Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

... And For The People?

Cross-Posted From:

Barack Obama, Joe Biden

Yesterday, the Obama administration and the Democrat party, in general, took what many in the press are calling a "victory lap” in celebration of reaching their goal of 7 million Obamacare signups prior to the midnight 3/31/14 deadline. As I saw this unfold, my immediate question was, “Whose victory is being celebrated here?”

Since the “Hollywood elite” are most often found alongside Obama, cheering every claim, I was a bit surprised to hear related cynical remarks come from Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon. However, I thought Fallon offered a pretty realistic perspective when he said,

“That’s right, the White House said that it surpassed its goal for people enrolled in ObamaCare. It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don't do it. And then keep extending the deadline for months. It’s like a Cinderella story. It’s just a beautiful thing. You make everyone do it. Isn’t it great how many people do it? But if you still haven't enrolled, you might have to pay a penalty called the individual shared responsibility payment, which is 1% of your salary. Then Americans said, ‘Man, good thing I don't have a job.’"
 
Fallon
 

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Above Reproach

Cross-Posted From:
 
 
This past Thursday, in addressing a scandal in his administration, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conducted himself in a way I’d like to see emulated by every government official. Not surprisingly, political pundits are weighing in with their views on various ramifications of this crisis. The impact of this on Christie’s potential 2016 run for U.S. President seems to be chief among these observations. I believe it’s thanks to this mentality, fomented by the press and how this influences government officials (especially the elected ones), that forthright behavior, like this example of Governor Christie’s, has become so rare in our public office holders.
 

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Much Heat, Little Light

The result of the end of "the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America"? ... Politics as usual!



Monday evening, by a vote of 269-161, the U.S. Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 … a/k/a the bipartisan agreement to address the debt crisis. According to an AP report on this, “A final Senate sign-off for the measure is virtually assured on Tuesday” and “If the bill were presented to the president, he would sign it.”

Sunday night, President Obama and congressional leaders announced this agreement that, according to another AP article, is a "dramatic resolution" that will "(lift) a cloud that had threatened the still-fragile economic recovery." In that same article, the President is quoted as saying, "(The deal) will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". One can only hope that he was looking in the mirror as he made that statement but I have to admit that the President hit the nail on the head about this being a "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". Sadly, it appears that, after putting the American public through this stressful time, our elected federal officials have only accomplished a continuation of "politics as usual". And, in my mind, it's just the sort of political outcome that's in Barack Obama's "wheelhouse" - i.e. Continuing to dangle "Hope" before the nation's people without delivering much in actual "Change".

What This Deal is Aimed to Deliver

Reportedly, this agreement is meant to cut federal spending by $2.2 trillion over the coming decade. Based on the 2011 Federal Budget, the U.S. government plans to spend $38.2 trillion over the next 10 years. While cutting that by $2.2 trillion doesn't seem very significant, that is this deal's overall "best case" scenario. Getting to the $2.2 trillion level requires the most optimistic outcome of sure-to-be highly contentious follow up work by a "super-committee" of legislators. However, the first phase of this proposed legislation will generate around $900 billion in spending cuts over the next decade, while allowing an immediate $900 billion increase in the government's ability to incur debt. So, the "best case" scenario for this deal's first phase actually means Zero change initially, followed by continuing and ever increasing deficit spending. And, the conservative objective to get Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment, which seemed within easy reach, has been abandoned.

Furthermore, the federal government's ability to borrow more money will now be authorized beyond the 2012 elections. This is being positioned as a relief to the American public, in not having to continue to live under the "cloud" of this "debt crisis", for now, but its true benefit is solely to President Obama, for his reelection aspirations.

Finally, it's being touted that Republicans have achieved a major goal in this agreement through avoiding tax increases. In fact, though, increased tax recommendations are likely to come from the follow up work of the bipartisan "super-committee".

Winners and Losers

As noted above, this "dramatic resolution" claims to result in a number of "Winners". You can, easily, judge those for yourself. However, some have pointed to the Tea Party, as a "Loser" in this deal and I want to address that.

As indicated by the title of this article, I see this "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America" as having produced "Much Heat" and "Little Light". Of course, I was hoping for much more in a real debt reduction plan. And, certainly, I'm deeply disappointed to see the loss of momentum towards a balanced budget amendment. However, the general focus of our federal lawmakers has been shifted from continuing ever-increasing spending to striving to learn to live within our means. That is an accomplishment that the Tea Party can proudly take credit for.

Courageously Achieving More

Although the above mentioned shift in the general focus of our federal lawmakers is in line with what voters were looking for in electing a new Congress last Fall, I had hoped those newly focused legislators would not accept this accomplishment as being enough. For many years now, our nation has been sinking in a morass of "politics as usual". The desire to get out of that quagmire was the driving force that brought the sitting Congress into power. More than anything else, the "dramatic resolution"' announced by President Obama and congressional leaders Sunday night, is "politics as usual". Since that is diametrically opposite of the primary impetus that brought these newly focused lawmakers into office, I was disappointed to see many of them (including Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who represents the congressional district where I live) support this deal.

Of course, I recognize that what I had hoped for is something that, as folks would say where I was raised in the Midwest, "says easy and does hard". Standing your ground when you’re being hit from all sides on the “debt crisis” with issues like its “cloud” continuing to hang over the American people, its threat to our economy, necessary levels of spending, appropriate levels of debt, its potential impact on Obama’s reelection, its prospective bearing on your own reelection, legitimate needs for taxes/revenues, its impact on job growth, the possibility of passing a balanced budget amendment, countless political pressures, etc.; makes this far from easy. In fact, just the opposite is true; it requires extremely hard work and great courage.

With that said, let me go on to say I understand that the courage required for me to express my views, hiding behind my keyboard, is nothing compared to what I'm asking of those legislators who came into office along with the momentum of the Tea Party. And though I’m disappointed with their not continuing to stand their ground to accomplish even more, that doesn’t mean I’m giving up on them. To the contrary, I’m very proud of the tremendously difficult work they have done and the immense courage they have displayed in doing it. I just want remind them that this is what we were looking for when we voted for them. And, I want to encourage them that the greater level of accomplishment I’d hoped for is, in fact, achievable. For me, the greatest indication of that came from Barack Obama, the antagonist in this episode of “politics as usual”, when he told Eric Cantor, “Don’t call my bluff.” To me, that clearly said, he was bluffing and that his bluff could have been called.

Next time, stand your ground and don’t miss a similar opportunity.

Comments

on Bluffing and Ideologues


Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 07:28.

0

+-Hi Gary, I don't believe the president was bluffing, he was merely misusing the language (again). What he meant was "Don't try me because I'm not bluffing". In my view this is because he is an ideologue; a true believer in his closely held (although repeatedly disproved) social and economic theories.



I believe that in his eyes, a failure in congress to act would have been acceptable...he would have done as the extreme progressive wing of his party has been demanding. He would have unilaterally taken the power to set the debt ceiling unto the executive branch, thereby making a complete mockery of congressional budgetary authority for the indefinite future.



To the masses, I believe he would have been able to justify this by making the case "he was the only adult in DC" and "it was in the urgent best interest of the country to act", and I believe that case would have been sufficient for many.



As far as these "cuts" are concerned, a "cut" of a trillion or two into a notional $9T of increases over a decade is another mortal insult to the English language, just on a semantics basis. Never mind the fact that none of those cuts, put off into the indefinite future, are going to happen until they are *again* forced. If our leadership couldn't do anything meaningful now, they are going to be worse than useless in the coming monetary crisis.



Cheers,

Mike

Fool we once, then fool me again


Submitted by Lynn Costello (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 14:32.

0

+-As we've seen from watching the President and democrats today, it is back to business as usual with "investments" in more government and of course an effort to make those millionaires, billionaires and owners of corporate jets pay their fair share. So much for compromise. We wake up realizing once again, we are suckers!

Millionaires & Billionaires


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-08-02 19:03.

0

+-Don't you just love knowing that, with the Liberals never-ending repitition of this talking point, there are actually many out there who must think that Conservatives get up every day asking themselves, "What can I do today to make life better for America's Millionaires & Billionaires?!"

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

What Does a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” Look Like? - Why the Answer is Critical for 2010/2012 -

On my Twitter Bio, I describe myself as “A Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. As you might expect, I’m often asked to provide my definition for that description. And, when I’m asked for this, it’s not uncommon for the inquiry to be accompanied by the question, “Is that like a 'Compassionate Conservative'?” … I get the impression that many don’t like that label due to its association with Bush 43.

Since I was referring to myself as a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” long before I heard GWB call himself a “Compassionate Conservative”, I’ve felt comfortable saying that my sense is that the two are substantially different. Otherwise, until lately, I haven’t felt especially moved to offer further definition of “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. However, when I was recently notified of a new Twitter Follower named Gina Bella (@ginabella) I was motivated to change my perspective on this. When I checked Gina’s Bio, to my surprise, I found that she also describes herself as a “bleeding heart conservative”. My immediate reaction was to think, “Hmmmmmmm. I guess we’re a movement. We should probably have a clear definition for our brand.”

As I began to seriously consider my meaning of “Bleeding –Heart Conservative”, I quickly realized that I don’t really fit my own definition. You see, when I think of “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, I’m thinking of the guy in the photo (President Reagan), comforting those grieving the loss of the Challenger Shuttle Crew. Although I like to point out similarities between myself and “The Gipper” – e.g., I, too, can say that I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me – I know I don’t measure up to the standard he set. Not many do. I guess, at best, I should call myself an “Aspiring Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, though I probably won’t make that change to my Twitter Bio due to their 140 character limit. Regardless, it struck me that, with Reagan as the standard, defining itself as the party of those aspiring to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” could be pivotal to the Republican Party in regaining its significance in American politics. With that in mind, I finally felt compelled to offer my definition.

As noted, I see Ronald Reagan as having set the standard for what it means to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. And, as I see it, the key components of that standard are:
  1. Focusing on what we stand for, not what we’re against. In other words, accentuating the positive. Remember, Reagan always saw us as striving to be “The Shining City on the Hill”. I don’t remember him ever being apologetic to anyone about us while blaming our condition on what he inherited from predecessors.
  2. Being absolutely clear about what we stand for. The C&W lyrics “You’ve got to stand for somethin’ or you’ll fall for anything” may seem corny but they carry great truth. Being wishy-washy is a surefire way to invite attack from those who oppose you, who are not well-meaning.
  3. Not forgetting Reagan’s “11th Commandment”. Simply stated, this is not speaking ill of your fellow Republican. The converse of that is just as true – i.e., Boldly, speaking well of your fellow Republican … even when their popularity is down in the polls. I can’t think of a better example here than the way Former VP Dick Cheney has been speaking out lately. Too many have shied away from him due to the way our last administration was inappropriately disrespected and far too few have spoken out in agreement with him, as he has been courageously shining the light of truth.
  4. Constructively engaging those who oppose us, who are well-meaning. Don’t confuse this with the current administration’s foolishness in offering to sit down with lunatics like Ahmadinejad. President Reagan clearly understood that there is evil in this world and he was unafraid of calling a spade a spade, in that regard. But, when sitting down to negotiate with foreign leaders; he first strove to connect with the fellow-human-being on the other side of the table. More importantly, when dealing with domestic political opponents, he started by showing complete respect for those across the aisle ... his fellow-Americans. Moreover, whether or not he was in general agreement with another person, he was willing to selflessly embrace and acknowledge any superior ideas they offered.
Certainly, there are other important aspects to being a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. Likewise, beyond defining itself as the party of those aspiring to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, there are other essentials to bear in mind, as the Republican Party works to recapture its influence. But, I can’t think of anything better suited to serve as our cornerstone, as we rebuild and prepare the party for the coming 2010 and 2012 campaigns.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Easter, The Ultimate Answer To, "What Would Jesus Do?"

Earlier this week, I had a really good discussion with a new friend. This new relationship seems to be one where we quickly recognized that we like each other regardless of our differing views on some pretty important topics. I say "really good discussion" because it was an open exchange with both of us genuinely interested in hearing the other's points of view and wanting to learn from that. Candidly, I have to give my friend more credit than I can take myself, in that regard. Although this "really good discussion" mostly involved the two forbidden topics typically warned against for peaceful relationships ... Politics and Religion ... I strongly suspect this was just the first "really good discussion" of many to come.

One of the results of this conversation was for me to be reminded that, while I'm clear in my understanding of my positions on the issues we discussed, I want to be able to clearly express my views to others. The question that was raised that confronted me with this most significantly was the question, "Do you believe there's only one way to Heaven?" Although I think my response to this was adequate, it seems to me that I should be prepared to offer more than an answer that's just OK to such an important question. In fact, in 1 Peter 3:15, the Bible compels Christians to do this, saying, "[be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you".

Expressing the "reason of the hope that is in (me)" is what I want to be better prepared to do but, before I delve into that, I should give you my initial answer to that question. My answer is:


I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. I,
also, believe that every person can have salvation through accepting Christ's sacrifice for their sin. And, I believe that salvation, through accepting Christ's sacrifice, is the one and only path to Heaven.

Since my friend didn't state his position on this question, I won't presume to give you his answer. I will say his question was accompanied with several related questions and comments that I took into account as I considered how to best express the "reason of the hope that is in (me)". One related question was, "Do you think Mother Teresa went to Heaven?" and one related comment was, "I make it a daily habit, when considering certain choices, to ask myself, What would Jesus do?" I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting here but, to me, this combination of questions and comments had certain implications. One was that while my friend has some high regard for Jesus, he doesn't necessarily accept Him as being the only way to Heaven. Another was that "good works"/"being a good person" should get you to Heaven.

So, in order to respond to this and more adequately express the "reason of the hope that is in (me)", the two questions to answer are:

  1. Who is Jesus?

  2. Can "good works" alone be a path to Heaven.
In my opinion, one of the best sources addressing Question #1 is the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. The one-liner I'll distill from this is that "Jesus was either Who He said He was or He was the greatest fraud in history". My friend's "high regard" for Jesus seems incongruent with Him being "the greatest fraud in history". That pretty much leaves that He must be Who He said He was. The Scripture references on this are numerous but Who He said He was, is God.

With that being the case, Question #2 is easier to address. Jesus, himself, answered it. As recorded in John 14:6, He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Although Scripture - e.g., James 2:20, makes it clear that good works are expected of Christians when it says, "faith without works is dead", according to Jesus, He alone is the way to Heaven. As to whether or not Mother Teresa went to Heaven, I don't know. Only God can look on our hearts. If Mother Teresa accepted Jesus' gracious gift of salvation, she did go to Heaven, where she heard the Lord tell her, "Well done good and faithful servant" and she's receiving the reward He stored up for her.

So, how then should I have offered a more adequate answer to my friend on this matter? Beyond what I've addressed up to now, I think the answer was contained in another comment he made ... "God is love". That's right! He loves us so much that He sent His Son out of Heaven, to live as a man, to die as horrible a death as can be imagined, to save us from our sin, to overcome death and sin and to return to Heaven saying, "I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, (there) ye may be also."

That was His ultimate answer to the question
"What would Jesus do?"

Monday, January 19, 2009

A Prayer In Baltimore

Although I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I do want his presidency to be successful. However, as the public celebratory events started on the weekend prior to Obama's inauguration, I have to admit that I wasn't drawn to join in the celebration. In fact, I found myself going into sort of an "auto-tune-out" mode. I suspect I'm not alone in this. However, I really do want to be supportive of the Obama administration where I can and I want to encourage others to do likewise so, while my reaction is probably pretty natural, I want to be on guard about it.

I guess this is just one of those situations that, growing up in Indiana, we would define as, "Says Easy but Does Hard." Thankfully, something broke through my "auto-tune-out" that I'm finding to be helpful on the "Does" part. It took place on the Saturday prior to the inauguration, as the Obama Train, making it's way to Washington, D.C., made a stop in Baltimore. Prior to Obama's introduction, to speak at Baltimore's War Memorial Plaza, Dr. Walter Scott Thomas, of Baltimore's New Psalmist Baptist Church, strode to the podium, to open the ceremony in prayer. I've only been able to find one link for a video of Dr. Thomas' prayer and its incomplete, but here are the highlights that caught my attention:

  • Dr. Thomas started by asking everyone to join hands.
  • He expressed his thanks to God for things we're all blessed with, as Americans.
  • He asked for God's blessing of, protection of and guidance of the incoming President.
  • He closed, "In the name of Your Son and our Savior."

"Faith & Family are my priorities." That's the statement I use, in beginning my Twitter Profile. Knowing that, offers understanding of why that prayer managed to break through my "auto-tune-out". Since my Twitter Profile goes on to describe me as "A Bleeding-Heart Conservative", that should, likewise, help provide understanding that I still wasn't drawn to join in the celebration. But it did help me gain perspective on how I can actually go about being "supportive of the Obama administration where I can". Surely, Obama had a hand in selecting Dr. Thomas to offer this opening-prayer. Just as there are many issues where I don't support Barack Obama, I might find that to be true of Dr. Thomas. But I support what Dr. Thomas lifted up in prayer and I support Barack Obama, in choosing Thomas for that role. I see this much the same as I did Obama's invitation to Pastor Rick Warren, to participate in the inauguration. That invitation and its acceptance, was criticized both from the Left and from the Right. Though I'm not a Rick Warren fan, per se, we're in fundamental agreement on doctrine so, I'm pleased to know that this will be a part of the inaugural ... especially considering the "Wright" choice that Obama might have made.

Though I do want to be "supportive of the Obama administration where I can" I'm not expecting to be found out in the public square in the near future singing Kumbaya with those who did vote for Obama. There are many issues where I'm in disagreement with our incoming President. None is more significant than our differences on abortion. When and if the Obama administration becomes proactive with their pro-abortion attitude, you can look for me to oppose that as strenuously as I know how. But, as a Conservative, I don't think we are doing our best for those who share our views or for our country, if opposition is all we put forward. I agree with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham when he speaks against "playing Gotcha Politics" (though I don't think challenging the Geithner appointment necessarily falls into that category).

My hope with this, in general, is much the same as what I've stated in earlier posts - e.g., America's 21st Century Civil War. In that posting, I stated that, "Unfortunately, our nation has drifted away from ... a quality that made us great in the first place. Some think of it as Yankee ingenuity. I say its a greater strength that comes from the synergy of the best of our differing ideas." That's a perspective I want to maintain. Hearing Dr. Thomas' Prayer in Baltimore has helped me to do that. Whether or not you share my views, I recommend taking time to check out the video link I've highlighted above and then give some added thought to how you, as an individual, can add to that "greater strength".