http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/party-of-strivers.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
I have much repect for David Brooks. However, his reading of the Republican Convention in Tampa is one I find quite off base. Here is a particular comment:
"But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There was certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions. "
I find this quite amazing. I think of the stories of Mitt Romney helping people who needed a hand up, and I am not sure how he can move this direction. Further, if Mr. Brooks would go back and read the speeches, he might ponder a quite different story. What I heard and read was a story of people who achieved great things, not on their own, but because of the model and inspiration of other people in their lives. Marco Rubio received inspiration from his father. The same was true of Mitt Romney. Susan Martinez received help from others to discover she was a Republican. True, the Republican Party is at this time the part that celebrates people striving for success in their lives, as they define success. What is the Democrat Party standing for? My reading of that party is that at this time, it celebrates dependence of everyone on the government.
He then goes on to say:
"57 percent of Republicans believe people are poor because they don’t work hard. Only 28 percent believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets out of the way, then people’s innate qualities will enable them to flourish."
There is probably some truth in this among many Republicans, but I disupute his reasoning. Too many people idealize and romantize poverty. To blame your circumstances on forces beyond your control is to become a victime of life, I think. One of the keyes to improvement of our personal lives is to accept responsibility and move on to making the character changes needed and the improvement of one's skill set in order to improve one's life. Frankly, one of the problems with federal government programs is that they are incapable of factoring in personal behavior as it considers the nature of the help one receives. I would urge the reader to reflect on what happens in the cycle of "persecutor, rescuer, victim" of Transactional Anlysis. To dismiss the role of personal behavior in contributing to personal circumstances does not treat the individual with the dignity and respect he or she deserves.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Overheard at Republican Convention
Republican Party Platform:
Jobs: Our vision of an opportunity society stands in stark contrast to the current Administration’s policies that expand entitlements and guarantees, create new public programs, and provide expensive government bailouts. That road has created a culture of dependency, bloated government, and massive debt. ... Excessive taxation and regulation impede economic development. Lowering taxes promotes substantial economic growth and reducing regulation encourages business formation and job creation. ... The best jobs program is economic growth. We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs. ... The tax system must be simplified. Government spending and regulation must be reined in. American companies must be more competitive in the world market, and we must be aggressive in promoting U.S. products abroad and securing open markets for them. A federal-State-private partnership must invest in the nation’s infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, ports, and water systems, among others. Federal training programs have to be overhauled and made relevant for the workplace of the twenty-first century. Potential employers need certainty and predictability for their hiring decisions, and the team of a Republican President and Congress will create the confidence that will get Americans back to work. ... We will reform the tax code to allow businesses to generate enough capital to grow and create jobs for our families, friends and neighbors all across America. We will encourage investments in small businesses. We will create an environment where adequate financing and credit are available to spur manufacturing and expansion. We will serve as aggressive advocates for small businesses. ...
On taxes:
Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s freedom. Their proper role in a free society should be to fund services that are essential and authorized by the Constitution, such as national security, and the care of those who cannot care for themselves. We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs, or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations. Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair. ... American businesses now face the world’s highest corporate tax rate. It reduces their worldwide competitiveness, encourages corporations to move overseas, lessens investment, cripples job creation, lowers U.S. wages, and fosters the avoidance of tax liability-without actually increasing tax revenues. To level the international playing field, and to spur job creation here at home, we call for a reduction of the corporate rate to keep U.S. corporations competitive internationally, with a permanent research and development tax credit, and a repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. ...
Budget:
Over the last three and a half years, while cutting the defense budget, the current Administration has added an additional $5.3 trillion to the national debt-now approximately $16 trillion, the largest amount in U.S. history. In fiscal year 2011, spending reached $3.6 trillion, nearly a quarter of our gross domestic product.
We are the party of the Constitution, the solemn compact which confirms our God-given individual rights and assures that all Americans stand equal before the law. Perhaps the greatest political document ever written, it defines the purposes and limits of government and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the U.S. the world’s freest, most stable, and most prosperous nation. Its Constitutional ideals have been emulated around the world, and with them has come unprecedented prosperity for billions of people.
Balancing the budget: Cutting spending is not enough; it must be accompanied by major structural reforms, increased productivity, use of technology, and long-term government downsizing that both reduce debt and deficits and ignite economic growth. We must restructure the twentieth century entitlement state so the missions of important programs can succeed in the twenty-first century. - I like this, a lot. ... - It supports passage of the balanced budget amendment.
It encourages responsibly management of the money supply.
It points to the federal govenrment as the cause of the housing crisis. - I agree fully.
It promotes infrastructure strengthening.
It has a plan for expanding trade.
It speaks to a highly trained work force and how to get there.
In the spirit of the Constitution, we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral. ... In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Merit, ability, aptitude, and results should be the factors that determine advancement in our society. The Republican Party includes Americans from every faith and tradition, and our policies and positions respect the right of every American to follow his or her beliefs and underscore our reverence for the religious freedom envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our nation and of our party. - I like this ... a lot. I am not sure who would not.
On marriage: A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. It refers to the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. - What I think is important here is that such matters need to be decided by the states, not by unelected judges. The political process needs to be allowed to work. It does not say that states cannot act to recognize same-sex marriage, but that they have the right not to do so. Further, I think the separation of man/woman marriage relationships and the civil union of same gender relationships is a good one to make legally.
A balanced budget amendment will not solve everything, but it might do what the state govenrments have to do, balance their budgets.
I like the notion of restoring federalism to our political culture, thereby taking the tenth amendment seriously by returning responsibility to the states, localities, and the people.
It affirms the electoral college. So do I.
It wants to ensure honest elections. - Who is against that?
It affirms first amendment rights to religious freedom, focusing on the threat to such freedom through federal programs related to health care services, traditional views of marriage, and abortion. - I fully agree.
It affirms first amendment rights to speech, and thus remove McCain-Feingold from the law.
It affirms the second amendment. - I like this, even though I do not own a gun.
It affirms the fourth amendment applying it aerial surveillance concerns. - Anyone disagree?
It affirms the ninth amendment, which makes it clear that the people have rights not enumerated in the constitution.
Concerning abortion: Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. - It goes on to support a human life amendment and oppose public funding of abortion. It wants to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. - I am not sure what to disagree with here, unless you are simply for unrestricted right to abortion. Is it my age? I think respect for life and development of responsible sexual behavior is a better direction.
It encourages respect for the flag and the pledge of allegiance. - I suppose I value our culture enough to support this, understanding that symbols are important in any community.
It calls for respect of American sovereignty in the courts.
Concerning Natural Resources:
We are the party of sustainable jobs and economic growth – through American energy, agriculture, and environmental policy. We are also the party of America’s growers and producers, farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, and all those who bring from the earth the minerals and energy that are the lifeblood of our nation’s historically strong economy. We are as well the party of traditional conservation: the wise development of resources that keeps in mind both the sacrifices of past generations to secure that bounty and our responsibility to preserve it for future generations. - Although both parties affirm "all of the above," the Republican Party means it. It supports conservation and wants to rein in the EPA. All good, in my opinion.
On reforming govenrment:
We are the party of government reform. At a time when the federal government has become bloated, antiquated and unresponsive to taxpayers, it is our intention not only to improve management and provide better services, but also to rethink and restructure government to bring it into the twenty-first century. Government reform requires constant vigilance and effort because government by its nature tends to expand in both size and scope. Our goal is not just less spending in Washington but something far more important for the future of our nation: protecting the constitutional rights of citizens, sustainable prosperity, and strengthening the American family.... For much of the last century, an opposing view has dominated public policy where we have witnessed the expansion, centralization, and bureaucracy in an entitlement society. Government has lumbered on, stifling innovation, with no incentive for fundamental change, through antiquated programs begun generations ago and now ill-suited to present needs and future requirements. As a result, today’s taxpayers – and future generations – face massive indebtedness, while Congressional Democrats and the current Administration block every attempt to turn things around. This man-made log-jam – the so-called stalemate in Washington – particularly affects the government’s three largest programs, which have become central to the lives of untold millions of Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Concerning Medicare and Medicade: The first step is to move the two programs away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model. On public pension: The situation of public pension systems demands immediate remedial action. The irresponsible promises of politicians at every level of government have come back to haunt today’s taxpayers with enormous unfunded pension liabilities. Concerning Regulation: Many regulations are necessary, like those which ensure the safety of food and medicine, especially from overseas. But no peril justifies the regulatory impact of Obamacare on the practice of medicine, the Dodd-Frank Act on financial services, or the EPA’s and OSHA’s overreaching regulation agenda.
On immigration: Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of our national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world. Illegal immigration undermines those benefits and affects U.S. workers. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified persons in this country poses grave risks to the safety and the sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, is to secure the rule of law both at our borders and at ports of entry. ... Based on both treaty and other law, the federal government has a unique government-to-government relationship with and trust responsibility for Indian Tribal Governments and American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Concerning Family:
We are the party of independent individuals and the institutions they create – families, schools, congregations, neighborhoods – to advance their ideals and make real their dreams. Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of our society and the first level of self-government. Its daily lessons-cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance – are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Government can never replace the family. That is why we insist that public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, be formulated with attention to the needs and strengths of the family. - It favors traditional marriage, adoption, raising families above poverty, repealling Obamacare, and make their own proposals for health care reform.
American Exceptionalism:
We are the party of peace through strength. Professing American exceptionalism – the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history – we proudly associate ourselves with those Americans of all political stripes who, more than three decades ago in a world as dangerous as today’s, came together to advance the cause of freedom. Repudiating the folly of an amateur foreign policy and defying a worldwide Marxist advance, they announced their strategy in the timeless slogan we repeat today: peace through strength – an enduring peace based on freedom and the will to defend it, and American democratic values and the will to promote them. While the twentieth century was undeniably an American century – with strong leadership, adherence to the principles of freedom and democracy our Founders’ enshrined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and a continued reliance on Divine Providence – the twenty-first century will be one of American greatness as well. - It goes on to offer its prescriptions for each area of the world, as well as issues like human trafficking.
"The essence of America – that which really unites us — is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea — and what an idea it is: That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things. That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going." - Condeleezza Rice
"And on a personal note– a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America - her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State. Yes, America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. But of course it has never been inevitable – it has taken leadership, courage and an unwavering faith in our values." - Condeleezza Rice
It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that's left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that is already past, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday's wind. ... He said his job is to, quote, "tell a story to the American people," as if that's the whole problem here? He needs to talk more and we need to be better listeners? Ladies and gentlemen, these past four years we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House. What is missing is leadership in the White House! - Paul Ryan
I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power. They've run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division is all they've got left. With all their attack ads, the president is just throwing away money. And he's pretty experienced at that. - Paul Ryan
Our opponents can consider themselves on notice. In this election, on this issue, the usual posturing on the Left isn’t going to work. Mitt Romney and I know the difference between protecting a program, and raiding it. Ladies and gentlemen, our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate. - Paul Ryan
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life." - Paul Ryan
President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about "change," many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, "I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years." That's what he said he in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. - Within five minutes, the Media was on a mission to try to prove that Paul Ryan had lied. They got their fact-checkers up and in gear, and, lo and behold! They put out stories themselves filled with misleading data, in order to make the point that Paul Ryan lied. Obama didn't shut down that factory. Ryan was right, and even CNN's fact-checkers grudgingly admitted it at the end of the day. According to National Review, https://www.quibids.com/en/landing/index.php?c=us&mb=ss&lp=108&sub=150 The plants are on “standby,” and some would dispute whether that means the factory is “lost.” But the bottom line is that people aren’t working there (other than whatever skeleton crew is sweeping the floors and maintaining the facility), they aren’t collecting pay, and they are “locked up and empty”: “Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down.” As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported in September of last year — long before Ryan got added to the ticket — the Janesville plant got shut down in 2009, after being notified of their pending closure in December 2008:
None of us should have to settle for the best this administration offers: a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us. It's the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin or at college in Ohio. I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey, where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners. - Paul Ryan
"I trust Mitt Romney to know that good can triumph over evil, that justice can vanquish tyranny, that love can conquer hate, that the desire for freedom is eternal and universal, and that America is still the best hope of mankind." - John McCain
Mitt Romney has given over 16% of his income to his church and charity, and I'd feel better about having a leader who gives more of his own money instead of mine. - Mike Huckabee
Ted and Pat OPAROWSKI: (Romney helped her and her family when her son was dying.) Together, they made David's will. That is a task that no child should ever have to do. But it gave David peace of mind. So, after David's death, we were able to give his skateboard, his model rockets, and his fishing gear to his best friends. How many men do you know who would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14-year-old and help him settle his affairs? David also helped us plan his funeral. He wanted to be buried in his Boy Scout uniform. He wanted Mitt to pronounce his eulogy, and Mitt was there to honor that request. We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern.
EASTWOOD: We own this country.
CONVENTION: (cheers and applause)
EASTWOOD: We own it. And it's not you owning it and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours, and
CONVENTION: (cheers and applause)
EASTWOOD: So they're just gonna come around and beg for votes every few years. It's the same old deal. But I just think that it's important that you realize that you're the best in the world, whether you're Democrat or whether you're a Republican or whether you're libertarian or whatever. You're the best, and we should not ever forget that, and when somebody does not do the job, we gotta let 'em go.
CONVENTION: (cheers and applause)
RUBIO: Our problem is not that he's a bad person. Our problem is that he's a bad president.
RUBIO: These are tired and old big government ideas that have failed every time and everywhere they've been tried. These are ideas that people come to America to get away from!
RUBIO: Now...
RUBIO: ... sadly, millions of Americans are insecure about their future. But instead of inspiring us --
RUBIO: -- by reminding us of what makes us special --
RUBIO: -- he divides us against each other.
RUBIO: He tells Americans that they're worse off because others are better off.
RUBIO: That rich people got rich by making other people poor. "Hope and change" has become "divide and conquer."
CONVENTION: (wild cheers and applause)
My dad used to tell us, "En este pais ustedes van a poder lograr todas las cosas que nosotros no pudimos." "In this country, you're gonna be able to accomplish all the things we never could." A few years ago during a speech, I noticed the bartender behind a portable bar in the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father who worked for many years as a banquet bartender. He was grateful for the work he had. But that's not the life he wanted for us. You see, he stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room. - Marco Rubio
Mitt Romney
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans (laughter) and to heal the planet. (laughter) My promise is to help you and your family. (cheers and applause) I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began his presidency with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No, Mr. President. America has freed other nations from dictators. (cheers and applause)
The soles of Neil Armstrong's boots on the moon made permanent impressions on our souls. Ann and I watched those steps together on her parents' sofa. Like all Americans, we went to bed that night knowing we lived in the greatest country in the history of the world. Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon, and I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us -- that unique blend of optimism, humility, and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.
Republican Party Platform:
Jobs: Our vision of an opportunity society stands in stark contrast to the current Administration’s policies that expand entitlements and guarantees, create new public programs, and provide expensive government bailouts. That road has created a culture of dependency, bloated government, and massive debt. ... Excessive taxation and regulation impede economic development. Lowering taxes promotes substantial economic growth and reducing regulation encourages business formation and job creation. ... The best jobs program is economic growth. We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs. ... The tax system must be simplified. Government spending and regulation must be reined in. American companies must be more competitive in the world market, and we must be aggressive in promoting U.S. products abroad and securing open markets for them. A federal-State-private partnership must invest in the nation’s infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, ports, and water systems, among others. Federal training programs have to be overhauled and made relevant for the workplace of the twenty-first century. Potential employers need certainty and predictability for their hiring decisions, and the team of a Republican President and Congress will create the confidence that will get Americans back to work. ... We will reform the tax code to allow businesses to generate enough capital to grow and create jobs for our families, friends and neighbors all across America. We will encourage investments in small businesses. We will create an environment where adequate financing and credit are available to spur manufacturing and expansion. We will serve as aggressive advocates for small businesses. ...
On taxes:
Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s freedom. Their proper role in a free society should be to fund services that are essential and authorized by the Constitution, such as national security, and the care of those who cannot care for themselves. We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs, or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations. Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair. ... American businesses now face the world’s highest corporate tax rate. It reduces their worldwide competitiveness, encourages corporations to move overseas, lessens investment, cripples job creation, lowers U.S. wages, and fosters the avoidance of tax liability-without actually increasing tax revenues. To level the international playing field, and to spur job creation here at home, we call for a reduction of the corporate rate to keep U.S. corporations competitive internationally, with a permanent research and development tax credit, and a repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. ...
Budget:
Over the last three and a half years, while cutting the defense budget, the current Administration has added an additional $5.3 trillion to the national debt-now approximately $16 trillion, the largest amount in U.S. history. In fiscal year 2011, spending reached $3.6 trillion, nearly a quarter of our gross domestic product.
We are the party of the Constitution, the solemn compact which confirms our God-given individual rights and assures that all Americans stand equal before the law. Perhaps the greatest political document ever written, it defines the purposes and limits of government and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the U.S. the world’s freest, most stable, and most prosperous nation. Its Constitutional ideals have been emulated around the world, and with them has come unprecedented prosperity for billions of people.
Balancing the budget: Cutting spending is not enough; it must be accompanied by major structural reforms, increased productivity, use of technology, and long-term government downsizing that both reduce debt and deficits and ignite economic growth. We must restructure the twentieth century entitlement state so the missions of important programs can succeed in the twenty-first century. - I like this, a lot. ... - It supports passage of the balanced budget amendment.
It encourages responsibly management of the money supply.
It points to the federal govenrment as the cause of the housing crisis. - I agree fully.
It promotes infrastructure strengthening.
It has a plan for expanding trade.
It speaks to a highly trained work force and how to get there.
In the spirit of the Constitution, we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral. ... In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Merit, ability, aptitude, and results should be the factors that determine advancement in our society. The Republican Party includes Americans from every faith and tradition, and our policies and positions respect the right of every American to follow his or her beliefs and underscore our reverence for the religious freedom envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our nation and of our party. - I like this ... a lot. I am not sure who would not.
On marriage: A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. It refers to the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. - What I think is important here is that such matters need to be decided by the states, not by unelected judges. The political process needs to be allowed to work. It does not say that states cannot act to recognize same-sex marriage, but that they have the right not to do so. Further, I think the separation of man/woman marriage relationships and the civil union of same gender relationships is a good one to make legally.
A balanced budget amendment will not solve everything, but it might do what the state govenrments have to do, balance their budgets.
I like the notion of restoring federalism to our political culture, thereby taking the tenth amendment seriously by returning responsibility to the states, localities, and the people.
It affirms the electoral college. So do I.
It wants to ensure honest elections. - Who is against that?
It affirms first amendment rights to religious freedom, focusing on the threat to such freedom through federal programs related to health care services, traditional views of marriage, and abortion. - I fully agree.
It affirms first amendment rights to speech, and thus remove McCain-Feingold from the law.
It affirms the second amendment. - I like this, even though I do not own a gun.
It affirms the fourth amendment applying it aerial surveillance concerns. - Anyone disagree?
It affirms the ninth amendment, which makes it clear that the people have rights not enumerated in the constitution.
Concerning abortion: Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. - It goes on to support a human life amendment and oppose public funding of abortion. It wants to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. - I am not sure what to disagree with here, unless you are simply for unrestricted right to abortion. Is it my age? I think respect for life and development of responsible sexual behavior is a better direction.
It encourages respect for the flag and the pledge of allegiance. - I suppose I value our culture enough to support this, understanding that symbols are important in any community.
It calls for respect of American sovereignty in the courts.
Concerning Natural Resources:
We are the party of sustainable jobs and economic growth – through American energy, agriculture, and environmental policy. We are also the party of America’s growers and producers, farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, and all those who bring from the earth the minerals and energy that are the lifeblood of our nation’s historically strong economy. We are as well the party of traditional conservation: the wise development of resources that keeps in mind both the sacrifices of past generations to secure that bounty and our responsibility to preserve it for future generations. - Although both parties affirm "all of the above," the Republican Party means it. It supports conservation and wants to rein in the EPA. All good, in my opinion.
On reforming govenrment:
We are the party of government reform. At a time when the federal government has become bloated, antiquated and unresponsive to taxpayers, it is our intention not only to improve management and provide better services, but also to rethink and restructure government to bring it into the twenty-first century. Government reform requires constant vigilance and effort because government by its nature tends to expand in both size and scope. Our goal is not just less spending in Washington but something far more important for the future of our nation: protecting the constitutional rights of citizens, sustainable prosperity, and strengthening the American family.... For much of the last century, an opposing view has dominated public policy where we have witnessed the expansion, centralization, and bureaucracy in an entitlement society. Government has lumbered on, stifling innovation, with no incentive for fundamental change, through antiquated programs begun generations ago and now ill-suited to present needs and future requirements. As a result, today’s taxpayers – and future generations – face massive indebtedness, while Congressional Democrats and the current Administration block every attempt to turn things around. This man-made log-jam – the so-called stalemate in Washington – particularly affects the government’s three largest programs, which have become central to the lives of untold millions of Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Concerning Medicare and Medicade: The first step is to move the two programs away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model. On public pension: The situation of public pension systems demands immediate remedial action. The irresponsible promises of politicians at every level of government have come back to haunt today’s taxpayers with enormous unfunded pension liabilities. Concerning Regulation: Many regulations are necessary, like those which ensure the safety of food and medicine, especially from overseas. But no peril justifies the regulatory impact of Obamacare on the practice of medicine, the Dodd-Frank Act on financial services, or the EPA’s and OSHA’s overreaching regulation agenda.
On immigration: Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of our national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world. Illegal immigration undermines those benefits and affects U.S. workers. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified persons in this country poses grave risks to the safety and the sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, is to secure the rule of law both at our borders and at ports of entry. ... Based on both treaty and other law, the federal government has a unique government-to-government relationship with and trust responsibility for Indian Tribal Governments and American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Concerning Family:
We are the party of independent individuals and the institutions they create – families, schools, congregations, neighborhoods – to advance their ideals and make real their dreams. Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of our society and the first level of self-government. Its daily lessons-cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance – are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Government can never replace the family. That is why we insist that public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, be formulated with attention to the needs and strengths of the family. - It favors traditional marriage, adoption, raising families above poverty, repealling Obamacare, and make their own proposals for health care reform.
American Exceptionalism:
We are the party of peace through strength. Professing American exceptionalism – the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history – we proudly associate ourselves with those Americans of all political stripes who, more than three decades ago in a world as dangerous as today’s, came together to advance the cause of freedom. Repudiating the folly of an amateur foreign policy and defying a worldwide Marxist advance, they announced their strategy in the timeless slogan we repeat today: peace through strength – an enduring peace based on freedom and the will to defend it, and American democratic values and the will to promote them. While the twentieth century was undeniably an American century – with strong leadership, adherence to the principles of freedom and democracy our Founders’ enshrined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and a continued reliance on Divine Providence – the twenty-first century will be one of American greatness as well. - It goes on to offer its prescriptions for each area of the world, as well as issues like human trafficking.
"The essence of America – that which really unites us — is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea — and what an idea it is: That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things. That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going." - Condeleezza Rice
"And on a personal note– a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America - her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State. Yes, America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. But of course it has never been inevitable – it has taken leadership, courage and an unwavering faith in our values." - Condeleezza Rice
It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that's left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that is already past, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday's wind. ... He said his job is to, quote, "tell a story to the American people," as if that's the whole problem here? He needs to talk more and we need to be better listeners? Ladies and gentlemen, these past four years we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House. What is missing is leadership in the White House! - Paul Ryan
I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power. They've run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division is all they've got left. With all their attack ads, the president is just throwing away money. And he's pretty experienced at that. - Paul Ryan
Our opponents can consider themselves on notice. In this election, on this issue, the usual posturing on the Left isn’t going to work. Mitt Romney and I know the difference between protecting a program, and raiding it. Ladies and gentlemen, our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate. - Paul Ryan
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life." - Paul Ryan
President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about "change," many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, "I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years." That's what he said he in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. - Within five minutes, the Media was on a mission to try to prove that Paul Ryan had lied. They got their fact-checkers up and in gear, and, lo and behold! They put out stories themselves filled with misleading data, in order to make the point that Paul Ryan lied. Obama didn't shut down that factory. Ryan was right, and even CNN's fact-checkers grudgingly admitted it at the end of the day. According to National Review, https://www.quibids.com/en/landing/index.php?c=us&mb=ss&lp=108&sub=150 The plants are on “standby,” and some would dispute whether that means the factory is “lost.” But the bottom line is that people aren’t working there (other than whatever skeleton crew is sweeping the floors and maintaining the facility), they aren’t collecting pay, and they are “locked up and empty”: “Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down.” As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported in September of last year — long before Ryan got added to the ticket — the Janesville plant got shut down in 2009, after being notified of their pending closure in December 2008:
General Motors Co. has committed to reopen its idled plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., and keep its shuttered assembly plant in Janesville on standby status.
The commitment to the former Saturn plant in Tennessee was part of a contract settlement reached late last week between GM and the United Auto Workers union.
Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down. …
The Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.
Remaining on standby means not much has changed in Janesville. Community leaders say they would be ready if the GM plant reopened, but no one seems to be counting on that.
None of us should have to settle for the best this administration offers: a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us. It's the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin or at college in Ohio. I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey, where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners. - Paul Ryan
"I trust Mitt Romney to know that good can triumph over evil, that justice can vanquish tyranny, that love can conquer hate, that the desire for freedom is eternal and universal, and that America is still the best hope of mankind." - John McCain
Mitt Romney has given over 16% of his income to his church and charity, and I'd feel better about having a leader who gives more of his own money instead of mine. - Mike Huckabee
Ted and Pat OPAROWSKI: (Romney helped her and her family when her son was dying.) Together, they made David's will. That is a task that no child should ever have to do. But it gave David peace of mind. So, after David's death, we were able to give his skateboard, his model rockets, and his fishing gear to his best friends. How many men do you know who would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14-year-old and help him settle his affairs? David also helped us plan his funeral. He wanted to be buried in his Boy Scout uniform. He wanted Mitt to pronounce his eulogy, and Mitt was there to honor that request. We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern.
EASTWOOD: We own this country.
CONVENTION: (cheers and applause)
EASTWOOD: We own it. And it's not you owning it and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours, and
CONVENTION: (cheers and applause)
EASTWOOD: So they're just gonna come around and beg for votes every few years. It's the same old deal. But I just think that it's important that you realize that you're the best in the world, whether you're Democrat or whether you're a Republican or whether you're libertarian or whatever. You're the best, and we should not ever forget that, and when somebody does not do the job, we gotta let 'em go.
CONVENTION: (cheers and applause)
RUBIO: Our problem is not that he's a bad person. Our problem is that he's a bad president.
RUBIO: These are tired and old big government ideas that have failed every time and everywhere they've been tried. These are ideas that people come to America to get away from!
RUBIO: Now...
RUBIO: ... sadly, millions of Americans are insecure about their future. But instead of inspiring us --
RUBIO: -- by reminding us of what makes us special --
RUBIO: -- he divides us against each other.
RUBIO: He tells Americans that they're worse off because others are better off.
RUBIO: That rich people got rich by making other people poor. "Hope and change" has become "divide and conquer."
CONVENTION: (wild cheers and applause)
My dad used to tell us, "En este pais ustedes van a poder lograr todas las cosas que nosotros no pudimos." "In this country, you're gonna be able to accomplish all the things we never could." A few years ago during a speech, I noticed the bartender behind a portable bar in the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father who worked for many years as a banquet bartender. He was grateful for the work he had. But that's not the life he wanted for us. You see, he stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room. - Marco Rubio
Mitt Romney
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans (laughter) and to heal the planet. (laughter) My promise is to help you and your family. (cheers and applause) I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began his presidency with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No, Mr. President. America has freed other nations from dictators. (cheers and applause)
The soles of Neil Armstrong's boots on the moon made permanent impressions on our souls. Ann and I watched those steps together on her parents' sofa. Like all Americans, we went to bed that night knowing we lived in the greatest country in the history of the world. Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon, and I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us -- that unique blend of optimism, humility, and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
On Blaming
People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t
believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the
people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they
can’t find them, make them.” – George Bernard Shaw "Mrs. Warren's Profession" (1893) act II
Respectful Public Discourse and Franky Schaeffer
“We have a Republican ticket with probably the most brutal far right
economic policy, coming from the same man who’s got the most anti-woman
policy.” He claimed Ryan is “a real extremist … a person who is brutal
toward women and equally brutal to the poor.” Even more hyperbolic, he
stated “women are second class citizens in his world, as are the poor.”
Merriam Webster defines the word “brutal” as “grossly ruthless or unfeeling,” or “cruel, cold-blooded.” Schaeffer may disagree sharply with Ryan, but is it appropriate to call him “brutal?”
Schaeffer alleged that Ryan “does not believe in the rights of all human beings,” and “he holds up only one part of Roman Catholic teaching faithfully and has dismissed the rest of it on the basis of being an Ayn Rand disciple, not a disciple of Jesus Christ.” He said Ryan would “attack programs for the poor that are the safety net that keep people from a miserable fate, defund Medicare … and attack Social Security.”
Speculating about the chance of Ryan making it to the White House, he said if Americans knew of “Ryan’s anti-woman, war on women record when it comes to abortion, contraceptives, towing the Vatican line to the extreme,” then there would be no chance of he and Romney’s election. He further accused Ryan of having a “preoccupation with other people’s sexuality … [and] is the only part of Roman Catholic teaching which has actually transferred into Ryan’s agenda. The rest of it, when it comes to compassion for the poor, serving others, following Jesus Christ when it comes to the view of wealth as opposed to sharing, in those areas he’s totally departed and … is a disciple of Ayn Rand.”
Respect for human life is not about oppressing women. It involves raising a legitimate concern for the value of human life before both men and women, as well as concerns for our sexual morality and practice. Free market economics is about the practical means for expanding the wealth of a country so that all persons benefit. It has nothing to do with oppressing the poor, regardless of what Franky Schaeffer, Obama, or Marx say about the topic. True, the Roman Catholic Church, like the Mainline Protestant denominations, have promoted liberal and progressive political causes for a long time, but especially since the depression. This does not mean that every pastor or parishoner needs to tow the line.
When it comes to Ryan and Rand, I would only say that the interest most people have in Rand is not in her philosophy generally (conservatives will read Locke, Smith, Burke, and Friedman for this) but in her polemical points regarding collectivism and individualism.
The only point in this brief comment is that Christians can engage in this public debate without assigning sinister motivations to your opponents. However, this seems to be what passes for public debate today.
Merriam Webster defines the word “brutal” as “grossly ruthless or unfeeling,” or “cruel, cold-blooded.” Schaeffer may disagree sharply with Ryan, but is it appropriate to call him “brutal?”
Schaeffer alleged that Ryan “does not believe in the rights of all human beings,” and “he holds up only one part of Roman Catholic teaching faithfully and has dismissed the rest of it on the basis of being an Ayn Rand disciple, not a disciple of Jesus Christ.” He said Ryan would “attack programs for the poor that are the safety net that keep people from a miserable fate, defund Medicare … and attack Social Security.”
Speculating about the chance of Ryan making it to the White House, he said if Americans knew of “Ryan’s anti-woman, war on women record when it comes to abortion, contraceptives, towing the Vatican line to the extreme,” then there would be no chance of he and Romney’s election. He further accused Ryan of having a “preoccupation with other people’s sexuality … [and] is the only part of Roman Catholic teaching which has actually transferred into Ryan’s agenda. The rest of it, when it comes to compassion for the poor, serving others, following Jesus Christ when it comes to the view of wealth as opposed to sharing, in those areas he’s totally departed and … is a disciple of Ayn Rand.”
Respect for human life is not about oppressing women. It involves raising a legitimate concern for the value of human life before both men and women, as well as concerns for our sexual morality and practice. Free market economics is about the practical means for expanding the wealth of a country so that all persons benefit. It has nothing to do with oppressing the poor, regardless of what Franky Schaeffer, Obama, or Marx say about the topic. True, the Roman Catholic Church, like the Mainline Protestant denominations, have promoted liberal and progressive political causes for a long time, but especially since the depression. This does not mean that every pastor or parishoner needs to tow the line.
When it comes to Ryan and Rand, I would only say that the interest most people have in Rand is not in her philosophy generally (conservatives will read Locke, Smith, Burke, and Friedman for this) but in her polemical points regarding collectivism and individualism.
The only point in this brief comment is that Christians can engage in this public debate without assigning sinister motivations to your opponents. However, this seems to be what passes for public debate today.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Ayn Rand Comments
Paul Ryan, on the influence of Ayn Rand, said at the Atlas Society, the official
name of the Ayn Rand fan club, back in 2005:
"I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
And what's more,
"the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."
Laura Hollis invites us to reflect on Ayn Rand in the following way.
Neither Rand's stilted delivery, nor her deep-seated sexual pathologies, nor even her mischaracterization of Christianity takes away from some essential truths that she identifies and catalogs in her novels, with some powerful success. One must remember that she fled the Soviet Union, having seen firsthand and suffered through the privations and depravities thrust upon the population by the ideologues who controlled it - slavish adherents of collectivism. She knew that at its core, this was a completely renunciation of any value of the individual, except as a part of the state.
Rand celebrated selfish individualism as a reaction against collectivism in all its forms and the widespread misery and destruction of life it caused, not only in the Soviet Union, but in Communist China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia - all of which she lived to see, and all of which only served to reinforce her perspective. Given the starvation, political persecution, imprisonment, and death that Communism has brought everywhere it was implemented, one can hardly blame her.
Rand resonates with people now because she sounded the clarion call against all collectivist philosophies which would subordinate the individual to the state, and which - of necessity - denounce individual achievement and accomplishment as "greedy," or "selfish" as justification for doing so. The United States is the most prosperous country in the history of the world, and Americans are the most generous when viewed by any standard of philanthropy: the donation of money or time, or the creation of foundations and other charitable organizations. And yet, with each passing day we hear the steady drumbeat of denunciations of all business as "greedy," "exploitative," "corrupt." Regrettably, the fountainhead ( yes ) of this viewpoint is the president of the United States whose views about business are well- known to anyone who has bothered to read his works or (more importantly) the works of those who inspired him. This reached its recent apotheosis in the president's statement in Roanoke, Virginia last month: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
For those of us who know how businesses are *really* built, and who entrepreneurs *really" are – and Rep. Paul Ryan is among them -- this is not only the consummate insult, but a statement of staggering ignorance. We now live in a Bizarro-world society where certain social scientists and politicians would have us believe that huge swaths of the population cannot be held responsible for their own poor choices, but those of us who do not make those choices are at fault and will be forced to pay for them, not as charity, but by claim of right. Taxation is no longer cast as the contributions which are made to support civil society, but as reparations for blame. And yet, ironically, those among us who devote their lives and everything they own to building successful businesses that provide employment for millions of people, as well as goods and services that have created the highest standard of living in the history of the planet are not responsible for the fruits of their own work, but faceless strangers who never donated a dime or lift a finger to build those businesses are given the credit.
Rand is celebrated not because she was a great writer, but because she understood human nature and its relationship to political power. She understood that humans who celebrate government as God eventually act as if they have God's power. Her reaction was to reject the idea of God altogether. But many of us who believe in God have no difficulty separating her decision from our own. We simply acknowledge that no human is God and no human institution will deliver utopia. We study history and realize that a government which downplays or demonizes individual achievement, and excuses and subsidizes human failings under the guise of calling for higher and higher taxes will eventually be filled with a population which achieves little and expects much - all to be paid for on the backs of the shrinking numbers of people who still seek to accomplish something. Furthermore, it will be a system where power is held not at the level of individuals, families, communities - where it is most responsive, most diffused and least dangerous - but in the hands of a few whose primary contributions to society are their powers to take from some and distribute to others. At best, it is a system designed for financial collapse. At worst, it is a pathway to societal collapse.
Either way, we do not want it. And those of us who find value in Ayn Rand’s works understand that for all her faults, Rand foresaw it.
"I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
And what's more,
"the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."
Laura Hollis invites us to reflect on Ayn Rand in the following way.
Neither Rand's stilted delivery, nor her deep-seated sexual pathologies, nor even her mischaracterization of Christianity takes away from some essential truths that she identifies and catalogs in her novels, with some powerful success. One must remember that she fled the Soviet Union, having seen firsthand and suffered through the privations and depravities thrust upon the population by the ideologues who controlled it - slavish adherents of collectivism. She knew that at its core, this was a completely renunciation of any value of the individual, except as a part of the state.
Rand celebrated selfish individualism as a reaction against collectivism in all its forms and the widespread misery and destruction of life it caused, not only in the Soviet Union, but in Communist China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia - all of which she lived to see, and all of which only served to reinforce her perspective. Given the starvation, political persecution, imprisonment, and death that Communism has brought everywhere it was implemented, one can hardly blame her.
Rand resonates with people now because she sounded the clarion call against all collectivist philosophies which would subordinate the individual to the state, and which - of necessity - denounce individual achievement and accomplishment as "greedy," or "selfish" as justification for doing so. The United States is the most prosperous country in the history of the world, and Americans are the most generous when viewed by any standard of philanthropy: the donation of money or time, or the creation of foundations and other charitable organizations. And yet, with each passing day we hear the steady drumbeat of denunciations of all business as "greedy," "exploitative," "corrupt." Regrettably, the fountainhead ( yes ) of this viewpoint is the president of the United States whose views about business are well- known to anyone who has bothered to read his works or (more importantly) the works of those who inspired him. This reached its recent apotheosis in the president's statement in Roanoke, Virginia last month: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
For those of us who know how businesses are *really* built, and who entrepreneurs *really" are – and Rep. Paul Ryan is among them -- this is not only the consummate insult, but a statement of staggering ignorance. We now live in a Bizarro-world society where certain social scientists and politicians would have us believe that huge swaths of the population cannot be held responsible for their own poor choices, but those of us who do not make those choices are at fault and will be forced to pay for them, not as charity, but by claim of right. Taxation is no longer cast as the contributions which are made to support civil society, but as reparations for blame. And yet, ironically, those among us who devote their lives and everything they own to building successful businesses that provide employment for millions of people, as well as goods and services that have created the highest standard of living in the history of the planet are not responsible for the fruits of their own work, but faceless strangers who never donated a dime or lift a finger to build those businesses are given the credit.
Rand is celebrated not because she was a great writer, but because she understood human nature and its relationship to political power. She understood that humans who celebrate government as God eventually act as if they have God's power. Her reaction was to reject the idea of God altogether. But many of us who believe in God have no difficulty separating her decision from our own. We simply acknowledge that no human is God and no human institution will deliver utopia. We study history and realize that a government which downplays or demonizes individual achievement, and excuses and subsidizes human failings under the guise of calling for higher and higher taxes will eventually be filled with a population which achieves little and expects much - all to be paid for on the backs of the shrinking numbers of people who still seek to accomplish something. Furthermore, it will be a system where power is held not at the level of individuals, families, communities - where it is most responsive, most diffused and least dangerous - but in the hands of a few whose primary contributions to society are their powers to take from some and distribute to others. At best, it is a system designed for financial collapse. At worst, it is a pathway to societal collapse.
Either way, we do not want it. And those of us who find value in Ayn Rand’s works understand that for all her faults, Rand foresaw it.
Ryan Budget
The following is from Dan Mitchel.
The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. …limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent).
To balance the budget within 10 years would require that outlays grow by about 2% each year. …There are many who would prefer that the deficit come down more quickly, but from a jobs and growth perspective, it isn’t the deficit that matters. Rather, what matters for prosperity and living standards is the degree to which labor and capital are used productively. This is why policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP—leaving more resources in the private economy. The simple way of making this happen is to follow what I’ve been calling the golden rule of good fiscal policy: The private sector should grow faster than the government.
One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond. This is much better than the traditional Beltway approach of trying to save money with price controls on health-care providers and means testing on health-care consumers. …But good entitlement policy also is a godsend for taxpayers, particularly in the long run. Without reform, the burden of federal spending will jump to 35% of GDP by 2040, compared to 18.75% of output under the Ryan budget.
Dan Mitchel explains in the following videos why reducing government as a share of the Gross Domestic Product is important.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/a-fiscal-policy-tutorial-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-economics-of-government-spending/
The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. …limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent).
To balance the budget within 10 years would require that outlays grow by about 2% each year. …There are many who would prefer that the deficit come down more quickly, but from a jobs and growth perspective, it isn’t the deficit that matters. Rather, what matters for prosperity and living standards is the degree to which labor and capital are used productively. This is why policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP—leaving more resources in the private economy. The simple way of making this happen is to follow what I’ve been calling the golden rule of good fiscal policy: The private sector should grow faster than the government.
One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond. This is much better than the traditional Beltway approach of trying to save money with price controls on health-care providers and means testing on health-care consumers. …But good entitlement policy also is a godsend for taxpayers, particularly in the long run. Without reform, the burden of federal spending will jump to 35% of GDP by 2040, compared to 18.75% of output under the Ryan budget.
Dan Mitchel explains in the following videos why reducing government as a share of the Gross Domestic Product is important.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/a-fiscal-policy-tutorial-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-economics-of-government-spending/
Extreme Label Not Helpful
The following is from Bill O'Reilly. I have gotten into trouble referring to him before. I do so now, only because I think this thought is spot on.
By labeling someone as extreme, you can dismiss whatever they say. That's the strategy being used against Ryan. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."
--If you believe traditional marriage should be kept as the exclusive standard, you are not only extreme; you are a homophobe.The list goes on and on.
--If you believe all Americans should pay less in taxes, you are greedy and an anti-poor extremist.
--If you believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to buy and possess guns, you are promoting violence in an extreme way.
--If you believe the government has a duty to combat overseas terrorists without giving them constitutional protections, you are an extreme anti-human rights individual.
--If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, you are an anti-woman extremist.
--If you support securing the nation's borders and regulating immigration, you are anti-Hispanic.
By labeling someone as extreme, you can dismiss whatever they say. That's the strategy being used against Ryan. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."
Mr. Obama (The Father's Dream)
Austin Hill reports the following:
The President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
The President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
Lincoln-Douglas Debates, August 21, 1858
Here is a post from Bill Bennet that I found interesting for today.
August 21, 1858, brought the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, both running for the U.S. Senate. There were seven debates in all, the first in the town of Ottawa, and they set the prairies ablaze as people flocked by the thousands to see the tall, lanky Lincoln match wits with the short, squareshouldered, broad-chested Douglas.
The debates centered on the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into U.S. territories. Douglas, a famous sitting senator, argued that the people of each territory should decide whether to allow slavery in their land. Lincoln opposed any expansion of slavery, which he regarded as a “moral, social, and political wrong.” In the final debate Lincoln argued:
Newspapers across the country followed the debates, and although Lincoln lost the Senate
race to Douglas, his careful arguments helped turn him from a relatively obscure prairie lawyer
into a national figure. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were the most important since the
ratification of the Constitution. Lincoln showed a mastery of law, philosophy, and history that
raised him above not only Douglas but ultimately every other statesman of the age.
August 21, 1858, brought the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, both running for the U.S. Senate. There were seven debates in all, the first in the town of Ottawa, and they set the prairies ablaze as people flocked by the thousands to see the tall, lanky Lincoln match wits with the short, squareshouldered, broad-chested Douglas.
The debates centered on the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into U.S. territories. Douglas, a famous sitting senator, argued that the people of each territory should decide whether to allow slavery in their land. Lincoln opposed any expansion of slavery, which he regarded as a “moral, social, and political wrong.” In the final debate Lincoln argued:
 |
That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between two principles. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same spirit that says, “You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)