Sports Center. Union members, career politicians, Google management team and environmentalists, don't be afraid to help out your less fortunate classmates- yes, you guys in the back from Wall Street. Stop playing on your Blackberry's like spoiled rich kids (Wall Streeters apologize emphatically).
Bring me the best ideas on how I can fix this economic problem, and turn in your assignment by the end of the day. Does anyone have a red pen? And for those of you who need extra credit to pick up your grade before the end of the semester, ahem ... those in back, write an essay answering this question: (writing on the black board) 'If you spoke to the state-organized media, how would you spin our economic and environmental woes to place the blame solely on small business and the wealthy?' The amount of extra credit you earn will be based on how well your response makes me look." (He leaves the room)
What Obama said: "Despite the progress we've made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it's not translating into hiring and so that's the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?"
What I heard: (Walking into the classroom) "Sorry it took me so long to come back. Michelle wanted to go shopping for a new cocktail dress before we go to dinner with the Jolie-Pitt's tonight. I see you all turned in your papers here on my desk, and I will be reading and grading them for the rest of the semester.
(Students groan). Now, now, it takes time to solve such severe problems that I didn't cause. Let me tell you a little story. (Students groan again and slump in their chairs) When I was a community organizer in the heart of Chicago, standing face-to-face with mothers who can't feed their babies because of their high cell phone bills, and young brothers who were given guns instead of a chance to succeed because we don't have a national gun ban, I saw how evil America is. That's why I decided to get into politics. I wanted to become your leader and to make America the darkened village on the backside of a hill.
And that's why I brought you here today. Americans everywhere are crying out for a job, but what we need to show them is that they don't need a job. No, they need me. They need my administration. They need their government to blame small business owners for making them slave away for $13/hour wages (cheers from the labor union students). Private business isn't the answer, because private business doesn't hire people (confused whispers amongst students). That may sound weird, but that's just because you haven't been in college long enough. Trust me, soon enough, it'll all make sense. Why do you think I'm a supporter of "W12" (womb-to-12) Schools?" (Winks)
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514131
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/jobs_summit_will_not_produce_j.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)