Why do I get the idea that many members in Congress really do not see the "big picture" in this economic crisis? Maybe it is because my idea of the "big picture" and theirs are entirely different. Let’s review the basic reasons why we are in this mess. A couple of things were happening almost simultaneously. The "housing bubble" finally did break, as almost everyone knew that it would. (Perhaps with the exception of some influential members of Congress) Greedy financial institutions made thousands of bad risk loans that started to fail like a cascade of dominos. The housing market collapsed, as did many financial corporations. Within a period of four months we went from economic prosperity to financial meltdown and who is left holding the bag? It is you and me, right?
The cascade effect of the collapse of the housing market and the financial industry has led to business closures and job layoffs that have thrown our economy into chaos and turmoil. Personal confidence in the economy and in the government is perhaps at an all time low.
To help staunch the flow of economic "blood" 700 billion dollars was earmarked to help the financial industry get back on its feet. We were led to believe the money would ease the credit crisis making it easier for taxpayers to get loans for "big ticket" purchases. How is that working for you? Have you felt positive effects from any of that $750 billion? Has the stock market?
If the government was serious about addressing the root causes of the current economic crisis what else should they have immediately addressed with some serious financial help? It is the housing industry and the creation of jobs, right?
So now Congress is engaged in another battle to somehow stimulate the economy. A "stimulus" package, over 800 billion dollars made its way through the House of Representatives. Remember now that this new financial package was initially labeled as a transportation and infrastructure investment package. Guess how much money was directed at road and highway and infrastructure spending? $90 billion is the figure according to the Committee on Appropriations. It is true that this and other line items could be seen as "job creation." But as you look though the total "stimulus" package less than 25% of the $800 billion could be consider job stimulus. This is stunning. What caused the economic chaos to begin with? How much was devoted to stopping the flow of "blood" in the housing market? None that I could see.
But instead some of the geniuses in the House of Representatives saw this as an opportunity to fund some of their favorite projects. Some, but not many of these projects have intrinsic value and should be addressed. BUT those projects and hundreds of others cannot be construed as economic stimulus no matter how fast some members of Congress talk. It is an outrage. It is absolutely unconscionable that millions of dollars has been earmarked for the purchase of new governmental cars and new furniture for offices. $10 billion has been designated to improve science facilities, $6 billion to provide Internet access for rural areas, $120 billion for educational aid to states, and $54 billion to encourage renewable energy production. Again, some of these are worth financial support but what on earth are they doing in a "stimulus" package?
This "spending" plan, let’s call it what it is, will have little impact on the "big picture" causes of this crisis. If Congress is going to get serious about economic recovery they had better address the root cause of our financial collapse. Rebuilding a strong housing market and the actual creation of jobs is critical. The Congressional Budget Office has said that the job creating plans that do exist in this spending legislation will cost the taxpayer $100,000 to $150,000 per new job that is created. The average income in the U.S. is $42,000. Now how much sense does that make? Surely there has to be better ideas to create new jobs.
One plan to help deal with the housing crisis (remember the big picture) proposed by a couple of Senators that does make sense (which means that it will probably go no where in the Senate) is that a huge part of what could then be called a stimulus is to offer a 4% interest rate for home loans both new and old. On average that would put about $450 dollars a month back into the pockets of homeowners. Now that is a serious stimulus. What do you think?
Did you know that your phone call could be the one that pushes a Senator or Congressman back toward addressing the big picture? We literally cannot afford to let them mess this up. The massive bill for all this spending is going to eventually land in your lap and that of your children and grandchildren. Don’t wait another day. Pick up the phone today.
Lin Goodyear
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Change...Yes Economic Revival... Not So Much
Change…Yes Economic Revival…Not So Much
Our President and the huge Democratic majority in Congress were elected into office under the well-publicized banner of change. It was promised that one of the first acts of the new Congress and President Obama would be to pass an economic stimulus bill that would create jobs and jump-start a deeply troubled economy.
To be fair President Obama inherited a mess of an economy and an ongoing War on Terror among other challenges. The former President Bush and his cabinet should have seen the current economic crisis coming and done something about it two or three years ago. Yes, it is true that at some congressional hearings the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned the committee that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (home mortgage guarantors) were on the brink of collapse but no one appeared to listen. At this point the President should have made a big public statement about the problem. But he did not and we are now in a financial pickle partly because the crisis stretched far beyond Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and extended to major financial institutions that were also on the verge of collapse.
Success for President Obama will be defined by his ability to lead the country out of a troublesome recession. Unfortunately the economy could get even get more ugly and President Obama’s high popularity could disappear into the mists of discouragement and impatience.
For President Obama success will be defined by a dramatic turnaround of the economy. To the credit of the former president, while the "ball" was still in his court efforts were made to turn the economy around. A hastily formed 350 billion dollar "bailout" of financial institutions was formulated, passed by the Democratic majority in Congress and signed by the former President to help alleviate the crisis as the Stock Market crumbled.
From your perspective as a reader and as a taxpayer how is the economy doing? Exactly how has that bailout worked for you? Have those billions of dollars improved the state of the economy and your life? Do you actually believe that Congress would spend your tax dollars well? Did you know that confidence in Congress is at a historic low? The promise made with the bailout was that eventually those dollars would trickle down into more available credit for everything from home mortgages to the purchase of cars. Do you see any signs of that happening?
Billions of your future tax dollars have been poured into financial institutions with very few strings attached and little or no accountability for executives who were in charge. Doesn’t it bother you that those who could have made a difference and didn’t are getting off with little or no consequence both in Congress and in many financial institutions? Doesn’t it bother you that there are sitting members of Congress who have been charged with serious legal and ethical misconduct and yet nothing has been done to hold them accountable? (Charley Rangle, for one) Our new Treasury secretary failed to pay over $40,000 in taxes. His excuse was pretty lame and yet he was approved to take his post.
Why do we not have higher standards for leadership in this great country? If standards are low what are we likely to get as a result? Low or subpar performance, right? The evidence is clearly seen in the work of Congress. Are we so desperate for qualified leadership that we have to set the bar of ethical conduct at such a low level? Unfortunately America, that seems to be the case.
As I look at the new presidential administration and the President’s extensive promises and plans for change economic success is not going to come easily or quickly. And isn’t it interesting, perhaps disappointing is a better word to hear the President and ranking members of Congress "water down" or dilute those campaign promises?
What major campaign promise of now President Obama sticks out for you? For me, it was the pledge to end "pork" or special funding in the Federal Budget. I understand now how the President plans to honor that promise. All the "pork" is in the "stimulus" bill.
Congress has just passed an economic recovery bill in excess of 825 billion dollars. Congress doesn’t seem to understand that this is not Monoply money that we are talking about. People like Jack Welch, the former CEO of the once extremely successful General Electric Corporation believe that the so-called stimulus package is not geared for substantial job creation but for funding special social projects that have little to do with stimulating the economy.
Analysts have estimated that only 21% of the "stimulus" bill can even be remotely connected to the creation of new jobs or to the highly propagandized plans to rebuild the country’s infrastructure. Instead we have billions of your dollars designated for buying new cars for Congress, for modernizing higher education, for new science facilities and equipment, for bailing out state governments, for anticrime initiatives and for funding "global warming" research. Are you aware that the latest research done over the last 3 years clearly demonstrates that the earth is not warming but is in fact getting marginally colder? Why are we spending millions of dollars for a problem that doesn't exist except in the minds of some misguided people and a former Vice President who are unwilling to look at recent research. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
You can call this 825 billion bill many things but it is anything but a stimulus package. The reason why this bill was fast-tracked through Congress is that no one wanted you, the taxpayer, to have the time to take a good look at the spending proposals. If politicians were honest they would call it what it is; it is a massive spending bill for favorite social programs. Less than half of the money can even be remotely connected to economic stimulus. Don’t take my word for it. Go online and download a copy for yourself. I did and it is a staggering read. Again it is not a "stimulus" package, it is a spending program that may lead us to an economic apocalypse.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said it best. "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything that you have" to support what Congress wants to spend.
Do we not ever learn from the mistakes of history? No country has ever spent their way out of a deep recession. In 1990 Japan was in the midst of recession and the government passed a series of "stimulus" bills over eight years to deal with their crisis. They built what was at that time the largest national debt in the industrialized world. (America has since taken over that honor) What was the result? Their economy remained stuck in the dark mire of debt, joblessness and discouragement. That country went from one of the highest per capita income levels to the tenth.
Why can we not learn from their experience? Massive spending programs do not work. It is apparent that neither the President nor a majority in Congress is willing to take a serious look at past history. Here it is in a nutshell. What didn’t work in Japan in the 90’s or during the American Great Depression in the 30’s will not work today. History screams that simply pouring money into a deeply troubled economy is a bad idea and has been a colossal failure.
Evidently our financial crisis is so different now that our elected officials are convinced that it will work this time. But is it? Believe me, plans are in place to increase taxes to pay for all this spending. Personal and business taxes will increase, substantially for some. Has there ever been a time where a government has successfully spent and taxed their way out of economic crisis? Imposing higher taxes in the 30’s was a terrible idea. Businesses closed left and right and unemployment shot through the roof. Recently it was announced that Circuit City is closing its doors. Some other major companies are "laying off" people by the thousands. (50 thousand in one day) Increasing the tax on these business is certainly going to encourage them to employ more people, right? Absolutely not!! But a huge personal and business tax increase is a major part of future plans. Does that make sense?
What was the problem that led up to the Great Depression? And is it similar to what is going on now? Why did the financial system fall apart in the 30’s? Was it because the systemic causes of the economic collapse were not adequately identified and addressed? We emerged from the depression not because of anything the government did during the "New Deal" but because our country was drawn into worldwide conflict. Historians today say the New Deal was a raw deal for the economy.
Are the plans of our new president and an emboldened Congress to stimulate the economy on the right track? Or will recent history simply be repeated? The President’s plans for success hinge on the bet that by pouring trillions of future taxpayer dollars into the economy, by continuing to "bail out" irresponsible lenders and executives and businesses (the automobile industry) the economy will turn around. Recent history doesn’t support that bet at all.
Congress has never had a good record for spending tax dollars well. They spend money on well-intended social programs that turn out to be a complete failure. The welfare debacle of the 70’s and 80’s is a classic example. Socialism doesn’t work. The history of our country clearly demonstrates that the free enterprise system does work, that encouraging businesses to grow, to add new employees, to develop and market new products stimulates the economy.
But here we go again as Congress gears up with another effort to spend and then tax America’s way out of financial crisis. Is this the kind of change that you want? Again, has it ever worked? It is my bet that unless the systemic causes of our current economic crisis are not addressed we will be pouring trillions of dollars down the proverbial "rat hole." Don’t you agree? From my perspective there are three root causes for our economic crisis; they are incompetence in Congress, lack of oversight in financial circles and greed.
We appear to have the needed regulations govern financial institutions but congressional oversight is sadly lacking as we have seen. Congressional leaders have shown themselves to be inept at best in providing oversight. From what I have seen Congress is incompetent in the handling taxpayer money. They should be the last people to provide oversight, but for now that is their job and they have done it poorly.
Another root cause is greed and self-interest both in Congress and in our financial institutions where executives are seemingly rewarded millions of dollars for leading their companies into financial chaos. Now what on earth is that all about?
Just recently it was revealed on the news that Barney Frank, one of the guys who controls the purse strings in Congress, made sure that a failing bank in his home state received 12 million dollars as part of the bailout. Isn’t this part of another problem in Congress, elected officials who make sure that pet projects are funded? Frank’s rationale was fascinating. He essentially said that since the government put the bank in the tank, the government should get them out.
Again didn’t President Obama say that he would get rid of "pork" spending? Isn’t the 825 billion dollar spending bill mostly about spending money on social projects and not about turning the economy around? At this rate success will elude President Obama for a long time. I predict that within just a year or two America will turn on the President and Congress like a pack of rabid and very hungry dogs. And it won’t be pretty. The kind of change that President Obama and Congress are now implementing does not have much chance for success. And you know what; I sincerely hope that I am wrong.
Lin Goodyear
Our President and the huge Democratic majority in Congress were elected into office under the well-publicized banner of change. It was promised that one of the first acts of the new Congress and President Obama would be to pass an economic stimulus bill that would create jobs and jump-start a deeply troubled economy.
To be fair President Obama inherited a mess of an economy and an ongoing War on Terror among other challenges. The former President Bush and his cabinet should have seen the current economic crisis coming and done something about it two or three years ago. Yes, it is true that at some congressional hearings the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned the committee that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (home mortgage guarantors) were on the brink of collapse but no one appeared to listen. At this point the President should have made a big public statement about the problem. But he did not and we are now in a financial pickle partly because the crisis stretched far beyond Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and extended to major financial institutions that were also on the verge of collapse.
Success for President Obama will be defined by his ability to lead the country out of a troublesome recession. Unfortunately the economy could get even get more ugly and President Obama’s high popularity could disappear into the mists of discouragement and impatience.
For President Obama success will be defined by a dramatic turnaround of the economy. To the credit of the former president, while the "ball" was still in his court efforts were made to turn the economy around. A hastily formed 350 billion dollar "bailout" of financial institutions was formulated, passed by the Democratic majority in Congress and signed by the former President to help alleviate the crisis as the Stock Market crumbled.
From your perspective as a reader and as a taxpayer how is the economy doing? Exactly how has that bailout worked for you? Have those billions of dollars improved the state of the economy and your life? Do you actually believe that Congress would spend your tax dollars well? Did you know that confidence in Congress is at a historic low? The promise made with the bailout was that eventually those dollars would trickle down into more available credit for everything from home mortgages to the purchase of cars. Do you see any signs of that happening?
Billions of your future tax dollars have been poured into financial institutions with very few strings attached and little or no accountability for executives who were in charge. Doesn’t it bother you that those who could have made a difference and didn’t are getting off with little or no consequence both in Congress and in many financial institutions? Doesn’t it bother you that there are sitting members of Congress who have been charged with serious legal and ethical misconduct and yet nothing has been done to hold them accountable? (Charley Rangle, for one) Our new Treasury secretary failed to pay over $40,000 in taxes. His excuse was pretty lame and yet he was approved to take his post.
Why do we not have higher standards for leadership in this great country? If standards are low what are we likely to get as a result? Low or subpar performance, right? The evidence is clearly seen in the work of Congress. Are we so desperate for qualified leadership that we have to set the bar of ethical conduct at such a low level? Unfortunately America, that seems to be the case.
As I look at the new presidential administration and the President’s extensive promises and plans for change economic success is not going to come easily or quickly. And isn’t it interesting, perhaps disappointing is a better word to hear the President and ranking members of Congress "water down" or dilute those campaign promises?
What major campaign promise of now President Obama sticks out for you? For me, it was the pledge to end "pork" or special funding in the Federal Budget. I understand now how the President plans to honor that promise. All the "pork" is in the "stimulus" bill.
Congress has just passed an economic recovery bill in excess of 825 billion dollars. Congress doesn’t seem to understand that this is not Monoply money that we are talking about. People like Jack Welch, the former CEO of the once extremely successful General Electric Corporation believe that the so-called stimulus package is not geared for substantial job creation but for funding special social projects that have little to do with stimulating the economy.
Analysts have estimated that only 21% of the "stimulus" bill can even be remotely connected to the creation of new jobs or to the highly propagandized plans to rebuild the country’s infrastructure. Instead we have billions of your dollars designated for buying new cars for Congress, for modernizing higher education, for new science facilities and equipment, for bailing out state governments, for anticrime initiatives and for funding "global warming" research. Are you aware that the latest research done over the last 3 years clearly demonstrates that the earth is not warming but is in fact getting marginally colder? Why are we spending millions of dollars for a problem that doesn't exist except in the minds of some misguided people and a former Vice President who are unwilling to look at recent research. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
You can call this 825 billion bill many things but it is anything but a stimulus package. The reason why this bill was fast-tracked through Congress is that no one wanted you, the taxpayer, to have the time to take a good look at the spending proposals. If politicians were honest they would call it what it is; it is a massive spending bill for favorite social programs. Less than half of the money can even be remotely connected to economic stimulus. Don’t take my word for it. Go online and download a copy for yourself. I did and it is a staggering read. Again it is not a "stimulus" package, it is a spending program that may lead us to an economic apocalypse.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said it best. "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything that you have" to support what Congress wants to spend.
Do we not ever learn from the mistakes of history? No country has ever spent their way out of a deep recession. In 1990 Japan was in the midst of recession and the government passed a series of "stimulus" bills over eight years to deal with their crisis. They built what was at that time the largest national debt in the industrialized world. (America has since taken over that honor) What was the result? Their economy remained stuck in the dark mire of debt, joblessness and discouragement. That country went from one of the highest per capita income levels to the tenth.
Why can we not learn from their experience? Massive spending programs do not work. It is apparent that neither the President nor a majority in Congress is willing to take a serious look at past history. Here it is in a nutshell. What didn’t work in Japan in the 90’s or during the American Great Depression in the 30’s will not work today. History screams that simply pouring money into a deeply troubled economy is a bad idea and has been a colossal failure.
Evidently our financial crisis is so different now that our elected officials are convinced that it will work this time. But is it? Believe me, plans are in place to increase taxes to pay for all this spending. Personal and business taxes will increase, substantially for some. Has there ever been a time where a government has successfully spent and taxed their way out of economic crisis? Imposing higher taxes in the 30’s was a terrible idea. Businesses closed left and right and unemployment shot through the roof. Recently it was announced that Circuit City is closing its doors. Some other major companies are "laying off" people by the thousands. (50 thousand in one day) Increasing the tax on these business is certainly going to encourage them to employ more people, right? Absolutely not!! But a huge personal and business tax increase is a major part of future plans. Does that make sense?
What was the problem that led up to the Great Depression? And is it similar to what is going on now? Why did the financial system fall apart in the 30’s? Was it because the systemic causes of the economic collapse were not adequately identified and addressed? We emerged from the depression not because of anything the government did during the "New Deal" but because our country was drawn into worldwide conflict. Historians today say the New Deal was a raw deal for the economy.
Are the plans of our new president and an emboldened Congress to stimulate the economy on the right track? Or will recent history simply be repeated? The President’s plans for success hinge on the bet that by pouring trillions of future taxpayer dollars into the economy, by continuing to "bail out" irresponsible lenders and executives and businesses (the automobile industry) the economy will turn around. Recent history doesn’t support that bet at all.
Congress has never had a good record for spending tax dollars well. They spend money on well-intended social programs that turn out to be a complete failure. The welfare debacle of the 70’s and 80’s is a classic example. Socialism doesn’t work. The history of our country clearly demonstrates that the free enterprise system does work, that encouraging businesses to grow, to add new employees, to develop and market new products stimulates the economy.
But here we go again as Congress gears up with another effort to spend and then tax America’s way out of financial crisis. Is this the kind of change that you want? Again, has it ever worked? It is my bet that unless the systemic causes of our current economic crisis are not addressed we will be pouring trillions of dollars down the proverbial "rat hole." Don’t you agree? From my perspective there are three root causes for our economic crisis; they are incompetence in Congress, lack of oversight in financial circles and greed.
We appear to have the needed regulations govern financial institutions but congressional oversight is sadly lacking as we have seen. Congressional leaders have shown themselves to be inept at best in providing oversight. From what I have seen Congress is incompetent in the handling taxpayer money. They should be the last people to provide oversight, but for now that is their job and they have done it poorly.
Another root cause is greed and self-interest both in Congress and in our financial institutions where executives are seemingly rewarded millions of dollars for leading their companies into financial chaos. Now what on earth is that all about?
Just recently it was revealed on the news that Barney Frank, one of the guys who controls the purse strings in Congress, made sure that a failing bank in his home state received 12 million dollars as part of the bailout. Isn’t this part of another problem in Congress, elected officials who make sure that pet projects are funded? Frank’s rationale was fascinating. He essentially said that since the government put the bank in the tank, the government should get them out.
Again didn’t President Obama say that he would get rid of "pork" spending? Isn’t the 825 billion dollar spending bill mostly about spending money on social projects and not about turning the economy around? At this rate success will elude President Obama for a long time. I predict that within just a year or two America will turn on the President and Congress like a pack of rabid and very hungry dogs. And it won’t be pretty. The kind of change that President Obama and Congress are now implementing does not have much chance for success. And you know what; I sincerely hope that I am wrong.
Lin Goodyear
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Disintegration of Religious Freedom
The Disintegration of Freedom of Religion
Every couple of generations or so we are privileged to be a witness to monumental social/cultural change in America. In the 60’s and 70’s it was the Civil Rights movement, a movement that is yet impacting our culture.
In this the first decade of a new century we are bearing witness to the demise of one of our most fundamental rights. Religious freedom is slowly becoming an "endangered species". I have been troubled by the numerous limitations being put upon religious expression; the court decisions about school prayer, religious symbols in or around government offices and the recent debate over Intelligent Design. The very government that was established to protect our rights as described in the Constitution is now denying religious freedom in various public arenas. Precedents of law (high court decisions) have been established to protect the rights of a small minority of people who either oppose religious freedom or have a life structure that has no room for God or for various expressions of religion.
The First Amendment to the Constitution was written to protect the basic rights of everyone not just a minority group.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Time and time again we hear people citing "separation of church and state" as a rationale for excluding religious expression as if it were a part of the Constitution. Do you see the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in this amendment to the Constitution or in the body of the Constitution itself? Is it found in the Declaration of Independence? The answer is No!! Where then did it originate? It arose as an explanation to a series of judicial decisions that have led us to the point where the words "religious freedom" are almost a joke. About the only place where religious freedom is truly free is in our homes, churches, synagogues, temples or mosques.
Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence said, "Freedom of religion, freedom of the press….these are principles that have guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation."
What were our Founding Fathers concerned about when the first amendment was established? England had a terrible and bloody history, in part because the country had various "state" religions forced upon the people. The Founding Fathers did not want a "national" religion. They believed everyone should have the freedom to choose a religion….or not. As the amendment was debated and shaped they did not put any limitations on free religious expression. They didn’t but our judicial system has.
In just the last 50 years lawyers and judges in various courts all over the land including the Supreme Court have taken it upon themselves to define what the Founding Fathers meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those decisions that have become the Law of the Land have systematically undermined the free expression of religion in public schools, public buildings (government) or almost anywhere someone might be offended.
Non-religious or atheistic fringe groups file lawsuits over almost any reference to God in any sense and they have won time after time. Keep in mind that the numbers of these people who oppose religious freedom are incredibly small. Yet their rights somehow supercede yours and mine. A "constitutional congress" was not established to review or to change or to re-define these traditional religious rights. Our judicial system at the behest of the American Civil Liberties Union and other like-minded groups have taken it upon themselves to battle the religious foundation of our country and to build a more libertine and irreligious mindset amongst its people. And they are winning the battle. Prayer, even non-sectarian prayer at school graduations, at sports events and etc. is prohibited. What happened to our religious freedom? Crosses and religious signage of any sort is being removed from public property. We have all heard of incidences where, for example, the vast majority of a community approve of a cross resting atop a city water tower; only to have it removed because a few people objected.
Abraham Lincoln wrote, "The assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundations in morality and religion."
My concern is this. We have all witnessed a sizeable cultural shift that appears to have a relationship to the demise of religious rights that existed just a few decades ago. We have all seen significant erosion of morals and ethics in this country and it is frightening.
In the Declaration of Independence we find these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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 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."
Are we drawing close to the time where we must, once again, become angry and frustrated enough to admit that our religious rights are being reduced through judicial fiat? The Judiciary is part of our Government. Have they overstepped their bounds? Our religious freedoms are being destroyed piece by piece. I no longer consent to what is being done to our freedom of religion. Do you?
Pastor Lin Goodyear
Every couple of generations or so we are privileged to be a witness to monumental social/cultural change in America. In the 60’s and 70’s it was the Civil Rights movement, a movement that is yet impacting our culture.
In this the first decade of a new century we are bearing witness to the demise of one of our most fundamental rights. Religious freedom is slowly becoming an "endangered species". I have been troubled by the numerous limitations being put upon religious expression; the court decisions about school prayer, religious symbols in or around government offices and the recent debate over Intelligent Design. The very government that was established to protect our rights as described in the Constitution is now denying religious freedom in various public arenas. Precedents of law (high court decisions) have been established to protect the rights of a small minority of people who either oppose religious freedom or have a life structure that has no room for God or for various expressions of religion.
The First Amendment to the Constitution was written to protect the basic rights of everyone not just a minority group.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Time and time again we hear people citing "separation of church and state" as a rationale for excluding religious expression as if it were a part of the Constitution. Do you see the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in this amendment to the Constitution or in the body of the Constitution itself? Is it found in the Declaration of Independence? The answer is No!! Where then did it originate? It arose as an explanation to a series of judicial decisions that have led us to the point where the words "religious freedom" are almost a joke. About the only place where religious freedom is truly free is in our homes, churches, synagogues, temples or mosques.
Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence said, "Freedom of religion, freedom of the press….these are principles that have guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation."
What were our Founding Fathers concerned about when the first amendment was established? England had a terrible and bloody history, in part because the country had various "state" religions forced upon the people. The Founding Fathers did not want a "national" religion. They believed everyone should have the freedom to choose a religion….or not. As the amendment was debated and shaped they did not put any limitations on free religious expression. They didn’t but our judicial system has.
In just the last 50 years lawyers and judges in various courts all over the land including the Supreme Court have taken it upon themselves to define what the Founding Fathers meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those decisions that have become the Law of the Land have systematically undermined the free expression of religion in public schools, public buildings (government) or almost anywhere someone might be offended.
Non-religious or atheistic fringe groups file lawsuits over almost any reference to God in any sense and they have won time after time. Keep in mind that the numbers of these people who oppose religious freedom are incredibly small. Yet their rights somehow supercede yours and mine. A "constitutional congress" was not established to review or to change or to re-define these traditional religious rights. Our judicial system at the behest of the American Civil Liberties Union and other like-minded groups have taken it upon themselves to battle the religious foundation of our country and to build a more libertine and irreligious mindset amongst its people. And they are winning the battle. Prayer, even non-sectarian prayer at school graduations, at sports events and etc. is prohibited. What happened to our religious freedom? Crosses and religious signage of any sort is being removed from public property. We have all heard of incidences where, for example, the vast majority of a community approve of a cross resting atop a city water tower; only to have it removed because a few people objected.
Abraham Lincoln wrote, "The assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundations in morality and religion."
My concern is this. We have all witnessed a sizeable cultural shift that appears to have a relationship to the demise of religious rights that existed just a few decades ago. We have all seen significant erosion of morals and ethics in this country and it is frightening.
In the Declaration of Independence we find these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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 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."
Are we drawing close to the time where we must, once again, become angry and frustrated enough to admit that our religious rights are being reduced through judicial fiat? The Judiciary is part of our Government. Have they overstepped their bounds? Our religious freedoms are being destroyed piece by piece. I no longer consent to what is being done to our freedom of religion. Do you?
Pastor Lin Goodyear
Friday, October 17, 2008
in Defense of marriage
In Defense of Marriage
Most of us are aware that earlier this year the California Supreme Court by a four to three majority made a decision that legalized same sex marriage. The repercussions of that decision are still reverberating around our state.
Over the last 25 years we have seen a sudden and precipitous decline in the willingness of people to support the clear position of the Bible regarding sexual issues. In Hebrews 13:4 we read, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” In Genesis 2:24 God says, “…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Jesus himself quoted this verse when he said in Matthew 19:4, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ ” Marriage is between one man and one woman, is it not?
How confusing are these passages to you? Or are they pretty clear?
Has the teaching of Bible ceased to be an influence in the moral decisions of many people? Is the Bible no longer seen as a valuable source of moral and ethical direction? Unfortunately the answer to both questions is “yes.” It is not that more people do not believe in God; it is that many people are saying, “God, you are wrong about marriage and sexuality!”
The strength of any culture or its people has always had a foundation in the integrity of the home and traditional marriage. As traditional and biblical values are abandoned that culture begins to slide down a slippery slope toward moral and ethical chaos. It happened to the Roman Empire.
One cannot help but wonder if we are not following the same path. If fanatical Muslim extremists are patient, they will eventually win as we destroy ourselves from within. It is clear that moral and ethical chaos is beginning to surround many parts of America. With gay and lesbian marriage attaining legal status in many states can the legalization of sex with minors be too far behind? Is there anything that can stop the moral degeneration of a culture who is slowly but surely saying, “God, you are wrong about almost everything.” The ramifications are huge.
Let me be absolutely clear about something; God is not wrong! The people who support same sex marriage and other sexual sin are wrong and they are “thumbing their noses” at the Author and Creator and Sustainer of all life and this universe. They do so at their own peril. God will not be mocked nor is He wrong.
Let me also be clear about something else; God is in charge and we are not. The California Supreme Court may think that they have the final say but they are wrong on two counts. First as I read Revelation it is obvious that God is going to win and those who oppose Him and His teaching will not. So we do not have to be afraid of what the “courts of man” may or may not do. Man’s law will never supplant or replace God’s law. If we have to choose between God’s law in the long term and man’s law in the short, the decision should not be too hard. The King of kings and Lord of lords is going to win, believe me.
Secondly God has raised up godly men and women who are fighting the decision of the California Supreme Court and other leadership bodies who oppose God’s teaching. As people who believe in the ultimate authority of God and the Bible, the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit you and I can lend our support to the Marriage Protection Act that will be on the ballot this November. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
If every bible believing Christian in California votes “yes” on this proposition we will win. The opposition is going to throw obscene amounts of money in advertising and misleading statements with the goal of defeating the proposition. But we can win this thing for the glory of God and in so doing begin a process of reclaiming Biblical moral and ethical values. We will achieve this goal by doing three things:
1. Investing our time in dialogue with others defending traditional marriage and family values.
2. Encouraging everyone to register and to vote in November.
3. Making every effort to vote in person or by absentee ballot.
4. Praying that God will do a mighty work in the midst of what is sure to be an election that will have a profound effect on our lives for years to come.
Common Sense Lin
Most of us are aware that earlier this year the California Supreme Court by a four to three majority made a decision that legalized same sex marriage. The repercussions of that decision are still reverberating around our state.
Over the last 25 years we have seen a sudden and precipitous decline in the willingness of people to support the clear position of the Bible regarding sexual issues. In Hebrews 13:4 we read, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” In Genesis 2:24 God says, “…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Jesus himself quoted this verse when he said in Matthew 19:4, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ ” Marriage is between one man and one woman, is it not?
How confusing are these passages to you? Or are they pretty clear?
Has the teaching of Bible ceased to be an influence in the moral decisions of many people? Is the Bible no longer seen as a valuable source of moral and ethical direction? Unfortunately the answer to both questions is “yes.” It is not that more people do not believe in God; it is that many people are saying, “God, you are wrong about marriage and sexuality!”
The strength of any culture or its people has always had a foundation in the integrity of the home and traditional marriage. As traditional and biblical values are abandoned that culture begins to slide down a slippery slope toward moral and ethical chaos. It happened to the Roman Empire.
One cannot help but wonder if we are not following the same path. If fanatical Muslim extremists are patient, they will eventually win as we destroy ourselves from within. It is clear that moral and ethical chaos is beginning to surround many parts of America. With gay and lesbian marriage attaining legal status in many states can the legalization of sex with minors be too far behind? Is there anything that can stop the moral degeneration of a culture who is slowly but surely saying, “God, you are wrong about almost everything.” The ramifications are huge.
Let me be absolutely clear about something; God is not wrong! The people who support same sex marriage and other sexual sin are wrong and they are “thumbing their noses” at the Author and Creator and Sustainer of all life and this universe. They do so at their own peril. God will not be mocked nor is He wrong.
Let me also be clear about something else; God is in charge and we are not. The California Supreme Court may think that they have the final say but they are wrong on two counts. First as I read Revelation it is obvious that God is going to win and those who oppose Him and His teaching will not. So we do not have to be afraid of what the “courts of man” may or may not do. Man’s law will never supplant or replace God’s law. If we have to choose between God’s law in the long term and man’s law in the short, the decision should not be too hard. The King of kings and Lord of lords is going to win, believe me.
Secondly God has raised up godly men and women who are fighting the decision of the California Supreme Court and other leadership bodies who oppose God’s teaching. As people who believe in the ultimate authority of God and the Bible, the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit you and I can lend our support to the Marriage Protection Act that will be on the ballot this November. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
If every bible believing Christian in California votes “yes” on this proposition we will win. The opposition is going to throw obscene amounts of money in advertising and misleading statements with the goal of defeating the proposition. But we can win this thing for the glory of God and in so doing begin a process of reclaiming Biblical moral and ethical values. We will achieve this goal by doing three things:
1. Investing our time in dialogue with others defending traditional marriage and family values.
2. Encouraging everyone to register and to vote in November.
3. Making every effort to vote in person or by absentee ballot.
4. Praying that God will do a mighty work in the midst of what is sure to be an election that will have a profound effect on our lives for years to come.
Common Sense Lin
Common Sense for Nov. 4
Common Sense for Nov. 4
Like many parents my mom taught me that common sense was an important characteristic and defined it as having the brains to come in out of the rain and being able to discern truth from error. Right now the American public is being deluged by a lot of rhetoric from both political parties. I invite you to come in from out of the "rain" and to apply a little common sense to the election process.
To begin, let us talk about the economy from a common sense perspective. How on earth did we get where we are? Many people just automatically point their fingers at the current President of the United States and the Republican Party in general. Do you know why that doesn’t make sense at all? Did you know that the President is not able spend a single dime without congressional approval? Congress passes all the legislation to spend money on whatever projects they want, including all the "pork" that we hear so much about. Congress has oversight on all that spending and they regulate all the financial institutions, not the President. When the sitting President sees potential problems he has an obligation and the responsibility to point them out. Our financial crisis has been growing for years. Has our current President ever done anything about it? If you were to believe what you have heard on the television networks, most cable networks and publications, the President has done absolutely nothing about preventing this chaos.
Are you ready for the truth? In 2003, 2004 and 2005 opportunities were laid before Congress, either at the direction of the President or with his approval, to rein in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae whose balance sheets were in a precarious position and whose criterion for backing loans was a joke. People who could not afford to buy homes bought homes all guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, ultimately meaning you and me as taxpayers. During those three years the chairman of the Federal Reserve and other officials testified before various groups in Congress saying that if changes were not made the nation was headed for financial disaster. Did Congress do anything about it? I suppose that we all know the truth about the answer to that question.
Powerful Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate blocked those changes saying essentially, "Millions of people are buying homes. It is great for the economy. If it isn’t broke, why fix it?" The problem was that these financial institutions were in serious trouble but these Democrats ignored the warnings.
Have you heard much in the media about any of this stuff? Probably not. Why? It is because it didn’t suit the political agenda of those that own and operate various media outlets. Does it make sense to make election decisions based solely on the perspective of media organizations that have already made up their minds about the election and are not interested in fairly presenting the truth? Does it make sense to blame the Republicans for decisions that Congressional Democrats did or didn’t make about the economy?
Just recently I watched on television two of those ranking Democrats, who originally said no to lending reform, point the finger of responsibility everywhere but at themselves. Keep in mind that for the past two years or more Congress has had a veto-proof majority. Ultimately, who is responsible for this financial debacle? Congress…right?
Okay, regardless of who was responsible which of the candidates has the best ideas to help turn the nations gigantic financial "ship" around? Using some common sense we can figure this stuff out on our own.
Yes, it is true we are in the midst of a financial meltdown and because of the financial crisis banks and businesses are closing their doors. Consumer confidence is in the pit of despair. Thousands and thousands of people have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs in the coming months. What can we do to improve consumer confidence and to create more jobs? What makes sense to you?
One of the presidential candidates is in favor of income redistribution i.e. more tax for those making more than $250,000 and giving the money to those who are financially struggling or unemployed. We used to call this welfare but this particular candidate calls it a "tax credit." Did "welfare" work in the 70’s and 80’s? It was a multibillion-dollar failure. Why? It is because it encouraged a complete dependence on the government for a means to live. People were no longer personally responsible for supporting themselves and they didn’t see a need to work.
Income re-distribution is not a long-term solution but creating more jobs is. When people have a job they are much more likely to purchase goods and services. Doesn’t that make sense? Our next president must ask Congress to encourage businesses to grow and to expand and to develop more jobs. This is done through reducing the tax burden on businesses and not by adding to their tax burden. Additional business taxes discourage growth and the creation of jobs. Businesses will pass on their increased expenses to the consumer and inflation will skyrocket. Decreasing business taxes, at least temporarily, is one proven way to help ease the financial crisis and to grow jobs.
But the country needs a fast influx of dollars to stabilize financial markets and to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions have generated a fairly good size chunk of mortgage paper that is seemingly not worth the paper it is written on as people walk away from their homes unable to pay their mortgages. A financial domino effect has taken hold sending the stock market to historic lows and has affected the viability of businesses and banks. Their ability to lend and borrow money has diminished and now that effect is reaching down to you and me. So what makes sense to you?
When you are broke and in debt up to your eyeballs, does it make sense to borrow more money to buy more of what you already cannot afford? Irresponsible borrowing and spending always gets us into trouble as individuals and as a nation. Doing more of the same doesn’t really make sense, does it? Continuing to borrow and spend money to end the financial crisis is like pouring gasoline on the proverbial fire. The potential to "burn" a lot of people for many generations is huge. A "ginormous" (a granddaughter’s word) financial rescue package, for which our grandchildren will be paying, has already been approved. Do we really want Congress and our next President to continue down that path? I don’t think so.
Do we have a presidential candidate who has demonstrated a dedication to financial and government reform? We do not need bigger and more expensive government; we need smaller more responsible and accountable government. What makes sense to you?
Continuing to borrow and to simply crank up the money printing press is not the answer nor is taxing businesses and the wealthy who already pay 80% of the tax burden. So what on earth can we do that makes sense?
Gee whiz…why do we not cut the Federal Budget by 10%? Why do we not eliminate all those special spending projects for members of Congress? Our current budget is about three trillion dollars. Ten percent of the federal budget is a lot of money. I know that people will say, especially government types, that it is not that simple. Why not?
Which of our candidates has the guts to do such a thing? Who has the courage to cut spending for the next 4 years to get us back on track?
One candidate’s idea to save money is to pull out of the War on Terror. He also wants to put a special windfall tax burden on oil companies to provide money for the tax-credit (welfare) for the poor who already do not pay any tax. Does this make sense? Will not the oil companies pass on the tax to us as consumers? There has to be a better way to help the poor. How about the creation of jobs, but I digress.
Yes, the War on Terror and the energy crisis has not disappeared and is part of our financial struggle. Know this: it is still the goal of fanatical Muslims to destroy America and Israel. Worldwide domination is their well-publicized objective. Have the events of 9-11 so faded from our collective memories that we are willing to walk away from that war? It is ugly and it is expensive. Mistakes have been made but we are winning. Does walking away make sense to you? Our grandchildren will never forgive us if we do.
The energy crisis has almost been put on the back burner of concerns but it is a huge part of the economy. A majority of those representing both major political perspectives agree that improving our domestic supply of energy is a priority. For the most part they also agree that a combination of increasing domestic oil supply and developing renewable and cleaner sources of energy is a necessary strategy. It is ridiculous that we are paying billions of dollars every year for foreign oil when we have adequate supplies of oil and natural gas of our own. Does that make sense? We can be both financially and environmentally responsible in the production of energy.
Slowly, over the last few years with unbelievable reluctance, some members of Congress have finally embraced the reality that, in the short term, while other resources are being developed, drilling for more domestic oil is a priority. Do we have a candidate who is serious about drilling for domestic oil as soon as possible and who will invest in the development of other energy resources?
The challenges that await our next President are huge and I have not addressed some other serious issues. Why anyone would want the office is beyond me but it only makes sense for us to vote for the man most qualified for the job. It cannot be an age thing or a popularity thing. The stakes are too high.
Who has the most experience? Who has truly demonstrated a willingness to oppose his own party and to reach across the political aisle when he thought it was necessary? Who has ideas that are actually financially sound? Who will do a better job of creating more jobs? Who has had the life experience to back up his decisions? Who do you want standing eyeball to eyeball to some of the most dangerous political leaders on the planet, a proven and tested warrior or someone else? What makes sense to you? Lin
Like many parents my mom taught me that common sense was an important characteristic and defined it as having the brains to come in out of the rain and being able to discern truth from error. Right now the American public is being deluged by a lot of rhetoric from both political parties. I invite you to come in from out of the "rain" and to apply a little common sense to the election process.
To begin, let us talk about the economy from a common sense perspective. How on earth did we get where we are? Many people just automatically point their fingers at the current President of the United States and the Republican Party in general. Do you know why that doesn’t make sense at all? Did you know that the President is not able spend a single dime without congressional approval? Congress passes all the legislation to spend money on whatever projects they want, including all the "pork" that we hear so much about. Congress has oversight on all that spending and they regulate all the financial institutions, not the President. When the sitting President sees potential problems he has an obligation and the responsibility to point them out. Our financial crisis has been growing for years. Has our current President ever done anything about it? If you were to believe what you have heard on the television networks, most cable networks and publications, the President has done absolutely nothing about preventing this chaos.
Are you ready for the truth? In 2003, 2004 and 2005 opportunities were laid before Congress, either at the direction of the President or with his approval, to rein in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae whose balance sheets were in a precarious position and whose criterion for backing loans was a joke. People who could not afford to buy homes bought homes all guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, ultimately meaning you and me as taxpayers. During those three years the chairman of the Federal Reserve and other officials testified before various groups in Congress saying that if changes were not made the nation was headed for financial disaster. Did Congress do anything about it? I suppose that we all know the truth about the answer to that question.
Powerful Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate blocked those changes saying essentially, "Millions of people are buying homes. It is great for the economy. If it isn’t broke, why fix it?" The problem was that these financial institutions were in serious trouble but these Democrats ignored the warnings.
Have you heard much in the media about any of this stuff? Probably not. Why? It is because it didn’t suit the political agenda of those that own and operate various media outlets. Does it make sense to make election decisions based solely on the perspective of media organizations that have already made up their minds about the election and are not interested in fairly presenting the truth? Does it make sense to blame the Republicans for decisions that Congressional Democrats did or didn’t make about the economy?
Just recently I watched on television two of those ranking Democrats, who originally said no to lending reform, point the finger of responsibility everywhere but at themselves. Keep in mind that for the past two years or more Congress has had a veto-proof majority. Ultimately, who is responsible for this financial debacle? Congress…right?
Okay, regardless of who was responsible which of the candidates has the best ideas to help turn the nations gigantic financial "ship" around? Using some common sense we can figure this stuff out on our own.
Yes, it is true we are in the midst of a financial meltdown and because of the financial crisis banks and businesses are closing their doors. Consumer confidence is in the pit of despair. Thousands and thousands of people have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs in the coming months. What can we do to improve consumer confidence and to create more jobs? What makes sense to you?
One of the presidential candidates is in favor of income redistribution i.e. more tax for those making more than $250,000 and giving the money to those who are financially struggling or unemployed. We used to call this welfare but this particular candidate calls it a "tax credit." Did "welfare" work in the 70’s and 80’s? It was a multibillion-dollar failure. Why? It is because it encouraged a complete dependence on the government for a means to live. People were no longer personally responsible for supporting themselves and they didn’t see a need to work.
Income re-distribution is not a long-term solution but creating more jobs is. When people have a job they are much more likely to purchase goods and services. Doesn’t that make sense? Our next president must ask Congress to encourage businesses to grow and to expand and to develop more jobs. This is done through reducing the tax burden on businesses and not by adding to their tax burden. Additional business taxes discourage growth and the creation of jobs. Businesses will pass on their increased expenses to the consumer and inflation will skyrocket. Decreasing business taxes, at least temporarily, is one proven way to help ease the financial crisis and to grow jobs.
But the country needs a fast influx of dollars to stabilize financial markets and to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions have generated a fairly good size chunk of mortgage paper that is seemingly not worth the paper it is written on as people walk away from their homes unable to pay their mortgages. A financial domino effect has taken hold sending the stock market to historic lows and has affected the viability of businesses and banks. Their ability to lend and borrow money has diminished and now that effect is reaching down to you and me. So what makes sense to you?
When you are broke and in debt up to your eyeballs, does it make sense to borrow more money to buy more of what you already cannot afford? Irresponsible borrowing and spending always gets us into trouble as individuals and as a nation. Doing more of the same doesn’t really make sense, does it? Continuing to borrow and spend money to end the financial crisis is like pouring gasoline on the proverbial fire. The potential to "burn" a lot of people for many generations is huge. A "ginormous" (a granddaughter’s word) financial rescue package, for which our grandchildren will be paying, has already been approved. Do we really want Congress and our next President to continue down that path? I don’t think so.
Do we have a presidential candidate who has demonstrated a dedication to financial and government reform? We do not need bigger and more expensive government; we need smaller more responsible and accountable government. What makes sense to you?
Continuing to borrow and to simply crank up the money printing press is not the answer nor is taxing businesses and the wealthy who already pay 80% of the tax burden. So what on earth can we do that makes sense?
Gee whiz…why do we not cut the Federal Budget by 10%? Why do we not eliminate all those special spending projects for members of Congress? Our current budget is about three trillion dollars. Ten percent of the federal budget is a lot of money. I know that people will say, especially government types, that it is not that simple. Why not?
Which of our candidates has the guts to do such a thing? Who has the courage to cut spending for the next 4 years to get us back on track?
One candidate’s idea to save money is to pull out of the War on Terror. He also wants to put a special windfall tax burden on oil companies to provide money for the tax-credit (welfare) for the poor who already do not pay any tax. Does this make sense? Will not the oil companies pass on the tax to us as consumers? There has to be a better way to help the poor. How about the creation of jobs, but I digress.
Yes, the War on Terror and the energy crisis has not disappeared and is part of our financial struggle. Know this: it is still the goal of fanatical Muslims to destroy America and Israel. Worldwide domination is their well-publicized objective. Have the events of 9-11 so faded from our collective memories that we are willing to walk away from that war? It is ugly and it is expensive. Mistakes have been made but we are winning. Does walking away make sense to you? Our grandchildren will never forgive us if we do.
The energy crisis has almost been put on the back burner of concerns but it is a huge part of the economy. A majority of those representing both major political perspectives agree that improving our domestic supply of energy is a priority. For the most part they also agree that a combination of increasing domestic oil supply and developing renewable and cleaner sources of energy is a necessary strategy. It is ridiculous that we are paying billions of dollars every year for foreign oil when we have adequate supplies of oil and natural gas of our own. Does that make sense? We can be both financially and environmentally responsible in the production of energy.
Slowly, over the last few years with unbelievable reluctance, some members of Congress have finally embraced the reality that, in the short term, while other resources are being developed, drilling for more domestic oil is a priority. Do we have a candidate who is serious about drilling for domestic oil as soon as possible and who will invest in the development of other energy resources?
The challenges that await our next President are huge and I have not addressed some other serious issues. Why anyone would want the office is beyond me but it only makes sense for us to vote for the man most qualified for the job. It cannot be an age thing or a popularity thing. The stakes are too high.
Who has the most experience? Who has truly demonstrated a willingness to oppose his own party and to reach across the political aisle when he thought it was necessary? Who has ideas that are actually financially sound? Who will do a better job of creating more jobs? Who has had the life experience to back up his decisions? Who do you want standing eyeball to eyeball to some of the most dangerous political leaders on the planet, a proven and tested warrior or someone else? What makes sense to you? Lin
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Obama's Voodoo Economics
Voodoo Economics All Over Again
In our not too distant past the phrase "voodoo economics" was coined to describe an economic policy that was scary and illogical at best. It has been said that history often repeats itself and this is absolutely the case with what Senator Obama is offering as his economic policy.
As we have watched our 401 K’s and other retirement funds melt away in the harsh glare of financial mismanagement in the board rooms of major financial institutions; as high energy costs eat away at our budgets; as thousands and thousands of Americans lose their jobs with business slowly grinding almost to a halt and subsequently as tax revenues to our local, state and national governments plummet Senator Obama has a plan to save us all. Consider some of the "voodoo" that Obama is preaching.
First of all Obama has an obsession with creating a national health care program that will somehow be much better than the Medicare system that now exists. Any details as to how his program would be any better than the admittedly inadequate Medicare program are interestingly absent. All we know for sure is that the money for this new and assuredly better program would come from our shrinking bank accounts.
Secondly Obabma would invest billions of dollars in developing new technology for energy production. We wouldn’t see any new energy production from those new resources for decades but in the meantime he doesn’t seem interested in drilling for the oil and gas resources that we currently have right off shore or in using the vast coal reserves that exist all over the country. That energy could be available in two to five years. But Obama would rather continue paying billions of dollars every month for oil and natural gas from other countries. No wonder we are having an economic crisis. Why not work to keep the money here? But that is all part of the confusion of Obama’s voodoo economics.
I’ve saved the best for last. Part of Obama’s voodoo economic plan includes giving 95% of all Americans a tax cut. Keep in mind that about 40% of American families do not pay income tax. His plan is to take more tax money from those who do pay taxes and give it to those who do not. So if I get this right about 55% of American taxpayers will get both a tax cut and an increase in their taxes so that the 40% will have more money. Hmmm. Does this sound at all like the income redistribution of socialism? Is it just happenstance that this concept is a favorite theme of the democrats?
Does anyone remember the absolute failure of the national welfare program that was the highlight of the President Lyndon Baines Johnson administration? We ended that multibillion dollar disaster because it wasn’t working. All it did was create generations of people who became dependent on their monthly government handout. Do we really want to revisit that welfare debacle? Obama may call it something else but if something smells like a skunk it usually is.
And how does Obama plan to pay for all this largesse and to get the economy back on track? He plans to get additional taxes from the 5% that represent the wealthy but most will come, according to Obama’s plan, from additional taxes on small and large scale businesses who are already drowning in a sea of financial uncertainty. Does this seem like a viable plan? Common sense says no, but wait, all we are asked to do is believe and vote for Obama. Do you believe in voodoo?
Lin
In our not too distant past the phrase "voodoo economics" was coined to describe an economic policy that was scary and illogical at best. It has been said that history often repeats itself and this is absolutely the case with what Senator Obama is offering as his economic policy.
As we have watched our 401 K’s and other retirement funds melt away in the harsh glare of financial mismanagement in the board rooms of major financial institutions; as high energy costs eat away at our budgets; as thousands and thousands of Americans lose their jobs with business slowly grinding almost to a halt and subsequently as tax revenues to our local, state and national governments plummet Senator Obama has a plan to save us all. Consider some of the "voodoo" that Obama is preaching.
First of all Obama has an obsession with creating a national health care program that will somehow be much better than the Medicare system that now exists. Any details as to how his program would be any better than the admittedly inadequate Medicare program are interestingly absent. All we know for sure is that the money for this new and assuredly better program would come from our shrinking bank accounts.
Secondly Obabma would invest billions of dollars in developing new technology for energy production. We wouldn’t see any new energy production from those new resources for decades but in the meantime he doesn’t seem interested in drilling for the oil and gas resources that we currently have right off shore or in using the vast coal reserves that exist all over the country. That energy could be available in two to five years. But Obama would rather continue paying billions of dollars every month for oil and natural gas from other countries. No wonder we are having an economic crisis. Why not work to keep the money here? But that is all part of the confusion of Obama’s voodoo economics.
I’ve saved the best for last. Part of Obama’s voodoo economic plan includes giving 95% of all Americans a tax cut. Keep in mind that about 40% of American families do not pay income tax. His plan is to take more tax money from those who do pay taxes and give it to those who do not. So if I get this right about 55% of American taxpayers will get both a tax cut and an increase in their taxes so that the 40% will have more money. Hmmm. Does this sound at all like the income redistribution of socialism? Is it just happenstance that this concept is a favorite theme of the democrats?
Does anyone remember the absolute failure of the national welfare program that was the highlight of the President Lyndon Baines Johnson administration? We ended that multibillion dollar disaster because it wasn’t working. All it did was create generations of people who became dependent on their monthly government handout. Do we really want to revisit that welfare debacle? Obama may call it something else but if something smells like a skunk it usually is.
And how does Obama plan to pay for all this largesse and to get the economy back on track? He plans to get additional taxes from the 5% that represent the wealthy but most will come, according to Obama’s plan, from additional taxes on small and large scale businesses who are already drowning in a sea of financial uncertainty. Does this seem like a viable plan? Common sense says no, but wait, all we are asked to do is believe and vote for Obama. Do you believe in voodoo?
Lin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
